EN    EN  
 EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
Brussels, 15.11.2011 
SEC(2011) 1358 final 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 
IMPACT ASSESSMENT 
 
Accompanying the documents 
Communication 'Building an open and secu re Europe: the home affairs budget for 2014-
2020' 
 
Proposal for a Regulation establishing the Asylum and Migration Fund 
 
Proposal for a Regulation establishing, as part of the Internal Security Fund, the 
instrument for financial support for police cooperation, preventing and combating 
crime, and crisis management 
 
Proposal for a Regulation establishing, as part of the Internal Security Fund, the 
instrument for financial support for external borders and visa 
 
Proposal for a Regulation laying down gen eral provisions on the Asylum and Migration 
Fund and on the instrument for financial support for police cooperation, preventin g and 
combating crime, and crisis management 
{COM(2011) 749 final} 
{COM(2011) 750 final} {COM(2011) 751 final} {COM(2011) 752 final} {COM(2011) 753 final} 
{SEC(2011) 1359 final} 
 
 
EN 2   EN TABLE OF CONTENTS 
1. Introduction................................................................................................................ .. 6 
2. Procedural issues and consulta tion of interested parties.............................................. 6 
2.1. Policy context............................................................................................................ ... 6 
2.2. Organisation and timing............................................................................................... 7 2.3. Consultation and expertise ........................................................................................... 7 2.3.1. Evaluation and use of expertise.................................................................................... 7 2.3.2. Public consultation..................................................................................................... .. 9 
2.3.3. Stakeholder conference ................................................................................................ 9 2.3.4. Other consultations..................................................................................................... 10 
3. Overview of home affairs funding (2007-2013) ........................................................ 11 4. Policy challenges and the added value of EU  funding in the area of home affairs.... 12 
4.1. Asylum .................................................................................................................... ... 13 
4.2. Legal migration and integrati on of third-country nationals ....................................... 13 
4.3. Irregular immigration and return................................................................................ 14 4.4. Management of the EU's external borders and visa................................................... 16 4.5. Prevention of and fight against organised crime........................................................ 16 4.6. Prevention, preparedness and consequen ce management of terrorism and other 
security-related threats ............................................................................................... 17 
5. Problem definition...................................................................................................... 18 5.1. The current instruments do not adequately  address future needs and priorities ........ 18 
5.1.1. Asylum .................................................................................................................. ..... 18 
5.1.2. Legal migration and integrati on of third-country nationals ....................................... 19 
5.1.3. Irregular immigration and return................................................................................ 19 5.1.4. Management of the EU's external borders and visa................................................... 20 5.1.5. Prevention of and fight against organised crime........................................................ 21 5.1.6. Prevention, preparedness and consequen ce management of terrorism and other 
security-related threats ............................................................................................... 22 
5.2. The external dimension of home affair s policies is not supported adequately .......... 23 
5.2.1. Asylum .................................................................................................................. ..... 23 
5.2.2. Legal migration and integrati on of third-country nationals ....................................... 24 
 
EN 3   EN 5.2.3. Irregular immigration and return................................................................................ 24 
5.2.4. Management of the EU's external borders and visa................................................... 24 5.2.5. Prevention of and fight against organise d crime and prevention, preparedness and 
consequence management of terrorism a nd other security-related threats ................ 24 
5.3. Operational limitations of the home affairs delivery mechanisms............................. 25 5.3.1. Shared management ................................................................................................... 25 5.3.2. Direct management .................................................................................................... 25 5.3.3. Emergency response mechanism ............................................................................... 26 5.4. The EU's right to act and justification for EU action................................................. 27 5.4.1. The EU's right to act................................................................................................... 27 
5.4.2. Subsidiarity ............................................................................................................ .... 27 
5.4.2.1. Necessity test........................................................................................................ ...... 27 
5.4.2.2. EU added value ........................................................................................................ .. 28 
5.5. How would the problem evolve , all things being equal?........................................... 29 
5.5.1. How the policy challenges are expected to evolve .................................................... 29 5.5.2. How the situation with the financial instruments is expected to evolve.................... 29 
6. Objectives.................................................................................................................. . 30 
7. Policy options............................................................................................................. 3 2 
7.1. Issue A – Funding priorities....................................................................................... 32 7.2. Delivery mechanisms................................................................................................. 34 7.2.1. Issue B – Shared management ................................................................................... 34 7.2.2. Issue C – Centralised management (direct and indirect) ........................................... 35 7.2.3. Issue D – Emergency response mechanism ............................................................... 36 8. Impacts of the policy options ..................................................................................... 36 8.1. Issue A – Funding priorities....................................................................................... 37 8.2. Delivery mechanisms................................................................................................. 43 8.2.1. Issue B – Shared management ................................................................................... 43 8.2.2. Issue C – Centralised management (direct and indirect) ........................................... 44 8.2.3. Issue D – Emergency response mechanism ............................................................... 46 9. Comparing the options ............................................................................................... 47 9.1. Issue A – Funding priorities....................................................................................... 47 
 
EN 4   EN 9.2. Issues B, C and D – Delivery mechanisms ................................................................ 48 
10. The preferred option(s) .............................................................................................. 50 10.1. Implementation of the preferred option(s) ................................................................. 50 10.2. Other organisational aspects of the future home affairs Funds.................................. 52 11. Monitoring and evaluation ......................................................................................... 53 Annex 1 – List of acronyms ..................................................................................................... 55 
Annex 2 – Glossary............................................................................................................. ..... 58 
Annex 3 – Overview of Home Affairs Funding (2007-2013).................................................. 63 Annex 4 – Summary assessment of th e Home Affairs Programmes 2007-2013 ..................... 77 
Annex 5 – Policy Challenges in the Home Affairs area .......................................................... 82 Annex 6 – Complementarity of the Asylum a nd Migration Fund and Internal Security Fund 
with other EU instruments ......................................................................................... 91 
Annex 7 – Summary results of the public cons ultation on the future of EU funding for Home 
Affairs after 2013 ....................................................................................................... 93 
Annex 8 – Examples of indicative indicators........................................................................... 96 
 
EN 5   EN Disclaimer: This report commits only the European Commission's services involved in its 
preparation and does not prejudge the final form  of any decision to be taken by the 
Commission . 
 
EN 6   EN Lead DG: Home Affairs 
1. INTRODUCTION  
In accordance with the Communi cation on the EU Budget Review1, a fresh look has been 
taken at spending priorities and delivery mechan isms in the home affairs area in order to 
identify policy priorities with a clear focus on European added value and to examine how best 
to achieve tangible results and ensure so lidarity in delivering mutual benefits.  
The present report constitutes both the ex-ant e evaluation required for programmes or 
activities occasioning expend iture from the EU Budget2, and the impact assessment that will 
accompany the legislative proposals for the futu re home affairs financial instruments. 
2. PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES  
2.1. Policy context 
Home affairs policies have been growing stead ily over the last years. Their importance has 
been confirmed by the Stockholm Programme3 and its Action Plan4, the implementation of 
which is a strategic priority for the next five years and covers areas such as migration (legal 
migration and integration; asylum; irregular migr ation and return), secur ity (prevention of and 
fight against terrorism and organised crime;  police cooperation) and management of the 
external borders (including visa policy), as well as the external  dimension of these policies. 
The Lisbon Treaty5 also enables the Union to demonstr ate greater ambition in responding to 
the day-to-day concerns of citizens in th e area of freedom, security and justice.  
The final aim of these policies is to create an  area without internal borders where EU citizens 
and third-country nationals may enter, circulat e, live and work, bringing new ideas, capital, 
knowledge and innovation or filling gaps in the na tional labour markets, confident that their 
rights are fully respected and their security assured. Cooperation with non-EU countries and 
international organisations is cr ucial to achieving this goal. 
Home affairs policy priorities should also be seen in the context of the seven flagship 
initiatives presented in the Europe 2020 Strategy6 which aim to help the EU overcome the 
current financial and economic crisis and achie ve smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. 
Key guidance documents such as th e EU Counter-terrorism Strategy7, the EU policy cycle for 
organised and serious international crime ("Harmony")8, the Commission' s Communication 
                                                 
1 COM(2010)700 final of 19/10/2010. 
2 Article 21 of Commission Regulation (EC, EURATOM) No 2342/2002 of 23/12/2002 laying down 
detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the 
Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the EU, OJ L 357, 31.12.2002.  
3 Council document 17024/09 of 1-2/12/2009. 
4 COM(2010)171final of 20/04/2010. 
5 OJ 2008 C115 of 9/05/2008. 
6 COM(2010)2020 final of 3/03/2010.  
7 Council doc. 14469/4/05 of 30/11/2005. 
8 Council doc. 15358/10 of 25/10/2010. 
 
EN 7   EN on the Internal Security Strategy9 and the European Pact on Immigration and Asylum10 
provide additional direction to activ ities in the home affairs area.  
Recent events in Northern Africa have brought hope of democratic change. They have also 
prompted large numbers of people to flee the region, some of them towards Europe, thereby 
putting the Schengen system and the freedom of  movement under increasing strain. These 
events have demonstrated how important it is  for the EU to have a comprehensive and 
coordinated approach to migra tion and borders, covering various aspects such as strengthened 
border management and Schengen governance, be tter targeted legal migration, enhanced 
dissemination of best practices  on integration, a reinforced Common European Asylum 
System, and a more strategic approach to rela tions with third countri es. EU funding is a key 
tool for the success of such an inte grated and comprehensive approach.  
2.2. Organisation and timing 
Following the creation of DG Home Affairs in July 2010, a Task Force was appointed at the 
start of November 2010 under the Chairmanship of the Director-Gener al and composed of 
representatives from all home affairs policy areas. The Task Force met regularly to coordinate and prepare the public consultation, impact assess ment and legislative proposals for the future 
home affairs financial instruments.  
This report also incorporates comments received  in the context of the Inter-service Impact 
Assessment Steering Group meetings on 15 June and 29 July 2011. The following 
Directorates-General and services were i nvited: SG, BUDG, SJ, EEAS, RTD, DEVCO, 
INFSO, TAXUD, JUST, EMPL, EAC, MOVE, REGIO, MARE, ELARG, ENTR, SANCO, ECHO and JRC. 
The Impact Assessment Board revi ewed a draft version of this report and delivered its opinion 
on 9 September 2011. Its recommendations for improve ment were incorporated in this revised 
version of the report. In particular, the follo wing changes were made: simplification measures 
and actions in relation to the external dimens ion of home affairs were better identified and 
explained; indicative operationa l objectives and indicators as we ll as monitoring arrangements 
were provided; the baseline option for the dist ribution of funding was better explained; a list 
of acronyms (Annex 1) and a glossary (Annex 2) were added and text on return activities has 
been clarified.  
2.3. Consultation and expertise 
2.3.1.  Evaluation and use of expertise 
In accordance with the greater emphasis placed on evaluation as a tool to inform policy 
making, the present report take s account of evaluation resu lts. The following evaluation 
results are available, the details of  which can be found at Annex 4:  
Internal security 
• Mid-term evaluation of the General Programme Security and Safeguarding 
Liberties
11, covering the implementation of the ISEC and CIPS Programmes;  
                                                 
9 COM(2010)673 final of 22/11/2010. 
10 Council doc. 13440/08 of 24/09/2008. 
 
EN 8   EN Migration, asylum and management of external borders 
• Preliminary conclusions on the qualitative and quantitative aspects of the 
management and implementation of the Eur opean Fund for the Integration of third-
country nationals (EIF), the External Bo rders Fund (EBF) and the Return Fund (RF) 
under the General Programme "Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows", 
based on national evaluation reports from th e Member States, a comparative analysis 
and information on implementation available to the Commission (e.g. through monitoring reports). It is im portant to note that the fi rst annual programmes (2007 for 
EIF and EBF; 2008 for RF) were being closed  at the moment Member States had to 
report on progress. Available information is therefore quite limited and mainly relates to inputs (distribu tion of funding across priori ties, number of projects 
approved etc) because it is too early to  report on outcomes, results and impacts
12;  
• Ex-post evaluation of the results achieve d under the European Refugee Fund for the 
period 2005-2007, including qualitative and quantitative aspects of implementation13. 
As this evaluation was ongoing and has mean while become available, no mid-term 
evaluation was required for the European  Refugee Fund for the period 2008-2013; 
• Communication on the application of the crite ria for distribution of resources among 
the Member States under the External Borders Fund, the European Fund for the integration of third-country nationals and the European Return Fund
14, including the 
report; 
• European Migration Network's (EMN) study on "Programmes and Strategies in the 
EU Member States fostering Assisted Return to and Reintegration in Third 
Countries"15; 
• Ex-post evaluations of th e predecessor programmes of the current generation of 
Funds such as the INTI and RETURN Preparatory Actions; 
• Evaluation of the European Migration Network16; 
External dimension 
• Mid-term review of the Thematic Program me for Cooperation with Third Countries 
in the Areas of Migration and Asylum17; 
                                                                                                                                                         
11 COM(2011)318 final of 16 June 2011: Communication on the mid-term evaluation of the Framework 
Programme "Security and Safeguarding Liberties" (2007-2013) 
12 Adoption in progress 
13 COM(2011)2 final of 14 January 2011: Communicati on on the results achieved and on qualitative and 
quantitative aspects of implementation of the Euro pean Refugee Fund for the period 2005-2007. 
14 COM(2011)448 of 20 July 2011. No such obligation exists in the legal basis of the European Refugee 
Fund for the period 2008-2013 (ERF III) because it co nstitutes a continuation of previous generations of 
the Fund, established as of 2000 (ERF I and ERF II), and its basic act has consolidated the past 
experiences, including those concerning the distribution criteria. However, for the sake of completeness, 
an analysis of the amounts allocated to the Memb er States for the European Refugee Fund for the 
period 2008-2011 was included in the annex of the report. 
15 Available at the EMN website: http://www.emn.europa.eu  under "EMN studies" 
16 The External Evaluation of the EMN is expected to be completed by the end of 2011. The results will 
be made available via the EMN website at http://www.emn.europa.eu .  
 
EN 9   EN • External evaluation of pilot Regi onal Protection Programmes (RPP);  
Other evaluative elements 
In order to fill any evaluation gaps, an inte rnal stocktaking exercise was undertaken to 
identify shortcomings in both the scope and th e delivery mechanisms of the existing financial 
instruments.  
In addition, a study was launched in  December 2010 with the aid of an external contractor to 
support the preparation of  the impact assessment18. The study was completed in July 2011 and 
brings together available evaluation results fo r the existing financial instruments and informs 
the problems, objectives and polic y options identified in this report, as well as the assessment 
of the likely impacts of the options.  
2.3.2.  Public consultation 
A dedicated on-line public consultation19 ran from 5 January to 20 March 2011 and was open 
to all stakeholders, both from within the EU an d from third countries. In order to receive as 
many responses as possible the consu ltation was available in 22 languages. 
In total, 115 responses were received from  individuals and on beha lf of organisations, 
including 8 position papers. Respondents from all Member States contributed to the 
consultation as well as respondents in some thir d countries. 22% of res ponses were received 
from individuals and 78% on behalf of orga nisations. Omitting any duplicates and accounting 
for missing responses to some questions, most  questions achieved more than 100 responses. 
This is considered satisfactory for a consultation on a topic of this kind.  
In general, respondents strongly support the need  for simplification in the delivery of home 
affairs financial instruments, the need for greater flexibility (specifically in relation to the ability to deal with migration and security re lated crises), and the n eed for increased funding 
and support in areas with a strong responsib ility-sharing (asylum and borders) and/or 
cooperative dimension (internal se curity, agencies). Responses demonstrate that only through 
these measures can EU added value be enhanced and the effectiveness and efficiency of instruments improved. Greater home affairs policy leverage in third countries was also shown 
to be important and desired by stakeholders . A summary of the consultation results is 
provided in Annex 7.  
2.3.3.  Stakeholder conference 
The stakeholder conference "The future of EU  funding for Home Affairs: A fresh look" took 
place in Brussels on 8 April 2011. The confer ence brought together key stakeholders 
(Member States, international orga nisations, civil society organisa tions etc) and gave them the 
opportunity to share their views on the future of EU funding for home affairs. The conference 
was also an occasion to validate the outcome of  the stock taking and the public consultation.  
                                                                                                                                                        
 
17 Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/what/migration-asylum/index_en.htm   
18 GHK, "Impact Assessment Study on the next Multia nnual Financial Framework in the area of Home 
Affairs", under Framework Contract JLS/2009/A1/001. 
19 The consultation documents and report on the results of the consultation are available on the DG Home 
Affairs website: http://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/news/consulting_public/consulting_0020_en.htm   
 
EN 10   EN The conclusions of the conference20 are broadly in line with the outcome of the public 
consultation with stakeholders stressing that in  order to add value EU spending should reflect 
EU level priorities and policy commitments and should support the implementation of the EU home affairs acquis . In the area of immigration and as ylum, stakeholders confirmed the 
important contribution made by the existing F unds but called for an improvement in their 
scope and for sufficient funding to be made availa ble. In the area of internal security and 
borders, stakeholders considered that the broad thematic priori ties have already been decided 
and that a future funding mechanism should be defined comprehensively, comprising law 
enforcement, border guards and customs communiti es. Stakeholders also considered that the 
external dimension of home affairs policies is considered extremely important and that more 
funding should be made available to support it although opinions diverged on the best funding 
sources to provide such support, either through the future home affairs Funds or external aid 
instruments. Sufficient funding should also be made available for the home affairs agencies, 
in particular EASO, Europol and Frontex.  
In relation to simplification, stakeholders su pported the idea of reducing the number of 
financial instruments to a two-Fund structure on the condition that this actually leads to simplification. They also agreed on the need for a flexible emergency response mechanism. 
Shared management with a move to multi-annual programming is generally seen as the 
appropriate management mode for home affa irs spending. Non-governmental organisations 
were of the view that direct mana gement should also be continued.  
2.3.4.  Other consultations 
The future of EU funding for home affairs was raised and discussed with institutional 
stakeholders on numerous occasions, including at an informal lunch discussion during the JHA Council on 21 January 2011, an informal breakfast  with the political coordinators of the 
European Parliament on 26 January 2011, at the hearing of Commissioner Malmström before 
the Parliament's SURE Committee on 10 Marc h 2011 and during an exchange of views 
between the Director-General of DG Home Affairs and the Parliament's LIBE Committee on 
17 March 2011.  
Discussions also took place at  the COSI meeting on 5 October 2010 where a preliminary 
exchange of views was made with representative s of the Member States and representatives of 
agencies (Eurojust, Europol, CEPOL and Fron tex) and, at expert level during the EOS 
Conference on Industry and Security on 9 Februa ry 2011, at the meeting of the Committee on 
Immigration and Asylum (CIA) on 22 February 2011, the meeting of the network of National 
Contact Points on Integration on 15 March 2011, the meeting of the Contact Committee on 
the Return Directive on 18 March 2011 and at  the meeting of the High Level Working Group 
on Migration and Asylum on 27 April 2011.  
Moreover, written contributions were r eceived on technical aspects linked to the 
implementation of the future financial instru ments following the meeting of the Committee 
for the General Programme "Solidarity and Ma nagement of Migrati on Flows" on 7 April 2011 
and a further exchange of views with Member  States' representati ves took place during a 
dedicated "enlarged" meeti ng of the Committee on 5 July 2011. Finally, technical aspects 
linked to the implementation of the future financia l instrument in the area of Internal Security 
                                                
 
20 A full report on the conf erence is available on the DG Home Affairs website: http://ec.europa.eu/home-
affairs/funding/beyond/funding_future_en.htm   
 
EN 11   EN were also discussed with Member States' expe rts at the meetings on 15 February and 18 July 
2011 of the two committees for the General Programme on Security and Safeguarding 
Liberties (ISEC and CIPS). 
These consultations confirmed that there is an  overall consensus among key stakeholders on 
the need for a wider scope of action for EU  funding, including as regards its external 
dimension, thus enhancing the impact of home affairs policies, and a need to work towards 
more simplification in the delivery mechanisms and greater flexibility, notably to respond to 
emergencies.  
As evidenced above, this report is based on a wide consultation of stakeholders. General 
principles and minimum standards for consultation of interested parties were therefore met in 
the preparation of this impact assessment.  
3. OVERVIEW OF HOME AFFAIRS FUNDING (2007-2013) 
The share of funding for home affairs in the EU budget is relatively small but has been 
growing steadily. Funded under Heading 3a "Freedom, Securi ty and Justice" (internal 
policies) of the EU budget, home affairs sp ending in the period 2007-2013 amounts to €6,449 
million21, representing 0.77% of the total EU budge t (ceilings of the current financial 
framework). These figures cover not only fina ncial programmes, but funding for large-scale 
IT systems (VIS, SIS, Eurodac) and agencies. A full overview is provided in Annex 3. It is 
important to note that current home affairs spen ding is characterised by heavy 'back-loading', 
increasing from €516.72 million in 2007 to €1 ,464.33 in 2013. This represents an annual 
average increase in the home affairs budget of approximately 15% in the period 2007-2013. 
The main financial instrument in support of home affairs polic ies is the General Programme 
Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows, which consists of four Funds: the European 
Refugee Fund, the European Fund for the Inte gration of Third-Country Nationals, the 
European Return Fund and the External Bord ers Fund. In addition, funding in the area of 
internal security is channelled through the General Programme Security and Safeguarding 
Liberties, composed of the two Specific Progr ammes ISEC and CIPS. Table 3.1 provides an 
overview of the scope, budgets and partic ipation of these Ge neral Programmes.  
Table 3.1 – Summary overview of home a ffairs Funds and Programmes (2007-2013) 
General 
Programme Policy area Fund / Specific 
Programme Budget Participation 
Asylum European Refugee Fund 
(ERF III, 2008-2013) €614m22 All EU MS except Denmark General 
Programme 
Solidarity and Management 
of Migration 
Flows 
(93% to 96% Integration of 
legally residing third-country 
nationals, legal European Fund for the 
Integration of Third-Country Nationals (EIF, 
2007-2013) €825m All EU MS except Denmark 
                                                 
21 Figures provided are commitment appropriations expressed in current prices and based on latest figures 
available (including all budget amendments 2007-2010 and 2011 budget).  
22 After adoption of EASO; takes account of Decision No 458/2010/EU amending the ERF basic act. 
 
EN 12   EN General 
Programme Policy area Fund / Specific 
Programme Budget Participation 
migration 
Return  European Return Fund 
(RF, 2008-2013) €676m All EU MS except Denmark shared 
management; 
remainder 
under centralised 
direct 
management) 
Integrated border 
management and visa  External Borders Fund 
(EBF, 2007-2013) €1,820m All EU MS (including 
Romania and Bulgaria and the participation of Schengen 
associated states from 2010) 
except the UK and Ireland 
Prevention of and fight against 
organised crime Specific Programme 
Prevention of and Fight 
against Organised Crime 
(ISEC, 2007-2013) €600m All EU MS General 
Programme 
Security and 
Safeguarding Liberties 
(centralised 
direct management) Combating 
terrorism and 
other security-
related risks Specific Programme 
Prevention, Preparedness 
and Consequence 
Management of Terrorism and Other Security-related 
Risks (CIPS, 2007-2013) €140m All EU MS 
The external dimension of home  affairs policies is  currently covered through geographic and 
thematic external instruments under budget he ading 4 "EU as global player". Funding to 
support third countries in home affairs policy ar eas is channelled mainly through the Thematic 
Programme "Cooperation with Third Countries in the Area of Migration and Asylum" which 
is relatively small (€55 million annually). Although additional funding is also available 
through geographic and other th ematic programmes, the amounts actually allocated vary 
depending on the programming needs of the be neficiary countries (roughly estimated at 
approximately €135 million per year). 
4. POLICY CHALLENGES AND THE ADDED VALUE OF EU FUNDING IN THE AREA OF 
HOME AFFAIRS  
This section provides a brief overview of the policy challenges facing the EU in the home 
affairs area and the achievements of the current generation of home affairs financial 
instruments, created to respond to these chal lenges. A summary of the assessment of the 
financial instruments can be found in Annex 4.  More detailed information about the policy 
challenges, including their scale, drivers and likely future tren ds is provided in Annex 5.  
Evaluation results and stakehol der feedback confirm that th ese financial instruments are 
generally effective in supporting home affairs objectives and th at the EU funding channelled 
through these financial instruments adds genuine value. The problems iden tified in relation to 
these instruments are the subjec t of the problem definition, disc ussed in the next chapter. 
 
EN 13   EN 4.1. Asylum 
The number of asylum applications varies si gnificantly between Member States. This is 
mostly due to their geographic location. Flows of people seeki ng asylum or some form of 
international protection can also fluctuate co nsiderably and can be  composed of many 
different groups with different needs and mo tivations, some of wh ich are particularly 
vulnerable such as unaccompanied minors, wo men, and victims of violence (including 
torture) and of trafficking in human beings. Dealing with these flows requires substantial 
resources and capabilities from Member States  with some Member States receiving higher 
numbers of asylum seekers than  the capacity of their system to process, support (through the 
provision of reception, health and social se rvices) and protect asylum applicants.  
At EU level, the development and implementa tion of the Common European Asylum System 
(CEAS) is supported financially primarily by the European Refugee Fund (ERF). The third 
generation of this Fund23 (ERF III, 2008-2013: €614 million24) was created to promote 
solidarity and responsibility-sharing between Memb er States in bearing the consequences of 
receiving refugees and displa ced persons. It supports capacity  building for Member States' 
asylum systems in general, the voluntary effo rts of Member States to provide a durable 
solution in their territories to refugees and displaced persons identified as eligible for 
resettlement by the UNHCR, and voluntary re sponsibility-sharing betw een Member States 
consisting of the transfer of beneficiaries of and applicants for international protection from 
one Member State to another granting them sim ilar protection ('relocation'). With respect to 
resettlement, the ERF provides an additional financial incentive to Member States who 
resettle persons belonging to specific catego ries (vulnerable groups and persons from 
countries and regions designated for the implementation of a Regional Protection 
Programme). This is done on the basis of a 'pledging' exercise whereby Member States 
provide an estimate of the number of persons they will resettle in the following year and 
subsequently receive a fixed amount of €4,000 per effectively resettled person. 
Stakeholders are largely positiv e about the achievements of th e Fund, in particular its support 
for improvements in Member States' reception infrastructures and the quality of services provided to asylum seekers, in particular vu lnerable groups, as well as its support for 
integration measures for migrants who had received international protection status.  
4.2. Legal migration and integration of third-country nationals 
According to Eurostat, an estimated 1.8 million third-country nationals immigrated to the EU 
in 2008
25. The stock of third-country nationals in the EU in 2010 was 20.2 million, i.e. 4% of 
the total population26. Compared to EU citizens, migrants  generally experience lower labour 
market participation rates, poorer than averag e educational attainment and reduced social 
mobility. This lack of integration can lead to soci al difficulties, the cost of which is ultimately 
                                                 
23 ERF I (2000-2004), ERF II (2005-2007) 
24 Initially €703.61 million. Revised Amount reflects situation after adoption of EASO legal basis 
(Decision No 458/2010/EU am ending the ERF basic act). 
25 Eurostat. Data are residence permit data in acco rdance with the Migratio n Statistics Regulation. 
Immigration means an action by which a person establishes his or her usual residence in the territory of 
a country for a period that is, or is expected to be, at least twelve months, having previously been 
usually resident in another country. Immigrant means a person undertaking immigration. See also: http://epp.eurostat.ec. europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-SF- 11-001/EN/KS-SF- 11-001-EN.PDF
  
26 Eurostat. See also: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/I TY_OFFPUB/KS-SF-11 -034/EN/KS-SF-11-
034-EN.PDF  
 
EN 14   EN borne by society as a whole. The integration of these migrants is therefore a key challenge for 
the EU and Member States, ensuring that they take active part in their receiving society and 
enjoy the same benefits, freedoms and rights as EU citizens, thus enabling the EU to benefit 
fully from their skills. Better integration would also help the EU's economy meet the 
demographic challenge it is currently facing a nd reach the objective of the EU 2020 Strategy 
to increase the employment rate of the population aged 20-64 from the current 69% to at least 
75% by 2020. 
The European Fund for the Integration of Third Country Nationa ls (EIF, hereafter 
"Integration Fund") (2007-2013: €825 million27) was created with the aim of supporting the 
implementation of a common immigration polic y by providing a credib le response to the 
multidimensional issue of the integration of th ird-country nationals who are not covered by 
the European Refugee Fund.  Both Funds support integration activities28, with the latter 
focusing on refugees and persons benefiting from other forms of  international protection and 
the former on all (other) legally-residing migr ants. The European Social Fund (ESF) provides 
complementary funding for integration, suppor ting integration measures on access to the 
labour market whereas the Integration Fund finances measures such as reception and 
introductory schemes, participation in social a nd civic life, equal acce ss to services, etc.  
Overall, the Integration Fund ha s proven to be effec tive in supporting Member States in the 
development and implementation of their national integration strategies for legally residing 
third-country nationals. The mid-term evaluation of the Fund confirms that it enabled several 
Member States (e.g. Hungary, Slova kia) to design, for the firs t time, a comprehensive policy 
framework for the integration of  third-country nationals. In ot her Member States, such as 
Bulgaria, Cyprus, Estonia or Greece, where a na tional framework for integration was already 
in place, the Fund provided financial resource s for its implementation. Finally, in more 
experienced Member States, the Fund targeted specific measures or specific groups which are 
difficult to reach with mainst ream funding instruments.  
In this context, the Integrat ion Fund brought about substantial effects in areas such as the 
improvement of linguistic skill s, promoting meaningful cont act and constructive dialogue 
between third-country nationals and the re ceiving society, and tackling third-country 
nationals’ health problems. Most Member St ates assessed the programmes financed by the 
Fund as effective: projects selected in th e 2007-2009 period were implemented successfully 
and achieved their objectives. In nearly all Member States, the Fund is perceived as having a 
genuine added value, yielding re sults in the area of integrati on that could not have been 
obtained otherwise. 
4.3. Irregular immigration and return 
Because of its clandestine nature, it is very difficult to determine the scale of irregular 
immigration in the EU. Estimates vary signif icantly, with estimates of between 4.5 million29 
                                                 
27 Initially €830 million. 
28 Approximately 41% of ERF resources are estimated to be used for this purpose (GHK (2009): Getting 
more out of migration funds: effective programming and evaluation – overview of the type and value of 
actions included in the annual programmes for each  fund, for the European  Commission DG Justice, 
Freedom and Security) 
29 European Commission, Directorate General for Communication (2009): ‘Migration in the European 
Union: An opportunity and a challenge’, ‘Europe on the move’ document completed in May 2009 
 
EN 15   EN and 8 million30 irregular migrants living in the EU in 2009 being cited frequently. 
Approximately 500,000 of these are apprehen ded annually, the majority of whom are 
overstayers choosing to remain in a Member State for economic reasons31. Due to their 
geographic situation or attractive economic pr ofile, some Member States face greater 
challenges, receiving numbers of irregular mi grants disproportionate to their capacity to 
detect, regularise or return such migrants. Cri tically, due to the free movement of persons in 
the Schengen area, the burden of  dealing with irregular immigr ation does not necessarily fall 
on the country of entry but rath er on the destination Member State targeted by the migrant. 
Irregular immigration is costly  not only for the ‘target’ Member States which spend 
considerable sums on enforcement measures, including detention, iden tification, return and 
reintegration operations, but also  for the migrants involved.  
In order to increase the effectiveness of th e implementation at natio nal level of the fight 
against irregular migration, the European Re turn Fund (RF) (2008-2013: €676 million) was 
created, as part of the General Programme "So lidarity and Management of Migration Flows", 
to support the voluntary and, where necessary, for ced return of illegally staying third-country 
nationals within a common framework of "integ rated return management" and in accordance 
with common standards. The Retu rn Fund aims towards a fair sh aring of the responsibilities 
between Member States as concerns the financ ial burden arising from the implementation of a 
common policy on return. With common standards bound to affect Member States to different 
extents (e.g. for geographical r easons), a degree of re sponsibility-sharing reinforces solidarity 
between Member States and brings overall benefi ts in terms of the value for money offered by 
an EU-wide approach, including by unlocking sy nergies, building co-ope ration on the basis of 
good practices and jointly implementing ope rations or testing new measures.  
Member States gave a (partly) positive overall assessment on the implementation of the 
Return Fund. They report that at least for the 2008 programme, comple ted in the reporting 
period, the desired results, as defined in the multiannual strategy, were  generally achieved. 
Several Member States highlight in this cont ext particular achievements regarding voluntary 
return: the development of a holistic approach  in national policies supporting voluntary return 
(Italy); the increased capacity to  carry out assisted voluntary re turn activities (Estonia, Malta 
and Romania); the implementation of assisted  voluntary return progr ammes, including the 
introduction of new tools, a website and a free telephone service, as we ll the evaluation of the 
programmes (Hungary); the enha ncement of the counselling st ructures, rendering more 
effective the existing assisted voluntary return  programme (Germany); th e fact that the Fund 
simply made it possible for a greater number of mi grants to return voluntarily (Spain) or for 
many third-country nationals to make a dignifi ed, orderly and sustainable return and to 
receive reintegration assistan ce once there (United Kingdom).  
Moreover, quite a few Member States referre d to the usefulness of the Return Fund in 
assisting civil society to contribute to volunta ry return. Poland underlined that without the 
Fund non-governmental organisations would not have had sufficient re sources to undertake 
voluntary return activities, while Romania referred to the first steps in developing partnerships 
with non-governmental organisations under th e Fund and Portugal to the possibility to 
continue to improve the voluntary return ne twork in its country thanks to the Fund.  
                                                 
30 Lodovici, M. S. (2010): ‘Making a success of integrating immigrants in the labour market’, Discussion 
Paper 
31 European Commission, Directorate General for Communication (2009): ‘Migration in the European 
Union: An opportunity and a challenge’, ‘Europe on the move’ document completed in May 2009 
 
EN 16   EN 4.4. Management of the EU's external borders and visa 
Effective, efficient and secure border control is essential for the free movement of legally 
residing third-country nationals and EU citizens,  as well as to maintain internal security. 
Because the length of the external border and the number and nature of border crossing points 
vary widely between Member States, the responsibilities for border control differ 
considerably from Member State to Member St ate, resulting in some of them bearing a 
disproportionate share of the associated costs. Me mber States at the peri phery of the EU with 
long borders and many border crossing points have  larger responsibilities than other Member 
States to prevent irregular migr ation, facilitate bona fide cr oss-border movements and provide 
security. In the Schengen area, persons holding a visa or residence permit from a Member 
State can move freely to other countries. Beca use Member States ther efore do not only issue 
visas in their own interest, they have a co mmon interest in applying common standards. 
The External Borders Fund (EBF) (2007-2013: €1,820 million) was created in 2007, as part of 
the General Programme 'Solidarity and Manage ment of Migration Flows', to support the 
capacity building of those Member States which bear the responsibility for an efficient, high 
and uniform level of control at  the external borders and the implementation of the common 
visa policy. To promote solidarity, the Fund aims towards a fair share of the responsibilities 
between Member States as concerns the fina ncial burden arising fr om the introduction of 
integrated management of the Union's external borders.  
Most Member States gave a positive overal l assessment of the results achieved through 
actions co-financed by the External Borders Fu nd, classifying the possi bilities under the Fund 
for projects as effective and useful. In par ticular, in the 2007-2009 period, the Fund actively 
leveraged important EU policy in itiatives and projects, contribut ing significantly to furthering 
integrated border management and the use of ne w technologies to facilitate legitimate travel. 
Besides the development of the Schengen Information Systems (SIS II) and the Visa Information System (VIS), the Fund supported pilot projects on the intr oduction of automated 
border controls and preparati on for the registered travelle rs' programme. The Fund proved 
very useful to boost, in a very short period of time, investments in vulnerable areas such as the 
Mediterranean. Finally, Member States made us e of the additional resources provided by the 
Fund for measures to improve  the visa handling process by i nvesting in modern technology 
equipment (including biometric capture devices)  and strengthening the security of consular 
offices. These measures have contributed to swifter processing of  visa applications, 
enhancement in the quality of services and an eq ual and fair treatment of visa applicants.  
4.5. Prevention of and figh t against organised crime 
Organised crime in its various forms (e.g. dr ug trafficking, trafficking in human beings, 
crimes by itinerant criminal gangs, mone y laundering, fraud, cybercrime, corruption, 
counterfeited products and firearms, sexua l exploitation of children, and various 
environmental crimes) poses major problems for the EU. Organised crime in all its forms is 
estimated to cost the EU over €250 billion per year. Due to changes in technology and 
increased internet activity, crimes such as c ybercrime and payment card fraud are growing in 
importance with the costs of internet crim e alone roughly estimated at €220 billion in 2010
32. 
There is a continued need to effectively prevent such crime and, when it does occur, to 
convict its perpetrators in order to ensure that  "crime does not pay" and to bring justice for 
                                                 
32 Office of Cyber Security & Information Assurance, UK and Detica (2011): “The Cost of Cyber Crime” 
 
EN 17   EN victims. However, organised crime is increasin gly cross-border in nature. This reduces the 
effectiveness of national law enforcement activ ities and encourages criminals to evade law 
enforcement bodies by crossing over Eur opean borders and jurisdictions.  
The General Programme 'Security  and Safeguarding Liberties'  (2007-2013) was created to 
ensure effective operational cooperation in the fight against terrorism, including its 
consequences, organised crime and general crime,  to support the exchange of information, 
experience and best practice on a European scal e and to strengthen the prevention of crime 
and terrorism, in order to promote secure  societies based on th e rule of law.  
Within the General Programme, support for the prevention of and fight against organised 
crime is channelled more specifically through the Specific Programme 'Prevention and Fight 
against Crime' (ISEC) (2007-2013: €607.36 million). The mid-term evaluation of the ISEC 
Programme, covering the period 2007-2009, found th at ISEC funding directly reached 
137,000 persons. For example, it has facilitated transnational cooperat ion between Member 
State police leading to  seizures and some 200 arrests in area of drugs trafficking, human 
trafficking and human smuggling and financed  more than 25,000 support actions to crime 
victims (counselling, therapy).  
4.6. Prevention, preparedness and consequen ce management of terrorism and other 
security-related threats  
Terrorism and other security-related threat s including their assessment and management 
present a major challenge to internal security in the EU. Terrorism presents unique threats in 
comparison to organised crime owing to the sporadic and transnational nature of offences, the potential for generating fear acr oss Member States and the longer term fear perceptions that 
tend to be created. The number of terrorist attack s occurring in Eur ope between 2005 and 
2009 has varied markedly
33 and the incidence of terrorist at tacks in the EU appears to be 
decreasing slightly in recent years, the transnat ional character of the threat remains acute. 
Reliable data on the costs of  terrorism are scarce and often based on mere estimates34. But the 
consequences of terrorism in terms of the costs of human life, material destruction and related 
economic costs are significant, es pecially if compared to the relatively low cost of financing 
terrorist attacks.  
Terrorism is one of the ten particularly serious  crimes listed in Article 83 TFEU. Support for 
the prevention of and fight against terrorism is therefore channelled through the Specific 
Programme 'Prevention and Fight against Crime' (ISEC) (2007-2013: €607.36 million). This 
applies in particular to measures countering the possible use by terrori sts of CBRN materials 
and explosives, protecting victims of terrori sm and addressing radi calisation leading to 
terrorism. In addition, funding for tackling terrorist threats is al so available under the Specific 
Programme 'Prevention, Preparedness and Cons equence Management of Terrorism and Other 
Security Related Risks' (CIPS) (2007-2013: €142 .17 million). The mid-term evaluation of the 
General Programme shows that CIPS has s upported the development of new tools and 
methodologies in critical infras tructure sectors, especially transport and energy, and has 
increased knowledge of security-related risks in specific sectors, e.g. water management.  
                                                 
33 In 2006, 498 terrorist attacks took place within the EU; in 2007 there were 583; in 2008 this number 
decreased to 515 and in 2009 there were 294 attacks. See the Europol Terrorism Situation and Trend (TE-SAT) Reports. Available from:  http://www.europol.europa.eu/index.asp?page=publications
 
34 For confirmation and further analysis, see the EP commissioned research note on estimated costs of EU 
Counter-terrorism measures (June 2011). 
 
EN 18   EN 5. PROBLEM DEFINITION  
Building on available evaluation results and st akeholder consultation, the problem definition 
looks at the fact that some activities cannot  currently be funded or not adequately and 
operational problems linked to the delivery of funding. A number of assu mptions underlie the 
problem definition:  
• The public consultation confir med that there is broad ag reement among stakeholders 
on the EU added value of home affair s funding and overall support for the 
continuation of such funding. Although a nu mber of limitations and shortcomings 
have been identified (discussed below) in th e current financial instruments, these are 
not of a nature to put into question th e very purpose of these instruments. 
• Based on recent policy developments and th e results of the pub lic consultation, it 
was decided to create a tw o-Fund structure to have two coherent frameworks to 
support the very different policies of mi gration and security. The Asylum and 
Migration Fund will focus on people flow s and the integrated management of 
migration. The Internal Security Fund responds to the cal l of the Stockholm 
Programme for the creation of a Fund to s upport the Internal Security Strategy and a 
coherent and comprehensive approach to  law enforcement cooperation, including the 
management of the EU's external borders.  The activities curren tly supported by the 
External Borders Fund will therefore form pa rt of the Internal Security Fund rather 
than the Asylum and Migration Fund. The two other components of the Internal 
Security Fund will focus on support to police cooperation, crime prevention and 
fighting serious cross-border crime as well as crisis management and the protection 
of EU critical infrastructure.  
• Simplification is a major concern of st akeholders. The Stockholm Programme calls 
for "better/easier access" of beneficiaries to home affairs fundi ng. Stakeholders were 
in favour of the creation of a two-Fund st ructure on the condition that this would 
actually lead to simplification, hence the need for a common, underpinning 
instrument to lay down uniform rules a nd procedures under both Funds. In addition, 
streamlining is needed in order to align th e regulatory framework of the home affairs 
Funds with the revised Financial Regulation, its implementing rules and the rules that will apply to the other EU instruments under  shared management, in particular the 
Structural Funds.  
5.1. The current instruments do not adequately  address future needs and priorities 
5.1.1.  Asylum 
The European Refugee Fund cannot adequately support a number of increasingly important 
activities, in particular resettlement operations and the intra-EU transfer ('relocation') of beneficiaries and applicants of international protection.  
Although experience in  relation to the pledging exercise for resettlement  of specific 
categories of refugees remains rather limited, the mechanism seems to successfully contribute to the development of EU resettlement polic y. For the period 2008-2012, Member States were 
allocated financial incentives for the resettle ment of 15,292 persons fal ling within the specific 
categories. However, because the allocations for resettlement are taken from the total 
European Refugee Fund envelope (and currently  represent approximat ely 12%), increasing 
 
EN 19   EN involvement of Member States in resettlement operations reduces the allocations available for 
other actions under the Member States' annual programmes. There are therefore insufficient 
resources to support a more comprehensive EU resettlement policy and to incentivise Member 
States to take part in the resettleme nt operations through the pledging exercise. 
The European Refugee Fund also does not pr ovide any additional financial incentive to 
Member States for the  intra-EU transfer of benefici aries of and applicants for 
international protection ('relocation'). Despite the fact that such operations represent an EU 
specific priority and may therefore benefit fr om an increased co-financing rate of 75% 
(normal co-financing rate is 50%), Member St ates do not include them in their national 
programmes because the financial incentive o ffered for receiving relocated persons is 
insufficiently big and they prefer to use th e envelope for other ac tions addressing their 
specific needs. Such operations have therefore b een financed so far with the support of the 
Community Actions (centralised direct mana gement) component of the ERF, for example 
through the European Relocation Malta (EUREM A) project which aimed at relocating 260 
beneficiaries of international protection from Ma lta to ten other Member States with the help 
of UNHCR (mainly for the identification of th e cases) and the International Organisation for 
Migration (mainly for general administrative support, medical checks, cultural orientation, 
transport, etc).  
5.1.2.  Legal migration and integrati on of third-country nationals 
Overall, the Integration Fund ha s proved effective in supporting the setting-up and reinforcing 
of Member States' national strategies for the integration of th ird-country nationals. 
Nevertheless, as Member States' nationa l frameworks for integration mature, the need for 
capacity building at national level is expected to decrease . Many stakeholders, including 
the Committee of the Regions, consider that inte gration challenges for example in the areas of 
housing, education, social assistance and health ar e addressed more effec tively at the regional 
and local level, i.e. at a level closer to the indi vidual. This is linked to the need to target more 
effectively specific measures or specific groups  of migrants who cannot easily be reached by 
mainstream instruments.  
5.1.3.  Irregular immigration and return 
The European Return Fund currently provides fi nancial support for both assisted voluntary 
return and forced return35. A recent study of the European Migration Network concludes that 
Assisted Return is seen by non-governmental or ganisations and also increasingly by Member 
States as a valid and often prefer able alternative to forced return36. It is also si gnificantly more 
cost-effective than forced returns or deportations , to the extent that voluntary operations may 
be more than 66% less expensive than forced returns when reintegration assistance is taken 
into account37. As a result, Member States are taking steps to make this a credible and feasible 
                                                 
35 The mid-term evaluation found that nearly 53% of the resources for 2008 and 2009 were budgeted for 
forced return measures, 43% for supporting voluntar y return activities and 4% consisted of (capacity 
building) activities conducive to either type of departure. 
36 EMN study on Assisted Return available from http://www.emn.europa.eu  under "EMN Studies"  
37 Estimates from the UK indicate that forced retu rns could cost the taxpayer between €12,400 and 
€28,900 per returnee, as opposed to a range of €680 - €5,650 per voluntary return (depending on 
whether the calculation covers only travel costs or al so includes reintegration assistance). See Özlem, T. 
(2010): “Voluntary return programmes: an effec tive, humane and cost effective mechanism for 
returning irregular migrants”, report prepared by Committee on Migration, Refugees and Population, 
Turkey. Exchange rate (£1 = €1.13) calculated using www.xe.com  as at 15 April 2011 
 
EN 20   EN return option, including by measures to overcome the various  obstacles persons who wish to 
return may face during the different phases of re turn (i.e. pre-return, transportation and post-
return). Furthermore, in several Member States , the focus has also shifted from organising 
assisted return measures (solely) regarding th e pre-return and transportation phases, to the 
post-return phase ("rein tegration measures"). Sufficient fi nancial support should therefore be 
available for this  comprehensive and sustainable approach to the return process  after 
2013. Nevertheless, Member States  consider that funding shoul d also be maintained for 
forced returns. 
Because the Return Fund currently focuses on f unding the return process, it does not cover 
other necessary costs such as the costs of pre-removal reception/detention conditions , 
which has proved problematic for Member States. Moreover, the Fund does not support 
measures essential for the prevention of irreg ular immigration  including trafficking, 
document management (databases on re sidence permits) and false documents.  
In addition, only 2% of the funds allocated so far under the European Return Fund have been 
used for cooperation between Member States, such  as joint flights, a lthough such cooperation 
is a clear way of achieving economies of scale and synergies. The need for increased co-
operation and co-ordinatio n in return operations  is acknowledged and is evinced in the 
steady increase of the share of allocations  committed from the budget of the European 
Agency for the Management of Operational Coop eration at the External Borders (Frontex) to 
joint return operations, increasing from €5.2 million for 2009 to €6.7 million for 2010 and €10 
million (planned) for 2011.  
5.1.4.  Management of the EU's external borders and visa 
The External Borders Fund is instrumental in  providing support to Me mber States for the 
management of the EU's external borders and the EU's visa policy. A number of key 
developments will take place in this area between 2014 and 2020 such as the further development of an integrated border management system  by improving, replacing and 
upgrading equipment/infrastructure for visa and borders according to new technological 
developments. This would in particular includ e enhancing the operationa l capabilities of the 
Member States within the framework of EUROSUR standards.  
To ensure adequate border c ontrol, sufficient financial suppor t is needed to ensure the 
maintenance of the large-scale IT systems  SIS II and VIS and the functioning of a future IT 
Agency which will gradually take over the ma nagement and development of these systems. 
Some financial support is cu rrently provided under the External Borders Fund for national 
components of SIS II and VIS. Suff icient financial assistance will also be needed in the period 
2014-2020 for the development and maintenance of any future IT-systems , such as the 
Entry/Exit System and the Registered Travelle r Programme. This could include not just the 
central (EU-level) components but also the natio nal components (Member States) of these IT 
systems. This would ensure that financial problems and budget cuts at the level of the 
Member States do not cause delays and jeopardise the overall project.  
At the moment, support from the External Bord ers Fund is limited to border control and visa 
policy stricto sensu. As a result, the Fund cannot support control measures within the area 
 
EN 21   EN of free movement which are not carried out at or close to the ex ternal borders (in land)38. It 
also cannot support inter-agency cooperation  and the building of connections across the 
different law enforcement authorities, includin g those working inside the territory (police, 
border guards, customs, etc) within the fr amework of an internal security agenda. 
5.1.5.  Prevention of and fight against organised crime 
Feedback from beneficiaries (mostly law enfor cement authorities) confirms that the ISEC 
Programme in particular currently covers t oo wide a range of ac tivities, leading to 
fragmentation and a lack of focus.  There is therefore a need to use these funding in the area of 
internal security more strategically by focussing more on the political priorities as listed in the 
Internal Security Strategy, su ch as cybercrime, sexual crimes against children etc.  
Combating serious and orga nised crime effectively  in its many forms will require the 
strengthening of practical law enforcement cooperation  through financial support for joint 
operations (including Joint Investigation Teams) , the pooling of resources (including through 
initiatives such as the Baltic Se a Task Force to combat regional  criminal hubs), the greater use 
of financial investigation tools to identify and confiscate criminal assets. Support will also be 
needed for the development of tools at Member State level necessary for law enforcement 
cooperation. This includes IT systems for th e exchange of Passenger Name Records (PNR) 
data the automated exchange of DNA, fingerp rints and vehicle regi stration data between 
Member States. Secure communication links, such as the SIENA system developed by 
EUROPOL, are needed for practical cooperation and s hould also be supported.  
In the fight against drugs  specifically, efforts will also be stepped up to reinforce operational 
cooperation, such as the actions already fina nced on drugs smuggling in the framework of 
MAOC-N (Maritime Analysis and Operation Ce ntre – Narcotics) and CeCLADM (Centre de 
Coordination pour la Lutte Anti-drogue  en Méditerranée), and to develop common risk 
analyses involving all relevant author ities with a security role (including police, border 
guards and customs authorities). In order to disrupt the illici t market for drugs, more support 
should be given to law enforcement authorities in  bilateral, multilateral a nd regional efforts to 
curb drugs supply; and disrupting drugs routes and moda operandi. With respect to trafficking 
in human beings, EU funding should be available for measures to support victims  and for 
the development of law enforcement responses and prevention programmes  in source 
(third) countries. In the area of sexual crimes  against children, law enforcement cooperation 
should be supported, including exchange of know-how and IT-solutions  to combat child 
pornography on the internet. To address corruption,  EU funding should be available  to 
develop capacity in law enforcement and building partnerships  with the private sector and 
civil society, both within the EU  and in third countries with a high level of EU investment.  
Appropriate training is therefore essential to ensure that the law enforcement community is 
fully equipped to deal with the threats posed  by these developments whilst fully respecting 
fundamental rights. Training is a horizontal, cr oss-cutting need for po lice forces (language 
courses, increasing knowledge of EU tools et c). Substantial funding should be available to 
support it. Moreover, training activ ities should also target more  specifically law enforcement 
officers dealing with specialist and highly technical issues , such as in the area of IT 
                                                 
38 In accordance with the four-tie rs access control model on Schengen. These measures prevent irregular 
immigration and cross-border crime inside the territo ry of the Schengen States by enhanced searches, 
checks and surveillance measures based on national information, and in accord ance with national law. 
 
EN 22   EN (cybercrime), because criminals are increasingly  using new technologies to commit crime, as 
shown by recent EU Organised Crime Threat Assessments (OCTA) produced by Europol. 
5.1.6.  Prevention, preparedness and consequen ce management of terrorism and other 
security-related threats 
The ISEC and CIPS Programmes do not adequate ly support the prevention of and fight 
against terrorism and other securi ty-related risks. In the first place, the terrorist threat has 
rapidly evolved in recent years, with changes in the modus operandi of terrorist activists and 
supporters including the replacement of structured and hierarchical groups by 
semiautonomous regional cells loosely tied to each  other. Such cells increasingly rely on the 
use of new technologies, in particular the Inte rnet. Increasingly, so-called 'lone wolves', who 
may have developed their radi cal beliefs on the basis of extremist propaganda, commit 
terrorist acts using training ma terials found on the internet. Financial support is therefore 
needed to prevent and raise awaren ess of radicalisation and recruitment , for example 
through support for an EU radicalisation-awaren ess network and civil society organisations 
which expose, translate and challenge viol ent extremist propaganda on the internet. Victims  
should also be supported because of their role in de-legitimising and deglamourising terrorism 
and crime and in raising awareness fo r preventing violen t radicalisation.  
Tracking down terrorist movements, for ex ample by collecting and analysing the Name 
Records of passengers travelling to and from Eu rope and cutting-off terrorists from access to 
financial means by following their transactions is equally important. Funding is therefore not 
just needed for a future European PNR but migh t also be envisaged – s ubject to the political 
debate launched by the Commission in July 201139 – for a European Terrorist Financing 
Tracking System,  allowing law enforcement officers to detect and dismantle terrorist 
networks by extracting and anal ysing financial messaging data held on EU territory. The latter 
would also include funding for the activities of the EU agencies which may be involved in 
this system, such as Europol, Eurojust or th e IT-Agency. Preventing access to explosives and 
Chemical, Biological, Radiol ogical and Nuclear (CBRN) subs tances and enhancing their 
security is another key component of a successf ul fight against terrorism and requires, inter 
alia, funding to further develop and maintain  a European Bomb Data system and a  law 
enforcement Early Warning System at EUROPOL  for incidents related to explosives and 
CBRN materials and close coordi nation with Member States. 
More financial support is also needed  for critical infrastructure protection  in order to 
protect those assets which are essential to the functioning of European society and its 
economy. In order to increase Euro pe's resilience to crises resu lting from terrorist activities, 
financial support is needed for  all phases of the crisis management cycle  (preparedness, 
response and recovery) with a focus on enhancing Europe's preparedness for crises and developing European Emergency Response Capacity
40. While the EU should financially 
support Member States' crisis management in orde r to enhance the intero perability of national 
crisis management systems and technical cap acities, a coherent risk management policy 
which links threat and risk assessment should be established at EU level. This requires 
developing a European analytical capacity to assess risks and threats on the basis of common 
methodologies and parameters, for example thr ough the establishment of a "European Alert 
Register" on the basis of i nput from Member States.  
                                                 
39 COM(2011)429 final of 13/07/2011. 
40 COM(2010)673 final of 22/11/2010: As outlined in strategic objective 5 
 
EN 23   EN 5.2. The external dimension of home affairs policies is not supported adequately 
The current generation of home affairs fina ncial programmes do not cover the external 
dimension of home affairs. Although it is pos sible at present to financially support some 
activities in third countries in or der to ensure territorial continu ity of financing, starting in the 
EU and continuing in third countries, these ac tivities are very limited.  Examples of such 
activities are the re integration measures supported by the Return Fund (specific measures for 
returnees in the country  of return in order first to ensure effective return under good 
conditions and enhance their du rable reintegration) , the deployment of immigration and 
aircraft liaison officers (prevention of illegal entry) and surveillance activities outside the EU territory (high seas) under the External Borders Fund and the technical working arrangements 
concluded by Frontex with the border guard aut horities of third countr ies (Russia, Ukraine, 
the Western Balkan countries, Moldova, Georgia,  the US and Belarus) to develop cooperation 
on training, risk analysis and jo int operations with them.  
Funding for third countries in Home Affairs po licy areas is therefore almost exclusively 
provided through external rela tions instruments under budget h eading 4 of the EU Budget: 
"EU as a global player". Although such funding  is increasingly bein g channelled through 
geographic programmes, the Thematic Programme  'Cooperation with Third Countries in the 
Area of Migration and Asylum' remains the ma in instrument in support of the external 
dimension of migration and asyl um policies. This programme is relatively small, with an 
average annual budget of € 55 million (€ 384 million for the period 2007-2013). Besides, 
although the Programme's objectives encompass th e different facets of migration management 
policy, it is increasingly seen as a development-oriented instrument because it has its legal basis in the Development Coope ration Instrument (DCI).  
In fact, the external aid progr ammes are not designed to suppor t the external dimension of 
home affairs policies but rather to cater primar ily for other policy objectives, in particular 
enlargement, development and neighbourhood polic ies. At present, 95% of EU funding 
qualifies as Official Development Assistan ce (ODA) and must by definition target 
development objectives in favour of the recipi ent country. Accordingly, needs assessment and 
identification of priorities is mo stly jointly agreed with benefi ciary countries. While this very 
important and migration-related development assi stance should be kept and expanded, there is 
a manifest lack of EU leverage to allow th e Union to pursue and achieve its own policy 
priorities and cater for the EU interest, such  as the management of migratory flows and 
security.  
5.2.1.  Asylum 
In view of the pressure on Member States' asyl um systems, cooperation w ith third co untries to 
ensure the international protec tion of asylum seekers and ref ugees, notably through Regional 
Protection Programmes has become increasin gly important. These Programmes form an 
important component of the common asylum pol icy. An external evalua tion of pilot Regional 
Protection Programmes (RPP) concluded that the c oncept of RPP constitutes a first successful 
step towards establishing a mechanism for an in crease of the capacity of areas which are close 
to regions of origin, or which ar e areas of transit, to protect refugees through the three durable 
solutions of repatriation, local integration and/or resettlement. Despite their importance, 
the 
European Refugee Fund cannot support Regi onal Protection Programmes financially. 
Current funding for RPP is too fragmented and as a result, achievements under these 
Programmes are not optimal, in particular in terms of visibility a nd understanding of the 
overall RPP concept and RPP awareness in the beneficiary countries. In addition to these 
 
EN 24   EN Programmes, there is a need to explore and develop options for the processing of requests for 
international protection in the regions of origin (outside the EU territory ) and the setting-up of 
a more effective system of re sponsibility-sharing among count ries of origin, transit and 
destination. 
5.2.2.  Legal migration and integrati on of third-country nationals 
The Integration Fund does not provide financial support for developing the EU 'Global 
Approach to Migration' (GAM), in particular the negotia tion, signing and implementation of 
Mobility Partnerships. Although support for instruments such as  Mobility Partnerships has 
been provided through external aid instru ments such as the Thematic Programme 
'Cooperation with Third Countries in the area of Migration and Asylum', these instruments are 
aimed exclusively at supporting third countries ' capacities and therefor e do not adequately 
cover the full migration cycle, encompassing both its internal and extern al dimension, thus not 
allowing adequate support for the specific intere sts of the Member States in addressing the 
challenge of migration management to the EU.  
5.2.3.  Irregular immigration and return 
Readmission agreements are another important tool  for an efficient management of migration 
flows, in particular in fighting irregular immi gration, and an important component of the EU 
return policy, because they facil itate the swift return  of irregular migrants. However, although 
a couple of projects supporting the implementa tion of readmission agreements have been 
supported through the Thematic Pr ogramme 'Cooperation with Thir d Countries in the area of 
Migration and Asylum', the existing financial in struments do not provide  sufficient financial 
incentives to  help third countries cope with the financial burden of the readmission of 
irregular migrants , either in terms of reintegrat ing their own nationals or onward 
readmission of third-country nationals to their count ries of origin. To be efficient as leverage, 
such funding must also be substantial and additi onal to what is availa ble to third countries 
under development assistance.  
5.2.4.  Management of the EU's external borders and visa 
Through its external relati ons instruments, the EU also provides substantial support to third 
countries aiming at im proving their border management capacities . However, such 
mechanisms cannot provide adequate support to many activities in third countries whose 
primary purpose is to serve EU interests and needs in terms of border surveillance, for 
instance in the framework of programmes such as  EUROSUR, of which the primary aim is to 
prevent cross border illegal activities into the EU.  
5.2.5.  Prevention of and fight against organise d crime and prevention, preparedness and 
consequence management of terrorism and other security-related threats 
The increasingly important external dimension of the EU 's internal security policy  is not 
adequately covered by the ISEC and CIPS Progra mmes as transnational projects are limited to 
acceding countries, candidate countries and Inte rnational Organisations  who may not submit 
projects but only participate as partners. Cooperation with third countries in areas such as 
trafficking of human beings, trafficking of drugs and weapons, dismantling international 
criminal networks and the prevention of te rrorism and other secu rity-related risks can 
therefore not be supported properly. Although exte rnal aid instruments support activities in 
third countries aiming at strengthening their capacities in security related areas, those 
 
EN 25   EN instruments do not cover adequate ly direct EU needs,  as they are not adapted to supporting 
actions with a direct impact in  the EU or with activities serv ing simultaneously the needs of 
the EU and third countries (networks of liaison officers, intelligence networks, joint training 
of EU and third countries police, etc). 
5.3. Operational limitations of the home affairs delivery mechanisms 
5.3.1.  Shared management 
Shared management is the main delivery m echanism for home affairs funding with over 93% 
of the allocations under the four Funds under the General Programme Solidarity and 
Management of Migration Flows implemented in  this way. Although shared management is 
generally considered the appr opriate management mode for most home affairs actions, 
stakeholders stress the need for simplification and reduction of administrative burden .  
Each of the four Funds under the General Programme has its own legal basis and 
implementing rules (including rules on eligibility of costs etc). This l eads to a duplication of 
efforts and a multiplication of rules which, in tur n, results in additional workload and the risk 
of different interpretations by the Commission, th e Member States and the final beneficiaries 
and also increases the risk of errors.  
Although these four Funds are si milar to the Structural F unds which provide financial 
assistance to address structural economic and social problems in the field of EU cohesion 
policy, there are also important differences, notably in relation to the management and control 
systems Member States are required to put in place , the role of the different authorities in the 
process, the eligibility rules at  project level, the approach to programming and reporting, and 
the budgetary and closure mechanisms. These di fferences may increase the work load in 
terms of project management and control tasks a nd often lead to confusion on the part of the 
national authorities in charge of implementing these Funds as  well as the beneficiaries. 
The Funds of the General Programme currently combine a multiannual framework with 
annual programmes. This system is comple x, time-consuming and difficult to manage . 
With four Funds and around 100 annual progra mmes to manage on a yearly basis, the 
administrative workload for both the Commi ssion and Member States is very heavy.  
5.3.2.  Direct management 
Centralised direct management is the main de livery mechanism for funding in the area of 
internal security ("General Programme on Security  and Safeguarding Libert ies). It is also the 
ancillary implementation mode for the four Fu nds of the General Progr amme "Solidarity and 
Management of Migration Flows"  where it is used mainly to  provide financial support to 
transnational projects, studies, conferences, innovative actions and other types of actions of 
EU interest. Operating grants ar e also available to civil societ y organisations which pursue an 
aim of general European interest  or have an objective forming part of an EU policy. Direct 
management is also the method for the implem entation of the assistance provided to third 
countries through external aid instruments (geo graphic and thematic programmes) which is 
implemented with the full involvement of the EU Delegations and the support for running the 
Eurodac system and developing th e central parts of large-scale IT systems, such as VIS and 
SIS II.  
 
EN 26   EN The grants  provided under the two Specific Progra mmes (ISEC and CIPS) under the General 
Programme on Security and Safegu arding Liberties are generally small . However, because 
the eligibility rules are complex, the ov erall error rate is relatively high  in the cost claims 
submitted by the final beneficiaries, requiring reinforced ex-ante and ex-post controls. The mid-term evaluation and stakeholder consulta tion confirm that the administrative burden 
under the Programmes is significant for th e beneficiaries (and the Commission).  
The ISEC and CIPS Programmes also suffer from significant under-spending . In 2009, only 
77% of ISEC commitment appr opriations and 65% of paymen t appropriations were spent. 
The situation is even worse for the CIPS Programme, with only 62% of commitment appropriations and 59% of pa yment appropriations used in 2009. Although some of this 
under-spending is due to a lack of quality appl ications, it is caused primarily by the limited 
flexibility of the Specific Progr ammes, in particular the excessi ve time needed to complete the 
grant process (call for proposals, submission of bids, award of gr ants, signature grant 
agreement, release of funds etc).  
Indeed, stakeholders are crit ical in particular of the lengthy application process  under the 
ISEC Programme which prevents law enforcem ent authorities from mounting operations 
quickly in response to emerging threats. Th is hampers the successful implementation of 
precisely those actions which the Programme is meant to support in order to improve 
operational cooperation, such as  Joint Investigation Teams a nd other forms of cross-border 
joint operations (such as COSPOL projects, ISS related pilot projects and the future 
"Harmony" operational action plans). Although there are early signs that some of the 
measures taken recently to improve access to  these Programmes, for example through more 
targeted calls, the situation is unlikely to  improve markedly due to the increase in the 
appropriations for these Programmes in 2012 and 2013. 
In view of the above, there is broad agreement among stakeholders on the need for 
simplification . The mid-term evaluation recommends improvements to be made to the 
implementation of the Programmes such as bett er timing calls for proposals, rendering the 
budget review exercise more efficient, discon tinuing the use of ope rating grants (ISEC), 
implementing a project monitoring system, enha ncing the framework partnership concept and 
stepping-up simplification efforts (flat-rates, lu mp sums etc). This is extremely important 
since through the 'Harmony' operational action pl ans, the Commission is asked to review its 
funding mechanisms and to make it easier in future to finance more operations and joint investigation teams for the full 'Harmony' cycle (2013-2017). 
5.3.3.  Emergency response mechanism 
The first lessons drawn from the crisis at the Greek/Turkish external border and the crisis in 
the Southern Mediterranean demonstrate that th e EU should improve its ability to respond 
rapidly and effectively to situation of crisis a nd massive arrivals of pe ople. Currently, only the 
European Refugee Fund is equipped with an emergency response mechanism. An emergency 
reserve of €9.8 million is available under the Fu nd to support emergency measures in Member 
States facing situations of particular migratory pressure , characterised by the sudden 
arrival at particular points on the borders of a large number of third-country nationals who 
may be in need of international protection. Th is mechanism was triggered each year since 
2008: for Italy, Greece and Malta in 2008, for Greece and Malta in 2009, for Greece in 2010 
and for Belgium and Italy in 2011.  
 
EN 27   EN These experiences have shown that while pr oviding additional support to Member States, the 
emergency mechanism fails to respond quickly  and effectively to crisis situations . This is 
due to the fact that the duration of emergenc y measures under the ERF is limited to six 
months, their triggering is administratively burdensome (requiring a revision of the Member 
State's annual programme), the amounts available are limited and its intervention scope is 
limited to inflows of asylum seekers wit hout taking into account mixed flows.  
Moreover, in the area of internal security , the existing Programmes do not cover emergency 
measures in case of crisis situations where flexib ility is essential. In view of the fact that 
certain events may require a quick and effectiv e response at EU level, for example terrorist 
attacks, large-scale cyber att acks or mass counterfeiting of th e Euro, an emergency response 
mechanism should be created to enable the EU to release funding for the rapid deployment of 
specialised technical support in collaboration with the Member States concerned.  
5.4. The EU's right to act and justification for EU action  
5.4.1.  The EU's right to act 
The EU's right to act in the area of home af fairs derives primarily from Title V 'Area of 
Freedom, Security and Justice' of the Trea ty 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 pr otection and tempor ary protection (in 
particular Article 78(2) TFEU) including partnership and cooperation with third 
countries; 
• Common immigration policy and return policy (in particular Article 79(2) and (4) 
TFEU) including conclusion of readmissi on agreements with third countries; 
• Judicial co-operation in criminal matters  (in particular Ar ticle 82(1) TFEU); 
• Crime prevention, crisis management and protection of critical infrastructure  
(Article 84 TFEU); 
• Measures regarding police co-operation (in particular Article 87(2) TFEU); 
• Cooperation with third countries and the competent international organisations 
(Article 212(3) TFEU). 
5.4.2.  Subsidiarity 
5.4.2.1.  Necessity test 
The challenges facing the EU in the areas of asylum, immigration, external borders, the 
prevention of and fight against serious and or ganised crime, terrorism and other security-
related risks cannot be dealt with 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 Unio n's external borders. Du e to their specific 
geographic situation and the length of their ex ternal border, some Member States receive 
 
EN 28   EN higher numbers of asylum seekers than the capac ity of their system to process, support and 
protect asylum applicants. Th is is compounded by the fact th at migration flows are mixed 
(being composed of many different groups with different needs and moti vations, in particular 
vulnerable groups) and can fluctu ate significantly. For the same reasons, some Member States 
also have to deal with higher numbers of irregu lar migrants and the associated cost of their 
detection, apprehension and retur n, not to mention the challenge of "mixed flows". Article 80 
TFEU expressly states that the common policie s on asylum, immigration and external borders 
are based on the principle of solidarity and fa ir sharing of responsib ilities between Member 
States. EU funding is the mechanis m which gives effect to the fi nancial implications of this 
principle and without which some Member States  would have to shoulde r the disproportionate 
burden of long borders or surges in migration.  
Serious and organised crime (e .g. drug trafficking, sexual abuse of children, trafficking in 
human beings, cybercrime), terrorism and other security-related threats are also increasingly 
cross-border phenomena. Transnational co -operation between Member States' law 
enforcement authorities working with Europol  and Eurojust is therefore essential to 
successfully fight and prevent these crimes, including the exchange of information and 
common threat and risk assessments.  
Cooperation with third countries, notably through actions outside the EU aiming at 
strengthening their capacities, is instrumental in addressing the aforem entioned challenges.  
5.4.2.2.  EU added value 
Dealing with migration flows, the management of  the EU's external borders and the security 
of the EU requires substantial resources and capabilities from the Member States. Improved 
operational co-operation involvi ng the pooling of resources in areas like training and 
equipment creates economies of scale and synerg ies thereby ensuring a more efficient use of 
public funds and reinforcing solidarity and mutual  trust between Member States. In addition, 
the integrated management of the EU's exte rnal 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.  
In the area of internal security, EU f unding has been a key factor in supporting new 
developments. For example, funding from th e CIPS programme was instrumental for the 
development of a Critical Infrastructure Warning Information Network (CIWIN), a multi-
level communication system for the exchange of CIP-related ideas, studies and best practices, 
within a secure IT environment. CIWIN act s as a central hub and coordination tool for 
Member States' experts working on critical infrastructure protection issues. As Critical Infrastructure Protection in the EU is currentl y subject to a patchwork of protective measures 
and obligations, CIWIN is a good example of wh ere EU action offers better value for money 
by facilitating the exchange of information a nd pooling the expertise and resources from 
national administrations and the Commission, th ereby avoiding fragmentation and duplication 
of activities in Member States. This “one-stop- system” for all relevant information on critical 
infrastructures in the EU also helps to build trust among relevant stakeholders across the EU. 
Action at EU level in relation to the external  dimension of home affairs also brings added 
value. Co-operation with third countries at EU  level can significantly increase the leverage 
necessary to convince third countr ies to engage with the EU on i ssues of releva nce mostly to 
the EU and the Member States. 
 
EN 29   EN 5.5. How would the problem evolve, all things being equal? 
5.5.1.  How the policy challenges are expected to evolve 
In the area of asylum, the underlying causes and dr ivers of factors that lead to the seeking of 
asylum and international protection in the EU (war, repressive regimes, political instability 
etc.) are very likely to continue. ‘New’ factor s such as water shortages and environmental 
disasters may also contribute to migration flows.  Overall, it is reasonable to assume that the 
numbers of asylum applications will increase gradually with fluctuati ons by year and country. 
In relation to legal migration and integration of  third-country nationals, the annual inflow of 
legal migrants is estimated to increase st eadily. Although the inflow depends upon demand 
and policies within the EU and a supply of migrants from third countries, labour migration is 
expected to remain the main contributor to th e growth in legal migration. The need for the 
integration of third-country nationals is theref ore also expected to grow. With regard to 
irregular immigration and return, the number of ‘new’ irregular migrants in the EU is likely to 
decrease, largely as a result of the implementation of policy measures and practices to 
prevent, detect and return irre gular migrants. However, the st ock of irregular migrants is 
unlikely to reduce markedly even if there were marked improvements in detection and 
removal rates of existing irregular migrants. 
In the area of external borders and visa, it is  anticipated that the current 300 million border-
crossings annually will increase to ar ound 324 million in 2014 and 350 million in 2020 
(assuming a continuing average growth rate of around 2% in the number of trips). The 
challenge of managing the EU borders is thus li kely to increase. In relation to the prevention 
of and fight against organised cr ime, aggregate levels of crime are anticipated to continue to 
remain stable but the nature of crime is e xpected to change with criminals using new 
technologies to commit crimes. Cross-border and or ganised crime can be expected to increase 
and become more sophisticated and internationa l in nature. Developments for some types of 
organised crime are very difficult to predict. Dr ug trafficking is likely to stabilise or increase 
and it is hoped that trafficki ng in human beings will remain at current levels or that the 
introduction of new EU legislation will lead to a decline in the mid to long-term. Other types 
of crime such as fraud, money laundering and cybe rcrime, are expected to grow. With regard 
to the prevention, preparedness a nd consequence management of terrorism and other security-
related risks, it can be anticipated that the continued efforts of Member States and EU legislative action will reduce terrorist activi ties and their consequent harm. However, the 
grievances and sources of radicalism that bree d terrorism will continue  and there is little 
prospect of the threat of terrorism reduci ng substantially in the foreseeable future.  
Annex 3 provides a detailed description of the expected evolution of these policy challenges. 
5.5.2.  How the situation with the financial instruments is expected to evolve 
Under shared management, the resources under the national programmes of  the four Funds of 
the General Programme Solidarity and Manage ment of Migration Flows have increased 
steadily over the last years. For 2012 and 2013, another 45% of  the total envelope of the 
General Programme remains to be committed and spent. Bearing in mind the limitations and complexity of the regulatory framework and the accumulation of overlapping programming and reporting obligations under the annual pr ogramming cycles, invol ving ever increasing 
individual actions and potential complications in terms of eligibility and control, the 
continuation of this model under the next Mul ti-annual Financial Framew ork is not a viable 
option for the Commission and the Member States. In addition, the current management and 
 
EN 30   EN control system model is not fully compatible wi th the shared management model as foreseen 
in the upcoming revision of the Financial Re gulation, for example in relation to the 
requirement incumbent on Member States to i ssue an annual management declaration audited 
by an independent body.  
In relation to centralised direct management , a similar conclusion can be drawn. The back-
loading of home affairs resources in the pe riod 2013-2007 had an impact both on the size of 
the "Community actions" under the General Programme Solidarity and Management of 
Migration Flows and the two Sp ecific Programmes of the General Programmes Security and 
Safeguarding Liberties (ISEC and CIPS). The re source implications resulting from the 
accumulation of outstanding calls and projects to be evaluated, monitored and controlled in 
accordance with the Financial Regulation a nd the principle of sound management, are 
becoming such for both beneficiaries and the Co mmission that they risk calling into question 
the added value of the efforts made.  
Moreover, the area of home a ffairs being what it is, the daily management of these 
instruments has been subject to constant review and adjustment. The lack of flexibility of the 
existing framework makes it difficult to take into account properly the needs arising from 
unforeseen events such as the situation in the Mediterranean and from new policy 
developments, such as Joint I nvestigation Teams and other cro ss-border joint operations (e.g. 
COSPOL projects, pilot projects  related to the 2010 Internal S ecurity Strategy or the future 
"Harmony" operational action plans). Without a change to the existing framework, it will be 
increasingly difficult to address new n eeds and priorities in a timely manner. 
6. OBJECTIVES  
On the basis of the policy needs, problems and drivers that are anticipated in the period until 
2020, the general and specifi c objectives of the future home a ffairs instruments are as follows: 
General 
objectives Specific objectives Operational objectives 
Facilitate legal 
migration to the EU in 
line with the economic 
and social needs of the Member States and 
support the integration 
of legally residing third-country nationals  - Increase the number of thir d-country nationals benefiting 
from social and/or legal se rvices or specific assistance 
- Increase the number of thir d-country nationals benefiting 
from orientation, language and other support furthering their integration into society 
Support the implementation of the 
Common European 
Asylum System - Increase the number of asylum  seekers, refugees etc. who 
benefit from social and/or lega l services or specific assistance 
- Increase and/or improve reception infrastructure and services 
- Increase the number of refugees resettled into and/or 
relocated within the EU Enhance the effective 
management of 
migration flows to the EU in areas 
where the EU adds 
maximum value, in particular through 
solidarity, 
responsibility-
sharing and 
cooperation with third countries 
Reduce irregular 
migration and promote 
voluntary return - Increase the number of third-country nationals who benefit 
from social and/or legal services 
- Increase and/or improve the number of reception and/or 
 
EN 31   EN General 
objectives Specific objectives Operational objectives 
detention places 
- Increase the number of persons who return voluntarily 
Support the external 
aspects of the EU's 
migration policy  - Increase the number of third-country nationals benefiting 
from actions developed in the framework of a Mobility 
Partnership supported by the EU 
- Increase the number of refugees resettled into the EU in the 
context of Regional Protection Programmes supported by the 
EU 
- Increase the number of third-country nationals returned 
under readmission agreements supported by the EU 
Strengthen EU external 
borders - Equip, secure and/or enhance border crossing points with 
state-of the-art technology to  facilitate smooth and secure 
border checks 
- Increase local border traffic agreements  
- Introduce and/or upgrade border surveillance systems within 
the framework of EUROSUR, including through cooperation with third countries  
- Apprehend irregular immigrants at the EU external border 
Facilitate mobility 
across EU external 
borders  - Improve provision of consular services to third-country 
nationals abroad 
- Improve regional consular co-operation 
Reduce the risk of and 
increase detection and successful prosecution 
of cross-border and 
organised crime, terrorism and other 
serious security-related 
threats - Develop methodologies, tools and structures, including new 
(interoperable) technologies and the exchange of best practices 
- Develop training schemes in implementation of EU training 
policies 
- Establish secure links and effective cooperation between 
crisis coordination actors at EU and national level Enhance the EU's 
internal security 
through management of the 
external borders 
and law enforcement, 
including by 
strengthening the 
preparedness and 
response activities that are best 
supported by EU 
financial resources, in particular 
through 
transnational cooperation, 
economies of scale, 
public-private partnerships and 
cooperation with 
third countries 
Support the external 
aspects of the EU's 
internal security policy  - Increase the exchange of information between Member 
States/EU, Agencies and third countries 
- Improve operational co-operation between Member 
States/EU, Agencies and third countries 
Given the wide ranging objectives  and activities of the current home affairs instruments, the 
specific objectives are broader and less detailed than would be appropriate for any particular 
programme. The key purpose of these objectives is  to provide a basis fo r assessing the options 
in relation to the future priorities within the two future Funds.  
In achieving these specific policy objectives, du e regard should also be  given to the overall 
horizontal objective of simplifica tion, and in particular the flexib ility of the future Funds, the 
speedy release of funding in th e event of emergencies and the reduction of administrative 
 
EN 32   EN workload. The options in relation to the delivery mechanisms will be assessed against these 
objectives. 
7. POLICY OPTIONS  
A number of options have been identified in order to address the problems identified earlier. 
The options concerning Issue A 'Funding priorities' aim at achi eving an optimal distribution 
of funding within each of  the two Funds in order to addres s the funding needs and priorities of 
the home affairs area. In addition, a number of op tions are considered in relation to the design 
of the delivery mechanisms under shared (Issue B) and centralised (Issue C) management, as 
well as an emergency response mechanism (Issue D). 
7.1. Issue A – Funding priorities 
The Communication "A Budget for Europe 2020"41 announced the simplification of the 
structure of EU funding in the home affa irs area by reducing the number of financial 
programmes to two and proposes the fo llowing amounts of funding: (€ million) 
Fund Objective Budget in 2011 
prices  Budget in 
current prices 
Migration and 
Asylum Fund 
(AMF) Support actions in relation to asylum and 
migration, the integration of third-country 
nationals and return € 3,433 m € 3,869 
Internal Security 
Fund (ISF) Provide financial assistance for initiatives in the 
areas of external border s and internal security € 4,113 m € 4,648 
It should be noted that this distribution of funding between the Asylum  and Migration Fund 
and the Internal Security Fund (45% and 55% respectively) differs from the distribution 
between the 'migration' and 'security' enve lopes under the 2007-2013 period in general, as 
well as from the distribution in 2013, the last year of the current financial framework.  
A key challenge is how to distribute funding with in the two Funds in order to meet the policy 
challenges described earlier whilst addressing the limitations identified for the current 
generation of financial instruments. Three opti ons have been identified in relation to the 
distribution of resour ces within the Funds: 
Option A.1 – 2013 level distribution (status quo) 
Option 1 envisages the continuation in the pe riod 2014-2020 of the distribution of funding in 
2013. This means that under the AM F, actions in support of retu rn and integration would each 
be allocated about 38% of f unding, whereas support for asylum  would represent 24% of the 
spending under the Fund. Under the ISF, funding for the manage ment of the EU’s external 
borders would reach 77% and the remaining 23% would be allocated to action in the area of internal security. There would be no specific co mponent to support actions in relation to the 
external dimension of home affairs policies. Because this option reflects the most recent 
political choices and represents continuity of fu nding, it is the baseline scenario against which 
the other options will be assessed. 
                                                
 
41 COM(2011)500 final – Parts I and II of 29 June 2011 
 
EN 33   EN Option A.2 – 2007-2013 average distribution 
This option entails the continua tion of the average distribution of the resources allocated to 
various home affairs policies under the exis ting financial instruments for the period 2007-
2013. Because the home affairs budget increases by about 15% annually from 2007 to 2013 ('back-loading'), this distribution reveals the relative financial wei ght of each policy area 
under the current Multia nnual Financial Framework. For the AMF, this option means that the 
majority of funding would be allocated to the integration of third-c ountry nationa ls (38%), 
followed by spending on asylum and return on e qual footing (30%). Under the ISF, about 
70% of funding would be allocated  to the management of the EU’s external borders and just 
below 30% to internal security. As under Optio n 1, there would be no specific component to 
support the external dimensi on of home affairs policies. 
Option A.3 – Re-distribution with external dimension component 
The distribution of allocations within the tw o Funds would be adjusted to accommodate a 
component for the external dimension of home affairs which will provi de funding for actions 
in or in relation to th ird countries which serve primarily EU  needs and interests. They should 
therefore be distinguished from the funding which will be provided through the future EU 
external relations instruments for activities in third countries which aim primarily at 
supporting and strengthening third countries' capaciti es in the home affairs area according to 
their needs and priorities. Unde r the AMF, approximately 10% of  the available funding would 
be earmarked for actions such as Regional Prot ection Programmes, the promotion of Mobility 
Partnerships with third countries  (for example increased support to circular migration schemes 
which meet the labour needs of the Member St ates), and the implementation of re-admission 
agreements. A slightly lower share of about 5% would be allocated to the external dimension 
under the ISF to improve third countries' bor der management capacity and cooperate with 
them in the fight against trafficking, organi sed crime and terrorism. These shares were 
determined on the basis of the estimated needs as regards those extern al dimension activities 
that cannot be adequately covere d through the external relations in struments. It is considered 
that such needs are higher in the area of asyl um and migration; consid eration was also given, 
when earmarking funding for these new activities , to the management and absorption capacity 
of potential beneficiaries.  
Due to this shift to the external dimension, funding woul d have to be reduced somewhat 
across all policy areas but with more marked cu ts in areas where the added value and impact 
of supporting external dimension activities is expected to be higher. The additional focus on the 'external' dimension of these areas (prevent ive actions, incentives to third countries, early 
assistance to refugees and asylum seekers,  etc.) would reduce the need to fund the 
corresponding 'internal' policies.  Under this option, support for integration and return would 
receive around 30% and 23% respectively. Under the ISF, about 75% would be allocated to 
the management of the external borders and 20 % to internal security. The only policy area 
which would see an increase compared to 2013 would be asylum which would be allocated 
36% of the funding available under the AMF.  
A preliminary and indicative distribution of re sources as described above for each of the 
options can be presented as follows (amount s expressed in € million, current prices): 
Home Affairs Funds  
2014-2020 Option 1 – 
2013 level Option 2 – 
2007-2013 Option 3 – 
Redistribution 
with external 
 
EN 34   EN (status quo) average dimension 
 AMF  % Share % Share % Share 
 Asylum incl. resettlement  24,0% 929 30,6% 1,184 35,9% 1,389 
 Irregular immigration & return  38,0% 1,470 30,4% 1,176 23,3% 901 
 Integration (incl. EMN)  37,6% 1,455 38,4% 1,486 29,6% 1,145 
 External dimension  0,0% - 0,0% - 10,6% 410 
 Administrative support  0,4% 15 0,5% 19 0,6% 23 
 Total AMF 100% 3,869 100% 3,869 100% 3,869 
 ISF  % Share % Share % Share 
 External borders and visa 76,5% 3,556 70,7% 3,286 74,7% 3,472 
 Organised crime & crisis management  23,2% 1,078 28,9% 1,343 20,2% 939 
 External dimension  0,0% - 0,0% -  4,7% 218 
 Administrative support  0,3% 14 0,4% 19  0,5% 23 
 Total ISF 100% 4,648 100% 4,648 100% 4,648 
7.2. Delivery mechanisms  
7.2.1.  Issue B – Shared management 
Option B.1 – Annual programming within  multiannual framework (status quo) 
This option consists of maintaining the current system which combines a common 
multiannual framework in line with broadly define d political priorities set in EU strategic 
guidelines with national annual pr ogrammes. Each year, the Member  States and, in the case of 
the External Borders Fund, the Schengen asso ciated states, would submit a draft annual 
programme which is subsequently approved by  the Commission. Substantial changes to the 
programme would require approval by the Comm ission and amendment of programme. Each 
annual programme would be subject to monito ring, progress reports, pre-financing payments 
and closure.  
Option B.2 – Multiannual programming 
Under this option, there would be multiannual pr ogramming only, in line with current practice 
under the Structural Funds. The Member States a nd, in the case of the External Borders Fund, 
the Schengen associated states, would s ubmit a draft multiannual programme which is 
subsequently approved by the Commission. Simp lification is achieved by removing the 
burdensome step of translating the multiannual pr ogramme into annual programmes. In order 
to ensure sufficient flexibility after approva l of the multiannual programmes, a monitoring 
mechanism would be introduced to  assess progress regularly, possibl y on a yearly basis in the 
context of annual progress reports and paym ent requests. Substantial changes to the 
multiannual programme would require approval by the Commission and the amendment of the programme. Each programme would be s ubject to monitoring, progress reports, pre-
financing payments and closure. 
 
EN 35   EN Option B.3 – Multiannual programming with policy dialogue 
This option entails multiannual programming pr eceded by a policy dialogue. At the start of 
the next Multiannual Financial Framework, th e Commission would initi ate a senior level 
policy dialogue on home affairs funding with indivi dual Member States and, in the case of the 
Internal Security Fund, the Sc hengen associated states, prio r to the negotiations on their 
multiannual programmes. This dialogue would focus on policy objectives and spending and would involve the central responsible authority of each Member State and, in the case of the 
Internal Security Fund, the Scheng en associated state. It woul d thus pave the way for tailor-
made programming and be the main vehicle fo r shaping the application of the partnership 
contract principle in the area of home affairs. Taking into account the outcome of the policy 
dialogue ('agreed conclusions'), the multiannua l programmes would describe the baseline 
situation, lay down the general obj ectives Member States are seek ing to achieve in the policy 
area and the objectives that ar e to be achieved using the re sources of the Fund. For those 
objectives, the programme would identify targets and examples of key actions. In order to 
ensure sufficient flexibility after approval of the multiannual programmes, a monitoring mechanism would be introduced to  assess progress regularly, possibl y on a yearly basis in the 
context of annual progress reports and payment re quests. Member States would also be given 
enough flexibility to support emer gency actions or deal with unforeseen circumstances. 
Although changes to the nationa l programmes are therefore le ss likely, the policy dialogue 
would be resumed if changes are needed. 
7.2.2.  Issue C – Centralised management (direct and indirect) 
Option C.1 – Status quo 
Centralised management would be retained for the implementation of a mixture of grants and 
procurement. In particular, centralised mana gement would be used to provide financial 
support to transnational projects  and non-state actors, includi ng through operating grants for 
organisations pursuing an aim of general European interest , to promote policy-driven 
activities, to procure services in relation to large-scale IT systems, events and studies. A 
considerable amount would be implemen ted under centralised management.  
Option C.2 – Procurement only 
This option entails reducing the use of centra lised management to procurement only. Such 
procurement would include services for the central (EU) component s of large-scale IT 
systems and the IT-agency, as well as studies and events in the home affairs area. The use of grants would be discontinued. 
Option C.3 – Improved and diversified centralised management 
The use of centralised manage ment would be maintained but diversified and improved. 
Procurement would be maintained mainly for services in relation to the central (EU) 
components of large-scale IT systems and the IT -agency, as well as for studies and events. In 
the area of grants, centralised management woul d not be implemented pr imarily through calls 
for proposals but by entrusting the implementation of specific tasks to existing EU agencies 
(indirect management), international organisatio ns (contribution agreements) and civil society 
(framework partnerships). In  a limited number of cases, for example to support actions by 
civil society, grants would still be awar ded following calls for proposals. Ongoing 
simplification efforts will therefore be continued to improve this process such as better timing 
 
EN 36   EN calls for proposals, rendering the budget review exercise more efficient by reducing the level 
of budgetary detail required, the introduction of  more favourable payment modalities (e.g. 
higher pre-financing payments) for starting projec ts and the closer monitoring of projects in 
order to detect potential problems ear lier and take corrective action.  
7.2.3.  Issue D – Emergency response mechanism 
Option D.1 – Status quo (mechanism fo r migration under shared management) 
The current emergency response mechanism under shared management in the area of 
migration would be continued. Approval of emergency funding would therefore require a 
revision of the programme of the Member State requesting assistance. No emergency 
response mechanism would exist in the area of internal security. 
Option D.2 – Improved mechanism extended  to other migration-related crises and 
security crises 
The current emergency response mechanism in the area of asylum would be brought under 
centralised management and extended to other migration-related crises (e.g. mixed flows). In 
order to allow for quick decision-making and flexibility, the implementation of emergency 
measures would be foreseen in an Annua l Work Programme adopted by the Commission 
following consultation of the relevant Committ ee. Within this Annual Work Programme, an 
envelope would be set aside for emergency ac tions which could then be implemented by the 
most appropriate actors (national authorities /agencies, international organisations, civil 
society organisations). In order for this to be  done quickly, framework agreements would have 
to be put in place with these actors before hand. The duration of emergency measures would 
be extended from the current 6 to 18 months. A similar mechanism would be introduced in the 
area of internal security. 
Option D.3 – Improved mechanism extended  to other migration-related crises and 
inclusion of security un der the EU Solidarity Fund 
The mechanism described under Option D.2 would be  introduced in the area of migration but 
without extending it to the internal  security area. Instead, crises and emergencies in the field 
of internal security could be included in the scope of the EU Solidarity Fund42, which was set 
up to respond in a rapid, efficient and flexible manner to come to the aid of any Member State 
in the event of a major natural disaster. 
8. IMPACTS OF THE POLICY OPTIONS  
The impacts of the policy options are discus sed below. No environmental impacts were 
identified. It should also be noted that all activ ities that will be financed under the two Funds 
must respect the fundamental ri ghts and freedoms of both citizens of the EU and other persons 
for which the Union has responsibility. Based on a qualitative assessment of the expected 
performance of each option against the specific objectives and the baseline scenario, the options have been scored on a 7-point scale in order to identify the preferred option.  
                                                
 
42 Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 of 11/11/2002 establishing the European Union Solidarity 
Fund, OJ L 311, p. 3–8 
 
EN 37   EN 888  Significant negative impact 
88 Medium negative impact 
8 Small negative impact 
0 No impact 
√ Small positive impact 
√√ Medium positive impact 
√√√ Significant positive impact 
Consideration has been given to the anticipated tr ends and challenges likel y to be faced in the 
EU home affairs policy area s post 2013, stakeholder opini on and the experience of 
interventions and activities in the home affairs area to date.  
8.1. Issue A – Funding priorities 
Option A.1 – 2013 level distribution (status quo) 
(i) Asylum including resettlement:  Although funding would remain  at the 2013 level, this 
constitutes an overall reduction of 7 percentage points comp ared to the average 2007-2013 
level of funding for asylum. Such a decrease in support for the common asylum policy will 
make the creation of a ‘Europe of Asylum’ with  common standards more difficult to achieve. 
Funding levels may be insufficient to allow th e Member States' asylum systems to cope 
adequately with complex and fluctuating migr ation flows and some Member States would 
have to bear disproportionate  costs for hosting refugees and asylum seekers. Although some 
activities may still be devel oped by non-governmental and inte rnational organisations, this 
would likely be limited since many such orga nisations benefit from EU funding for these 
activities. Funding for resettlement operations  would be insufficien t. Although EASO would 
play an important role in assisting Member States, there would be insufficient resources for additional support to those Member States who have to cope with  particular pressures on their 
asylum systems. Overall, an improvement in  standards can be expected which will be 
beneficial to those seeking and in need of as ylum or international protection. However, these 
effects are likely to fall short of all the needs in this area.  
(ii) Legal migration and integration of legal ly residing third-country nationals: The level 
of funding for integration measures would re main constant at 38%. The continuation of 
funding for integration measures  would allow Member States  to continue setting-up 
national/regional strategies for the integration of  third-country nationals or to strengthen the 
strategies already in pl ace. Although this support  is expected to lead to the better integration 
of third-country nationals into their receiving society and therefore to have positive impacts 
on social cohesion and the EU economy, the adde d value of funding for capacity building is 
likely to diminish as Member States progress in the implem entation of their strategies. 
(iii) Irregular immigration and return: Funding would remain at the 2013 level and 
represent 38% of the AMF budget, an increase of  8 percentage points compared to the overall 
funding allocated to return ope rations in the peri od 2007-2013. EU fundi ng would therefore 
continue to be made available to Member St ates to build return management capacity. The 
current activities on voluntary return and forced  return, assistance to the target groups, 
 
EN 38   EN capacity building for Member States, including through training on EU return standards, 
would be continued, whilst adding support for detention / reception capacity. Although 
Member States would be better equipped to return  the numbers of irregular migrants they are 
currently confronted with, the a dded value of further / continued capacity building is likely to 
diminish over time.  
(iv) External borders and visa: The maintenance of the level of funding at the 2013 level 
(77%) represents an increase by 6 percentage  points compared to the overall 2007-2013 
funding level. This level of f unding would allow the efforts of those Member States who carry 
out border control tasks on behalf of and in the interest of the EU as a whole to be supported 
systematically from the EU budget thereby givi ng concrete expression to the principles of 
solidarity and responsibility-sharing. Additional activities would consist of financial support 
for the use of new technologies to create an inte grated border management system at EU level 
(future large-scale IT systems such as the Entry/Exit System and Registered Traveller 
Programme) that would improve border securi ty and generate positive economic impacts 
because it would promote innovation, facilitate trav el of bona fide travellers to and from the 
EU. A more consistent use of EU funding for consular co-ope ration on visa would allow for 
efficiency gains and would have a positive impact on the EU economy. Similar impacts would 
result from support for local border traffic arrangements in particular border areas with 
increased local border traffic and trade. Financial support for the creation of EUROSUR 
would also lead to a reduction in irregular mi gration and cross-border crime and a decrease in 
the loss of migrants' lives at sea. The activities of Frontex would be further boosted by its 
capacity to have own equipment and to receive funding to co-operate mo re actively with third 
countries. 
(v) Organised crime, terrorism and ot her security-related threats: By maintaining the 
level of funding in the area of internal secur ity at the 2013 level (23% ). Although the level of 
funding would suffice to achieve the main priorities  in the area of internal security and would 
therefore improve the security of  the EU in the long-term, it w ould remain difficult to fund the 
activities of joint investigati on teams or newer policies such as emergency support and crisis 
management where flexibility is essential. De spite the important role of Europol, practical 
cooperation between Member Stat es and between Member Stat es and neighbouring countries 
would not be optimised. 
(vi) External dimension: Although it would still be possible to support the limited types of 
activities in third countries that  can be covered by the current fi nancial instruments, such as 
reintegration assistance for re turnees and resettlement of refugees, and funding to third 
countries would still be provided th rough external aid instruments, no  substantial funding 
would be available for the extern al dimension of home affairs. This lack of adequate funding 
to support activities in third c ountries serving primary EU inte rests and needs would therefore 
remain unaddressed. The EU would therefore not be  able to increase its leverage with third 
countries to encourage them to engage with th e EU on issues of relevance to the EU and the 
Member States and which might not be priority  issues for the third countries themselves 
(readmission, fighting irregular migration, reinfo rcing border management etc.). For example, 
in the area of asylum, insufficient funds woul d be available to provide substantial support 
Regional Protection Programmes.   
Option A.1 – 2013 level distribution (status quo) Rating 
Facilitate legal migration to the EU in line with the economic and social needs of the 
Member States and support the integration of  legally residing third-country nationals 0 
 
EN 39   EN Support the implementation of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) 0  
Reduce irregular migration and promote voluntary return 0  
Strengthen EU external borders 0  
Facilitate mobility across EU external borders 0  
Reduce the risk of and increase detection a nd successful prosecution of cross-border and 
organised crime, terrorism and other serious security-related threats 0 
Support the external aspects of the EU's migr ation and internal security policies (external 
dimension) 0 
Option A.2 – Average 2007-2013 distribution 
(i) Asylum including resettlement:  About 31% of funding under the AMF would be 
allocated to asylum. As this co nstitutes an increase of 7 per centage points compared to 2013 
funding levels, this would allow the EU and the Member States to improve asylum standards, 
address complex and fluctuating migration flows and deal with disproportionate pressures on 
their asylum systems. However, it will not be possible to provide  sufficient support for 
setting-up an EU resettlement scheme and th ere would still be no  additional financial 
incentive to the Member States for the intra-EU  transfer of beneficiaries of international 
protection ('relocation'). Although improvements can  therefore be expected for those seeking 
and in need of asylum or inte rnational protection, solidarity a nd responsibility-sharing at EU 
level would not be optimised. 
(ii) Legal migration and integration of lega lly residing third-country nationals: Support 
for integration measures woul d receive 38% of the AMF budget, the same as the 2013 level. 
The likely impacts are therefore expected to be similar to those under Option 1.  
(iii) Irregular immigration and return: Actions in the area of return would receive 30% of 
the AMF budget, representing a drop of about 8 per centage points compared  to the 2013 level. 
A reduction in EU support for the return of irregu lar migrants and for the pooling of resources 
at EU level for return operations will increase the cost of these operations for Member States. 
The number of returns is therefore likely to de crease across Europe, resulting in an increased 
number of irregular migrants remaining in the EU. Cuts in EU funding fo r measures to control 
irregular migration flows would probably lead Member States to  cooperate bilaterally with 
countries encountering similar challenges or w ith third countries directly, to have some 
leverage over future migrant numbers. Although Member States acting in  their own interest 
may reduce migrant flows to their own country, they may divert and increase flows to other 
Member States. Overall, the number of irregular  migrants entering the EU could therefore be 
expected to increase as efforts at prevention and return would be less effective when Member 
States act alone. Because irregular immigrants ar e often employed in the illicit economy, they 
are particularly vulnerable to  exploitation. This situation w ould likely get worse. These 
impacts could be mitigated somewhat through  increased support from Frontex for return 
activities, in particular the pooling of resources. 
(iv) External borders and visa: 71% of the ISF budget would be allocated to support for the 
management of the EU external borders and vi sa, a reduction of 6 per centage points compared 
to the 2013 level. This reduction will necessita te a shift away from overall capacity building 
efforts towards specific projects such as the implementation of EUROSUR and/or the 
 
EN 40   EN development of new IT systems (Registered Tr aveller Programme, Entry/Exit System). This 
would allow some new developments and the EU  and Member States to maintain current 
levels of border security. Ho wever, it would be insufficien t to support the notion of border 
control as a 'public service' carried out by Member  States on behalf of and in the interest of 
the EU as a whole. Solidarit y and responsibility-s haring would therefore not be optimised. 
(v) Organised crime, terrorism and ot her security-related threats: Internal security would 
be allocated 29% of the ISF budget, an increase of 6 percentage points compared to the 2013 
level. By strengthening practical cooperati on between law enforcement authorities through 
financial support for joint opera tions (including Joint Inves tigation Teams), the pooling of 
resources, the exchange of information, the de velopment of common risk analyses and the 
greater use of financial invest igation tools, IT systems and secure communication channels, 
Member States would be able to more effectiv ely combat serious and organised crime in its 
many forms, at national and at EU level. In the area of cybercrime, support for a Cybercrime 
Centre would lead to reducing the incentive for th is lucrative type of crime and its impact on 
the European economy. Support to victims of te rrorism and to civil society organisations 
would expose and challenge violen t extremist acts and propaganda , help de-legitimise and de-
glamorise terrorism and raise awareness about preventing violent radicalisation. EU agencies 
such as Europol and Cepol would be reinforced to play a key role in  the implementation of 
practical cooperation measures. 
(vi) External dimension: As under Option 1, the external dimension of home affairs policies 
would not be addressed except for the very li mited actions mentioned before that can be 
covered by the current financial instruments. Th e likely impacts are expected to be the same.  
Option A.2 – Average 2007-2013 distribution Rating 
Facilitate legal migration to the EU in line with the economic and social needs of the 
Member States and support the integration of  legally residing third-country nationals √√ 
Support the implementation of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) √ 
Reduce irregular migration and promote voluntary return 88 
Strengthen EU external borders 8 
Facilitate mobility across EU external borders √ 
Reduce the risk of and increase detection a nd successful prosecution of cross-border and 
organised crime, terrorism and other serious security-related threats √√ 
Support the external aspects of the EU's migr ation and internal security policies (external 
dimension) 0 
A.3 – Re-distribution with external dimension component 
Under this option, there would be  a shift towards support for the external dimension of home 
affairs policies which would require a correspo nding shift in the distribution of allocations 
within the two Funds, with a pproximately 10% earmarked for such actions under the AMF 
and 5% under the ISF. This funding will form part of a single envelope, implemented under 
centralised management, to be spent on the basi s of an Annual Work Programme in view of 
policy developments or the situati on in third countries. It is th erefore not possible to provide a 
breakdown of the allocations for the external dimension per policy area.  
 
EN 41   EN (i) Asylum including resettlement: The increased levels of funding for asylum (12 
percentage points increase compared to the 201 3 level) would not just allow the EU and the 
Member States to improve asylum standards,  address complex and fluctuating migration 
flows and deal with disproporti onate pressures on their asylum systems. It would also allow 
for the setting-up an EU resettlement scheme an d to provide additional fi nancial incentives to 
the Member States for the intra-EU transfer of beneficiaries of in ternational protection 
('relocation'). The additional funding available for the external dimension of asylum policy would enable the EU to pr ovide more comprehensive s upport for Regional Protection 
Programmes aimed at providing assistance to refug ees and displaced persons in their region of 
origin, rather than seeking at al l cost to come to the EU. Suppor t would also be possible for a 
number of targeted activities in  third countries to alleviate the burden on these countries and 
create an equitable sharing between the EU a nd Member States in fi nding durable  solutions 
within the international refugee protection system  such as the joint processing of requests for 
international protection in the regions of origin  by Member States. The operational efficiency 
gains thus delivered would enable a more e ffective system of responsibility-sharing for 
receiving and processing asylum seekers among Member States and third countries, and take 
into account in a more strategic manner Me mber States' reception capacity in allocating 
persons in need of international protection. Henc e benefits would be found in the reduction of 
the disproportionate flows of refugees and asylum seekers to some Member States and a fairer sharing of responsibility among Member States.   
(ii) Legal migration and integratio n of third-country nationals:  Although the level of 
funding for integration would be reduced quite significantly compared to the 2013 level (8 
percentage points), sufficient f unding would be available to s upport Member States’ efforts to 
improve the integration of third- country nationals. However, with the reduction in the level of 
funding, there is a need to limit and concentrate funding on the areas where it reaches most 
directly and effectively the target population and underscores best the added value of EU 
intervention on the ground. This means that, w ith capabilities having been put in place at 
national level in the period 2007- 2013, focus would shift to a mo re targeted approach in 
support of strategies specifically designed to  promote the integration of third-country 
nationals, including refugees, asyl um seekers and beneficiaries of  international protection, at 
local level, implemented mainly by local or regi onal authorities and non- state actors. This will 
lead to a more effective integration of third- country nationals into their local communities. 
Beneficial impacts are expected on social cohe sion and the EU economy in general and third-
country nationals' employment oppor tunities in particular. In re lation to legal migration, the 
additional funding available for the external dimension would allow a more comprehensive 
support to the implementation of Mobility Partnerships. Coupled with strengthened collaboration and cooperation of the EU with in ternational organisations (e.g. IOM, ILO), this 
would help maximise the opera tional synergies between EU in stitutions and agencies, the 
Member States and these international or ganisations, thereby le ading to a greater 
effectiveness of fundi ng in this area.  
(iii) Irregular immigration and return: The level of funding for re turn operations would be 
reduced significantly compared to the 2013 level (15 percentage points). Return operations 
would therefore have to be focus on assisted voluntary return (although forced return remains 
possible), reintegration measures and improving the detention capacity of Member States. The 
overall aim of this shift would be to concentrate resources on an area of intervention where 
there would be the highest impacts in terms of the size of the migratory flows affected, more 
coherence between Member States and a bette r treatment of the ta rget population. There 
would be a shift from overall capacity buildin g efforts, including tr aining activities which 
 
EN 42   EN were supported sufficiently in the period 2008-2 013, towards a more concentrated effort in 
favour of substantially improving the quality of  case management by Member States, enabling 
Member States to offer the means to provide a meaningful incentive for repatriation to all 
potential returnees and ensuring full compliance with the twin principles of the primacy of 
voluntary return under EU standard s and the humane and dignified  treatment of all potential 
returnees before, during and after their return  throughout the EU, in accordance with EU and 
human rights standards. Frontex would complement current return activities by increasing the 
coordination of joint returns.  The additional,  substantial funding for the external dimension 
would support the implementation of readmission agr eements to facilitate the swift return of 
irregular migrants and would therefore contribute significan tly to fighting ir regular migration. 
The cumulative impacts of the EU resettleme nt scheme, Regional Protection Programmes, 
Mobility Partnerships and readmission agreem ents could reduce the need for emergency 
funding for sudden migratory pressures, the need  for international protection in the Member 
States, the incidence of irregula r entry into the EU and the need  for funding return operations.  
(iv) External borders and visa: The level of funding would rema in stable at the 2013 level.  
The impacts would therefore be the same as those described under Option 1. However, 
through the external dimension component, EU funding would also be available to support 
third countries to link their sy stems and infrastructures to th e EU's in order to allow for 
regular exchange of information and to improve  their capabilities to co-operate with the 
border guards services of the Member States. These funding activities would complement and 
reinforce the activitie s of Frontex under its enhanced ma ndate under the amended Regulation 
to develop more efficient cooperation be tween Frontex and thir d countries on border 
management. This is likely to increase the dete ction rates of irregular migrants or prevent 
their entry into the EU and woul d therefore enhance the security of the EU's external borders, 
without necessitating additional investments by Member States and Frontex in equipment and infrastructure and whilst making additional spec ific investments in enhancing the efficiency 
of the integrated border management system as  a whole, through the smart border package. 
(v) Organised crime, terrorism and ot her security-related threats: The share of funding 
allocated to internal security would decrease s lightly (3 percentage poi nts) compared to the 
distribution in 2013. Nevertheless, this would s till amount to an overall increase in financial 
resources for internal security compared to th e resources allocated on average to security in 
the period 2007-2013. By focusing spending on a mo re limited number of areas (contrary to 
the current instruments which cover too wide a ra nge of activities), the main priorities in the 
area of internal security can be achieved, th ereby improving the secur ity of the EU in the 
long-term. The support available for the external  dimension of internal  security policies, 
notably the prevention of and fight agains t serious and organised crime (cybercrime, 
trafficking, drugs, international criminal netw orks etc.) and the prevention, preparedness and 
consequence management of terrorism and othe r security-related threats would lead to an 
increased understanding of the security threats originating in  third countries. Coupled with 
cooperation with these countries in other domains such as migration management, this would 
increase the effectiveness of interventions aime d at preventing and detect ing potential terrorist 
and organised crime threats.  
Overall,  the inclusion of a sizeabl e external dimension component in the Asylum and 
Migration Fund and Internal Security Fund will en sure a better protection of EU home affairs 
interests outside the EU, notably  through support to actions starti ng in the EU and continuing 
in third countries or vice-versa. This will allow the EU not just to address the consequences of 
migration flows and organised cr ime and terrorism but seeks also to foster preventive action 
in third countries. The beneficial consequences  of such action could include a reduction in the 
 
EN 43   EN number of persons entering the EU in need of asylum or other fo rms of international 
protection and in the number of i rregular migrants crossing the EU external borders, as well 
as a reduction in cross-border crimes such as trafficking of human be ings, drug and weapons 
trafficking. Increased cooperation with third countries would also  allow better management of 
legal/labour immigration and thus  better tackle labour shortages in the EU, notably as regards 
highly skilled migrants, seasonal workers, stud ent exchanges, etc. Such funding would be 
fully coherent with the assistance provided th rough the external relati ons instruments which 
serve primarily the development need s and priorities of  third countries. 
Option A.3 – Redistribution with external dimension component Rating 
Facilitate legal migration to the EU in line with the economic and social needs of the 
Member States and support the integration of  legally residing third-country nationals √√ 
Support the implementation of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) √√√ 
Reduce irregular migration and promote voluntary return √√ 
Strengthen EU external borders √√ 
Facilitate mobility across EU external borders √√ 
Reduce the risk of and increase detection a nd successful prosecution of cross-border and 
organised crime, terrorism and other serious security-related threats √√ 
Support the external aspects of the EU's migr ation and internal security policies (external 
dimension) √√√ 
8.2. Delivery mechanisms  
8.2.1.  Issue B – Shared management  
Option B.1 – Annual programming within  multiannual framework (status quo) 
Maintaining annual programming within a multiannual framework would allow for the choice 
and implementation of actions aligned more to e volving EU priorities. However, the system is 
extremely complex, time-consuming and difficult to manage. Due to the reduction of the 
number of Funds to two, the number of annua l programmes would be reduced by about 50% 
from around 700 in the period 2007-2013 to around 392 for the period 2014-2020. Although 
this constitutes an improvement, the administrativ e workload in relation to the management of 
these annual programmes (adoption, monito ring, revisions, closure etc) for both the 
Commission and Member States will remain  heavy because of the accumulation of 
overlapping programming and reporting obligat ions under the annual programme cycle, and 
would be disproportionate to the volume of funding channelled th rough the Funds. This 
option also does not allow aligning the home affairs Funds with other shared management 
instruments. The closure procedur e would also be incompatible w ith the procedure foreseen in 
the revised version of the Financial Regulation.  
Option B.1 – Annual programming within multiannual framework (status quo) Rating 
To improve the flexibility of the home affairs Funds  0 
To reduce administrative workload for all stakeholders 0 
 
EN 44   EN Option B.2 – Multiannual programming 
Under this option, there would be a total of around 56 multiannual programmes to manage 
(depending on the number of Member States and associated countries th at will participate). 
The use of multiannual programming only will si gnificantly reduce the administrative 
workload for both the Commission and the Me mber States and the Schengen associated 
countries as they will not have to manage 392 annual programmes. In addition, this approach 
would bring the programming of the two home affair s Funds in line with that of other shared 
management instruments, thereby increasing coherence and clarity for all stakeholders. 
Although policy priorities and ob jectives would be set within a more flexible, multiannual 
framework, the nature of home affairs policies is often such that there is a continuous need to 
address changes in the situations in the Member States and in th ird countries (migration flows, 
security threats), as well as  technological advances, incr eases in passengers flows; 
developments in the Schengen area. Despite the increased fl exibility it offers, multiannual 
programming does not adequately address the specificities of the home affairs area.  
Option B.2 – Multiannual programming Rating 
To improve the flexibility of the home affairs Funds  √√ 
To reduce administrative workload for all stakeholders √√ 
Option B.3 – Multiannual programming with policy dialogue 
As under option B.2, there woul d be a total of around 56 multi annual programmes, resulting 
in a significant reduction in workload (wit hout 392 annual programmes to manage). The 
senior level policy dialogue which would take place at the start of the 2014-2020 
programming period would focus on policy priori ties, objectives and results to be obtained 
and would therefore constitute a type of 'partnership contract' in the home affairs area. The introduction of a more results-driven approa ch will enable the Commission to drive the 
process of reviewing with the Me mber States their objectives and targets in accordance with 
EU priorities and interests whilst taking into a ccount the specific needs and circumstances in 
the individual Member States. Because of th e combination of simplification and results-
oriented programming, this approach constitu tes a major improvement on the status quo.  
Option B.3 – Multiannual programming with policy dialogue Rating 
To improve the flexibility of the home affairs Funds  √√√ 
To reduce administrative workload for all stakeholders √√√ 
8.2.2.  Issue C – Centralised management (direct and indirect)  
Option C.1 – Status quo 
In view of the net budget increase for ho me affairs policies in the period 2014-2020, 
maintaining centralised management for the im plementation of procurement and grants would 
result in significant amounts being spent this way, in particular in relation to internal security, where centralised management would remain th e main delivery mechanism. Without efforts 
to simplify rules and streamline procedures, this will generate an even bigger increase in the 
administrative workload for both the Commission and final beneficiaries. This, in turn, is 
likely to result in an increased risk of errors. Cuts in public spending at EU and national level 
 
EN 45   EN are expected to compound this situation, as a reduction of human resources to manage these 
funds and may increase this risk further. 
Option C.1 – Status quo Rating 
To improve the flexibility of the home affairs Funds  0 
To better support specific EU objectives and activities 0 
To reduce administrative workload for all stakeholders 0 
Option C.2 – Procurement only 
Reducing centralised management to spendi ng on procurement only would decrease the 
resources needed on the part of the Commissi on to manage the implementation of grants. 
Although funding for Member States' national pr ogrammes would continue under shared 
management, there would be no tools to suppor t policy-led, innovative actions (such as pilot 
projects), to stimulate transnational co-operatio n (especially in the area of security) or to 
directly support and reinforce th e role of civil society in imp lementing home affairs policies 
(especially in the area of migration). This opti on is therefore incompatible with demands from 
civil society organisations and international organisations for incr eased support for their 
interventions. As emergency response spendi ng would be kept under shared management, 
there would be no improvement in the EU's ability to react quickly and effectively in the case 
of crises.  
Option C.2 – Procurement only Rating 
To improve the flexibility of the home affairs Funds  √√ 
To better support specific EU objectives and activities 88 
To reduce administrative workload for all stakeholders √√√ 
Option C.3 – Improved and diversified centralised management 
The use of diversified and im proved centralised management would allow the Commission to 
maintain grants to support innovative, policy-dr iven actions and to ensure that these are 
implemented more effectively and efficiently by th e most appropriate actors in the field, be it 
non-governmental organisations, agencies, intern ational organisations, Member States etc. 
Although this change in approach may initially lead to a moderate increase in administrative 
workload for the Commission because of the need to put in place contribution agreements and framework partnerships, the use of such partne rships and agreements will in the long-term 
lead to better relations with key stakeholders and an overall reduction in workload for both the 
Commission and these stakeholders. Using the in direct management mode to enable the home 
affairs agencies to implement specific tasks in  accordance with prioriti es as identified by the 
Commission, including in third c ountries, is expected to impr ove synergies and coherence. 
Recourse to fewer but better organised open calls for proposals will also considerably 
decrease the administrative workload for th e Commission and benefici aries and speed up the 
grant application process.  This option reconciles the need for more sustained support for the 
interventions of international or ganisations with the need to s upport the efforts of civil society 
organisations without eliminating competition for funding. 
Option C.3 – Improved and diversified centralised management Rating 
 
EN 46   EN To improve the flexibility of the home affairs Funds  √√√ 
To better support specific EU objectives and activities √√√ 
To reduce administrative workload for all stakeholders √ 
8.2.3.  Issue D – Emergency response mechanism 
Option D.1 – Status quo (mechanism fo r migration under shared management) 
The continuation of the current emergency response mechanism under shared management in 
the area of migration would not improve the EU's ability to react quickly and effectively to crises. The time needed to release funding w ould remain too long and the available funding 
would be too limited to have a significant imp act. In the absence of an emergency response 
mechanism in the area of internal security, the EU will also not be able to react appropriately 
to crisis situations such as terrorist attacks or large-scale cyber att acks, which require an 
immediate and flexible response. 
Option D.1 – Status quo (mechanism for mi gration under shared  management) Rating 
To improve EU emergency response in the area of migration 0 
To improve EU emergency respons e in the area of security 0 
To reduce administrative workload for all stakeholders 0 
Option D.2 – Improved mechanism and ex tension to other migration-related and 
security crises 
Bringing the emergency response mechanism in  the area of migrat ion under centralised 
management would significantly speed up the time  needed to release emergency funding and 
would allow the Commission to choose the most  appropriate implementing partner for such 
funding (national authorities/agen cies, international organisations , civil society organisations). 
Extending the duration of such emergency measures  to 18 months will enable these actors to 
address more completely the continuing needs arising from emergency interventions. Extending the mechanism to include migration cris es other than those that are asylum-related 
will allow the EU to also respond to mixed flows. The inclusion of a similar emergency 
response mechanism in the Internal Security Fund will enable the EU to also react quickly and 
effectively to crises in the area of internal security. 
Option D.2 – Improved mechanism and ex tension to other migration-related and 
security crises Rating 
To improve EU emergency response in the area of migration √√√ 
To improve EU emergency resp onse in the area of security √√√ 
To reduce administrative workload for all stakeholders √√ 
Option D.3 – Improved mechanism extended  to other migration-related crises and 
inclusion of security un der the EU Solidarity Fund 
 
EN 47   EN The impacts of an improved emergency respon se mechanism under centralised management 
for migration-related emergencies would be as  described under Option D.2. The extension of 
the scope of the EU Solidarity Fund to incl ude emergencies resulti ng from man-made crises 
in the area of internal security would avoid th e need to create a specific mechanism in the 
Internal Security Fund. Although this could be e xpected to lead to some initial savings in 
terms of administrative workload for the Commi ssion, these are unlikely to  be significant. The 
extension of the scope of the existing instrume nt beyond natural disasters may lead to a loss in 
focus and funding available for such disasters. For this reason, a prior pro posal to include also 
man-made disasters in the scope of the EU Solidarity Fund was blocked in Council. 
Option D.3 – Improved mechanism extende d to other migration-related crises and 
inclusion of security under the EU Solidarity Fund Rating 
To improve EU emergency response in the area of migration √√√ 
To improve EU emergency resp onse in the area of security √√ 
To reduce administrative workload for all stakeholders √√ 
9. COMPARING THE OPTIONS  
9.1. Issue A – Funding priorities 
The assessment of the distribution of funding with in each of the two Funds highlighted that in 
relation to asylum, Option 2 ('average 2007-20 13') constitutes an improvement on Option 1 
(Status quo '2013 level') but would fall short of  providing sufficient financial incentive for 
setting up an EU-resettlement sc heme and the intra-EU transfer of beneficiaries of 
international protection. Only the distribution proposed under Option 3 ('Redistribution with 
external dimension component') would en able this and would therefore optimise 
responsibility-sharing and fairne ss at EU level in this area. 
The spending level proposed for the fight ag ainst irregular immigration and return under 
Option 1 would allow Member States to conti nue return management capacity building in 
particular detention / receptio n capacity. Nevertheless, the cut in spending proposed under 
Options 2 and 3 compared to 2007-2013 levels  would not jeopardise support for Member 
States' basic return operations. Rather, it woul d encourage them to focus their efforts on 
actions which would have the biggest impact of the size of the migratory flows affected, more 
coherence between Member States and a bett er treatment of the target population.  
In relation to support for integration of thir d-country nationals, there is no significant 
difference in the distribution of funding between Options 1 and 2. Although Option 3 
envisages a reduction in such support, due to  the reduced need for and added value of 
capacity-building over time, the proposed level would be sufficient to  support integration 
strategies specifically designe d to promote integration at local and regional level.  
All three options would enable funding for important new developments towards an 
integrated border management system, notab ly in relation to the implementation of 
EUROSUR and the development of  innovative IT systems. Cont rary to Options 1 and 3, 
funding under Option 2 would be in sufficient to systematically support the notion of border 
control as a 'public service' carried out by Memb er States for and on be half of other Member 
States and the EU as a whole.  
 
EN 48   EN In relation to the fight against organised crime,  terrorism and other security-related risks, the 
level of funding proposed under Option 2 is th e highest and would therefore allow for 
comprehensive support to transnational prac tical cooperation between law enforcement 
authorities, the pooling of resources, the exch ange of information, the development of 
common tools (such as IT systems and secure communication channels) a nd risk analyses, as 
well as preventive actions su ch as support for victims, awareness raising and anti-
radicalisation efforts. Neve rtheless, the reduced  support proposed under Options 1 and 3 
would be sufficient to achieve the main priori ties in the area of the internal security.  
Options 1 and 2 do not include a specific fundi ng component for the external dimension of 
home affairs policies. Although more funding is th erefore available for th e "internal" aspects 
of these policies, this funding is  not necessarily spent where it  has the greatest effect. By 
contrast, the sizeable extern al dimension component propose d under Option 3 would have a 
significant "preventive" impact on all home a ffairs policies and would therefore reduce the 
overall level of funding needed for the internal aspects of these policies.  
The table below presents a comparison of the rating of the options for Issue A: 
Issue A – Funding priorities Option 1 – 
Status quo 
'2013 levels' Option 2 – 
Status quo 
'average 
2007-2013 
levels' Option 3 – 
'Redistribu-
tion with 
external 
dimension' 
Facilitate legal migration to the EU in line with the economic and social needs of  the Member States and 
support the integration of legally residing third-country 
nationals 0 √√ √√ 
Support the implementation of the Common European 
Asylum System (CEAS) 0 √ √√√ 
Reduce irregular migration 0 88 √√ 
Strengthen EU external borders 0 8 √√ 
Facilitate mobility across EU external borders 0 √ √√ 
Reduce the risk of and increase detection and successful 
prosecution of cross-border and organised crime, terrorism 
and other serious security-related threats 0 √√ √ 
To support the external aspects of the EU's migration and 
internal security policies (external dimension) 0 0 √√√ 
Overall rating 0 √ √√ 
9.2. Issues B, C and D – Delivery mechanisms 
Issue B – Shared management  
Option 1 (status quo) would have a very negative impact on administrative workload and 
would not meet Member States' demands fo r simplification. The shift to multiannual 
programming proposed under Option 2 would c onstitute a significant improvement on the 
status quo as it would reduce the number of programmes to be managed by the Commission 
 
EN 49   EN and the Member States. Alignment with other EU instruments under shared management, in 
particular the Funds covered by the Common Strategic Framework, would also increase 
coherence and clarity for all st akeholders. Despite offering increased flexibility, Option 2 
would not address the continuous need to respond to changing situations in the Member States 
and third countries, typical of the home a ffairs area. The policy dialogue proposed under 
Option 3 would address this n eed and would also allow for a more results-driven shared 
management.  
Issue B – Shared management Option 1 – 
Status quo Option 2 – 
Multiannual 
programming Option 3 – 
Multiannual 
programming 
with policy 
dialogue 
To improve the flexibility of the home affairs Funds  0 √√ √√√ 
To reduce administrative workload for all stakeholders 0 √√ √√√ 
Overall rating 0 √√ √√√ 
Issue C – Centralised manage ment (direct and indirect) 
Of the three options considered, Option 1 (status quo) is the least attractive because it offers 
little or no prospect of simplification or reduction of administrative workload. In this respect, Option 2 (procurement only) would constitute  a significant improve ment although it would 
eliminate completely the possibility of promoting policy-driven actions, stimulating 
transnational co-operation and supporting ci vil society through grants. Although it would 
carry a higher administrative workload than Op tion 2, Option 3 would lead to a more targeted, 
less resource-intensive and di versified centralised management through recourse to 
framework partnerships, contri bution agreements, indirect ma nagement and a limited use of 
improved open calls for proposals.  
Issue C – Centralised management Option 1 – 
Status quo Option 2 – 
Procurement 
only Option 3 – 
Improved, 
diversified 
centralised 
management 
To improve the flexibility of the home affairs Funds  0 √√ √√√ 
To better achieve specific EU objectives and activities 0 88 √√√ 
To reduce administrative workload for all stakeholders 0 √√√ √ 
Overall rating 0 √ √√ 
Issue D – Emergency response mechanism 
Option 1 (status quo) clearly does not meet the need for the EU to respond more quickly and 
effectively to crises in the areas of migra tion and security. Option 2 would constitute a 
marked improvement on the status quo because it  would allow for a rapid release of funding 
in case of migration-related cr ises (not just asylum) and in  addition, it would include a 
dedicated response mechanism in the Inte rnal Security Fund. Although Option 3 also 
constitutes an improvement on Option 1 because it envisages a faster release of funds under 
 
EN 50   EN centralised management in the area of migr ation, the extension of the scope of the EU 
Solidarity Fund to (man-made) crises in the ar ea of security is likely to meet opposition from 
Member States because of the risk that it  would reduce the focus of the instrument.  
Issue D – Emergency response mechanism Option 1 – 
Status quo Option 2 – 
Improved 
mechanism 
(migration) 
+ internal 
security Option 3 – 
Improved 
mechanism 
(migration) + 
EU Solidarity 
Fund 
Improve EU emergency response in the area of migration 0 √√√ √√√ 
Improve EU emergency response in the area of security 0 √√√ √√ 
To reduce administrative workload for all stakeholders 0 √√ √√ 
Overall rating 0 √√√ √√ 
10. THE PREFERRED OPTION (S) 
On the basis of the above assessment, Option A.3 ('Redistribution with external dimension 
component') emerged as the preferred option for the distribution of res ources within the two 
Funds.  
In relation to the delivery mechanisms, the pref erred option would consist of a combination of 
Option B.3 ('Multiannual programming with polic y dialogue'), Option C.3 ('Procurement and 
indirect management') and D.2 ('Improved mech anism and extension to migration-related and 
security crises'). Their implementation is discussed in more detail below. 
10.1. Implementation of th e preferred option(s) 
Shared management will be the main mana gement method for delivering home affairs 
funding as it would be extended to include internal security. This will be accompanied by a 
move away from the current system of  annual programming towards a multi-annual 
programming approach with a pol icy dialogue. This is expected to result, after the first two 
years during which old and new instruments will overlap, in a more flexible approach to programming and a significantly reduced work load for the Commission, the Member States 
and the beneficiaries. The procedures and syst ems that will be set-up for the two home affairs 
Funds will be aligned to the maximum possible ex tent with the arrangements that will apply 
to the other EU instruments under shared manage ment, in particular the Funds covered by the 
Common Strategic Framework. Ideally, a common Committee will be established for the two Funds and each Member State would be obliged to designate a central Responsible Authority 
so as to ensure that there is a single interl ocutor for the Commission. This would also allow 
the Member States to focus on an inte grated and output-o riented approach.  
Despite the increased use of shared manageme nt, some types of actions are usually best 
implemented under direct management, such as  transnational actions, innovative projects, 
support for civil society, studies and events an d actions with an external dimension and/or 
requiring the quick mobilisation of EU funds . Although the overall amount managed by the 
Commission in centralised manage ment would therefore remain quite high, at a time of zero 
growth in the human and administrative res ources available to th e Commission, future 
 
EN 51   EN centralised management should not be primarily  implemented through calls for proposals but 
in a more flexible and efficient way by delegatin g tasks to existing EU agencies, international 
organisations (contribution agr eements) and civil society (fra mework partnerships). This 
would entail the elaboration and adoption of  an Annual Work Progr amme by the Commission 
which would include the possibility of funding for emergency response, external dimension, 
transnational and particularly innovative actions. These actions  would then be implemented 
by the most appropriate actor(s) (agencies, in ternational organisatio ns and civil society 
organisations). Access to funding will also be  improved through streamlining of application 
procedures, the introduction of more favourable payment modali ties for starting projects and 
the reduction of admi nistrative burden.  
The rules on eligibility of expenditure under sh ared management closely follow the eligibility 
rules of the Funds covered by the Common Strate gic Framework. As such, the eligibility of 
expenditure will be determined on the basis of national rules, subject to a limited number of 
common, simple principles. In relation to th e eligibility of expe nditure, these common 
principles will provide that, in addition to the reimbursement of eligible costs actually incurred and flat-rate financing for indirect  costs (already possible under the current home 
affairs instruments), grants for which the support from the EU budget does not exceed 
€50.000 will take the form of standard s cales of unit costs and lump sums.  
Moreover, in response to demands from stakeholde rs, the provisions in relation to the use of 
flat-rates for indirect costs will be expanded to better meet the needs of beneficiaries. Instead 
of capping indirect costs at a maxi mum of 7% of eligible direct costs, as is currently the case 
under the home affairs Funds, the new rules will allo w indirect costs to be calculated as a flat 
rate of up to 20% of eligible direct costs, wh ere the rate is calculated on the basis of a fair, 
equitable and verifiable calcu lation method or a method applied under schemes for grants 
funded entirely by the Member State for a sim ilar type of action/pr oject or beneficiary. 
Alternatively, indirect costs can also  be calculated as a flat rate of up to 15% of eligible direct 
staff costs (so well adapted to pr ojects where staff costs are the ma in costs) or as a flat rate 
applied to eligible direct costs based on exis ting methods and correspon ding rates, applicable 
in Union policies for a similar type of action/pr oject and beneficiary. In relation to centralised 
management, similar flexibility will be included  in the Financial Regu lation and will be used 
as much as possible. 
The role of the home affairs agencies will also be enhanced as they w ould implement specific 
tasks in accordance with prio rities and guidelines set by the Commission, as appropriate. 
Making more effective use of the competences and expertise of the home affairs agencies, 
will necessarily imply recourse to the indi rect management mode which allows the 
Commission to entrust the agencies with the implementation of specific operational tasks in the framework of their missions and in comple mentarity with their work programmes. This 
would be the case for actions which are of an  ad hoc nature and where their successful 
implementation relies on the operational and t echnical expertise of the agencies. It is 
important to note that funding would not be auto matically distributed to the agencies at the 
beginning of the period 2014-2020, but  would only allocated to them to implement specific 
and ad-hoc operational tasks in accordance wi th priorities as identified by the Commission, 
including in third countries. In combination w ith a stabilisation of the agencies' core budgets, 
this would give the Commission greater control over their activities (despite their regulatory 
character) and act as an incentive for the agen cies to align their activities to EU policies. 
A more flexible emergency response mechan ism in the area of migration management 
(extension beyond the current mechanism for asyl um), the design of an emergency response 
 
EN 52   EN mechanism to address specific border securi ty threats complementary to and beyond the 
current models, and the extension of the mechan ism to emergencies in the area of internal 
security in particular will al so be important improvements.  
10.2. Other organisational aspects of  the future home  affairs Funds 
The preferred option will be implemented in fu ll coherence with the decision to reduce the 
number of financial instruments in the home affairs area to two by cr eating an Asylum and 
Migration Fund and an Internal  Security Fund. Reducing the num ber of Funds will increase 
the visibility of home affairs funding and make it easier to fund actions which at present are 
on the nexus between Funds. For example, support for the improvement of reception and detention centres is currently spread across the European Ref ugee Fund and the Return Fund, 
depending on the type of target group that will benefit from the improvements (asylum seekers or those awaiting return). By bringi ng support for such measures together under a 
single Asylum and Migration Fund, it will be po ssible to create synergies and ultimately, 
economies of scale.  
Care is also taken to avoid overlaps with funding provided by other EU instruments. For 
example, in relation to the integration of third-country na tionals the European Social Fund 
will support measures on access to the labour ma rket whereas the AMF will support measures 
such as civic orientation courses, participation in social and civic life,  equal access to services, 
etc. In relation to the external dimension, th e home affairs Funds wi ll provide support for 
actions which cater primarily for EU interests an d objectives, have a dire ct impact in the EU 
and its Member States and to ensure continuity with activities implemented in the territory of 
the EU. This funding will be designed and implem ented in coherence with EU external action 
and foreign policy. It is not intended to suppor t actions which are development oriented and 
will complement, when appropriate, the financ ial assistance provided through external aid 
instruments. While those instruments either su pport beneficiary countries development needs 
or support general EU political in terests with strategic partners, home affairs funds will 
support specific actions in thir d countries in the interest of  EU migration policy and EU 
internal security objectives. They will therefore fill a specific gap and will contribute to completing the toolbox at the di sposal of the Union. Annex 6 provides an overview of the 
complementarity of the two home affairs Funds w ith other future EU financial instruments.  
Another key feature of the future home affairs funding architecture will be the creation of a 
horizontal instrument, common to both the As ylum and Migration Fund and the Internal 
Security Fund. This instrument will include  all rules on programming, reporting, financial 
management and controls. This presents two dis tinct advantages: first, it avoids duplication 
and reduces significantly the numbe r of (otherwise identical pa rallel) provisions in the two 
Funds and second, it achieves simplification a nd consistency because the same rules will 
apply to all beneficiaries, regardless of wh ich home affairs instrument their funding comes 
from, thereby facilitating their unde rstanding of and acce ss to the Funds. 
Box 1: Legal aspects of the creation  of the two new home affairs Funds 
Four legislative proposals are needed to establish, in accordance with the Treaty, two Funds which can cover the 
policy objectives of migration and security in a comprehensive manner, and to properly underpin the operation 
of the two Funds through a common and simple framework.  
The Asylum and Migration Fund will support activities and measures related to (1) asylum; (2) legal migration 
and integration; (3) irregular migration and return. The Fund will be established through a Regulation based on 
Articles 78(2) and 79(2) and (4) TFEU.  
 
EN 53   EN The Internal Security Fund will support activities and m easures related to (1) border management and the 
common policy on visa; (2) police co-operation, crime prevention and fight against serious cross-border crime, 
crisis management and critical infrastructure protection. Unlike the Asylum and Migration Fund, due to the 
Treaty provisions that apply to the home  affairs area, in particular differen t 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 (and 22 (on the position of 
Denmark, including in relation to Title V, part three of  the Treaty), the creation of the Internal Security Fund 
requires the adoption of two separate legislativ e instruments which jointly establish the ISF:  
• Regulation establishing, as part of the Internal Secu rity Fund, the instrument for financial support for 
police cooperation, preventing and combating crime, and crisis management; 
• Regulation establishing, as part of the Internal Secu rity Fund, the instrument for financial support for 
external borders and visa. 
In line with the general objective of simplification, the two Funds should function as much as possible with 
identical delivery mechanisms and have  a structure that resembles as clos ely as possible that of other EU 
financial instruments under shared management, in particular those covered by the Common Strategic 
Framework. This is achieved through the creation of a horizontal instrument, common to the Asylum and 
Migration Fund and the two components of the Internal Security Fund, laying down the principles of assistance, 
programming and reporting mechanisms, rules on financial management and control, and the monitoring and 
evaluation provisions applicable to both Funds.  
11. MONITORING AND EVALUATION  
Providing for a robust monitori ng and evaluation mechanism is crucial to ensure that the 
provisions discussed in the pr eferred option are implemente d. Hence, the monitoring and 
evaluation proposals made here relate to the performance of the preferred option.  
Monitoring and evaluation arrangements will n eed to be provided for in the legislative 
proposals for the future financial instruments. In  view of the duration of the next Multiannual 
Financial Framework (7 years), pr ovisions will need to be ma de for a mid-term review. The 
timing of such a review will not be fixed in advance as experience with the review of the Funds under the General Programme Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows has 
shown that this may lead to the results of the review not being av ailable when necessary. 
Provision will also be made for an ex-post evaluation. The Commission will be responsible 
for the mid-term review and ex-post evaluation. 
For the funds implemented under shared mana gement, the revised Financial Regulation 
provides that each Member State will be  required to submit an annual management 
declaration on the use of EU funds for the re ference period. In order to keep reporting 
requirements for the Member States to a minimum, it is proposed that this also be the occasion on which they will have to report on  their progress in the implementation of their 
multiannual programmes. The Commission will be  responsible for analyzing and following-
up the annual reports submitted by the Member States, if necessary through on-the-spot monitoring visits.  
In relation to centralized management, the beneficiaries (Member States, international 
organizations, non-governmental organizations  etc.) will be required to report on the 
implementation of the actions supported with grants from the EU budget for review by the 
Commission, including a statement of the expenditure incurred. If deemed necessary, on-the-spot visits will be carried out to monitor progress. 
 
EN 54   EN Although it is important to be able to monito r progress towards the sp ecific objectives set out 
earlier and to measure the results and imp acts achieved by EU home affairs spending, 
migration and security are areas which do not lend themselves to the definition and use of precise indicators because they are essentially driven by external factors or difficult to 
monitor. For this r eason, the evaluation and monitoring arrangements proposed for the two 
Funds are based on both quantitative and qualitativ e assessments (including risk assessments) 
which take into account a range of indicator s. These indicators will be developed in 
consultation with the Member States to trac k the performance of home affairs funding in 
terms of inputs, outputs and, where possible,  outcomes. Annex 8 provides examples of 
possible indicators. 
As stated earlier, this impact assessment also  constitutes the ex-ant e evaluation required for 
programmes or activities occasioning expenditure  from the EU Budget. Information about the 
volume of appropriations, human  resources and other admini strative expendi ture to be 
allocated and their respect of the cost-effectiven ess principle are included in the legislative 
financial statement which accompan ies the legislative proposals. 
 
EN 55   EN ANNEX 1 – LIST OF ACRONYMS  
AMF Asylum and Migration Fund 
CBRN Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear 
CEAS Common European Asylum System 
CeCLADM Centre de Coordination pour la  Lutte Anti-drogue en Méditerranée 
CEPOL European Police College 
CIA Committee on Immigration and Asylum 
CIPS Prevention, Preparedness and Conse quence Management of Terrorism and 
other Security-related ri sks (Specific Programme) 
COSI Standing Committee on Operationa l Cooperation on Internal Security 
(Council) 
DCI  Development and Cooperation Instrument  
EASO European Asylum Support Office 
EBF External Borders Fund 
EDF European Development Fund 
EEAS European External Action Service 
EES Entry-Exit System 
EIF European Fund for the Integration of Third Country Nationals 
EMCDDA European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction 
EMN European Migration Network 
EOS European Organisation for Security 
ERF European Refugee Fund 
ERDF European Regional Development Fund 
ESF European Social Fund 
EUROPOL European Law Enforcement Agency 
EU European Union 
EUROSUR European border surveillance system 
 
EN 56   EN FP8 Eighth Framework Programme for Research and Technological 
Development 
FRONTEX European agency for the Manage ment of Operational Cooperation at the 
External Borders of the Member States of the EU 
GAM Global Approach to Migration 
GDP Gross Domestic Product 
ICT Information and Communications Technology 
ILO International Labour Organisation 
INTI Integration of Third-Country  Nationals (Preparatory Actions) 
IOM International Organisation for Migration 
ISEC Prevention of and Fight against Crime (Specific Programme) 
ISF Internal Security Fund 
ISS Internal Security Strategy 
IT Information Technology 
JHA Justice and Home Affairs 
JIT Joint Investigation Team 
JRC Joint Research Centre 
LIBE Committee on Civil Liberties, Ju stice and Home Affairs (European 
Parliament) 
MAOC-N Maritime Analysis and Operation Centre – Narcotics 
MFF Multi-Annual Financial Framework 
MS Member State 
NGO Non-Governmental Organisation 
OCTA Organised Crime Threat Assessment 
ODA Official Development Assistance 
PNR Passenger Name Records 
RETURN Financial Instrument for Return Management in the area of Migration 
(Preparatory Action) 
 
EN 57   EN RF European Return Fund 
RPP Regional Protection Programme 
RTP Registered Traveller Programme 
SIENA Standards and Interoperability for eInfrastructure implemeNtation initiAtive 
SIS Schengen Information System 
SURE Policy Challenges Committee (European Parliament) 
TEU Treaty on European Union 
TFEU Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 
TFTS Terrorist Financing Tracking System 
UN United Nations 
UNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees 
VIS Visa Information System 
 
EN 58   EN ANNEX 2 – GLOSSARY  
Migration 
Third-country national  means any person who is not a ci tizen of the Union within the 
meaning of Article 20(1) of the Treaty. 
Irregular immigration  means the movement of a person to a new place of residence or transit 
using irregular or illegal means, without va lid documents or carrying false documents.  
EU Global Approach to Migration:  The EU Global Approach to  Migration (GAM) can be 
defined as the external dimension of the Europ ean Union's migration po licy. It is based on 
genuine partnership with third co untries, it is fully integrated  into the EU's other external 
policies, and addresses all migration and asyl um issues in a comprehensive and balanced 
manner. Adopted in 2005, it illustrates the amb ition of the European Union to establish an 
inter-sectoral framework to manage migrati on in a coherent way through political dialogue 
and close practical cooperation with third countries. The GAM is build around three essential 
dimensions, namely the management of le gal migration, the fight against irregular 
immigration, and fostering the links between mi gration and development. Through these three 
pillars the GAM encompasses all the dimensions of the migrati on agenda, including legal and 
irregular migration, the fight against trafficking in human beings and smuggling of migrants, 
asylum and international protecti on, enhancing migrant rights and maximizing the development 
impact of migration .  
Mobility Partnership:  Mobility Partnerships (MP) constitute the most innovative and 
sophisticated tool of the Global Approach to Migration (GAM) and contribute significantly to 
its operationalisation. M obility Partnerships aim to be co mprehensive and balanced, offering 
actions in all three major areas of the GAM: promotion of the links between migration and development, facilitation of legal migration and measures aiming at curbing irregular 
migration. They take the form of political statem ents (declarations of in tention), signed by the 
Union, the Presidency of the EU, interested Me mber States and the respective partner third 
country. These statements are formulated in no n-binding terms, which not only facilitates its 
establishment but also ensures that Mobility Part nerships are flexible tools easily adaptable to 
changing needs. The partners join on a vol untary basis and, once signed, the Mobility 
Partnerships remain open to the participati on of other interested Member States. These 
Partnerships provide a useful pl atform for the development of different actions aiming either 
at informing potential migrants about lega l migration opportunitie s, supporting capacity 
building of employment agencies in the part ner country, promotion of circular migration 
schemes
43, reintegration of migrants in their country of origi n, engagement with migrant 
associations to foster their contribution through actions such as business ventures or training 
activities, to the develo pment of their countries of origin, etc. Three Mobility Partnerships 
have been signed, respectively with Moldova (2008), Cape Verde (2008 ) and Georgia (2009). 
A Mobility Partnership with Armenia is under pr eparation and is expected to be signed in 
2011.  
                                                 
43 Circular migration creates an opportunity for persons residing in a third country to come to the EU 
temporarily for work, study, training or a combination of these, on the condition that, at the end of the 
period for which they were granted entry, they must re-establish their main residence and their main 
activity in their country of origin.  
 
EN 59   EN Re-admission agreement  means an agreement between the EU and/or Member State with a 
third country, on the basis of r eciprocity, establishing rapid and effective procedures for the 
identification and safe and orderly return of  persons who do not, or no longer, fulfil the 
conditions for entry to, presence in, or residence on the territories  of the third country or one 
of the Member States of the European Union, and to facilitate the transit of such persons in a 
spirit of cooperation. EU readmission agreemen ts have been signed with the following third 
countries/territories: Hong-Kong, Macao, Sri La nka, Albania, Russian Federation, Ukraine, 
FYROM, Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, M ontenegro, Moldova, Pakistan and Georgia. 
Regional Protection Programmes  aim at enhancing the capacity of third countries to ensure 
that asylum-seekers and refugees receive effec tive protection, assistan ce and durable solutions 
(return, local integration or re settlement in a third country). So far, the EU has supported 
Regional Protection Programmes in Eastern Eur ope, Tanzania (Africa's Great Lakes region) 
and the Horn of Africa.  
Asylum 
Asylum  means a form of protection given by a Stat e on its territory base d on the principle of 
non-refoulement  and internationally or nationally recogni sed refugee rights. It is granted to a 
person who is unable to seek protection in his/he r country of citizenship  and/or residence in 
particular for fear of being persecuted for reas ons of race, religion, nationality, membership of 
a particular social gr oup or political opinion. 
Common European Asylum System  refers to the establishment of a common asylum 
procedure and a uniform status for those who ar e granted asylum or s ubsidiary protection in 
the EU, as well as strengthening practic al cooperation between national asylum 
administrations and the exte rnal dimension of asylum. 
Refugee : According to the Geneva Convention, a person who, owi ng to a well-founded fear 
of being persecuted for reasons of race, religi on, nationality, political opinion or membership 
of a particular social group, is outside the count ry of nationality and is unable or, owing to 
such fear, is unwilling to avail himself or hers elf of the protection of that country, or a 
stateless person, who, being outside of the countr y of former habitual residence for the same 
reasons as mentioned before, is unable or, owing to  such fear, unwilling to return to it. In the 
EU context, a third-country national or stateles s person within the meaning of Article 1A of 
the Geneva Convention and authorised to reside  as such on the territo ry of a Member State 
and to whom Article 12 (Exclusion) of directive 2004/83/EC does not apply. 
Resettlement  means the process whereby, on a re quest from UNHCR ba sed on a person’s 
need for international protection, third-country nationals or stat eless persons having the status 
defined by the Geneva Convention and who are permitted to reside as refugees in one of the Member States are transferred from a third-c ountry and established in a Member State where 
they are permitted to reside with one of the fo llowing statuses: (i) refugee status within the 
meaning of Article 2(d) of Dir ective 2004/83/EC, or (ii) a status  which offers similar rights 
and benefits under national a nd EU law as refugee status
44. 
Relocation  means the process whereby, persons refe rred to in Article 4(1)(a) and (b) are 
transferred from the Member State which gran ted them international protection to another 
                                                 
44 Definition for the purpose of Decision No 573/2007/EC establishing the ERF for the period 2008-2013.  
 
EN 60   EN Member State where they will be granted equi valent protection, or persons falling within the 
category referred to in Article 4(1)(c) are transferred from the Me mber State which is 
responsible for examining their application to another Member State where their application 
for international protection will be examined45. 
Unaccompanied minor  means any third-country national or  stateless persons below the age 
of 18 years, who arrives or arrived on the terr itory of the Member States unaccompanied by 
an adult responsible for him/her whether by law or the national practi ce of the Member State 
concerned, and for as long as he/she is not effec tively taken into the care of such a person; it 
includes a minor who is left un accompanied after he/she has entered the territory of the 
Member States. 
Return 
Return: In the context of the Return Directive (2 008/115/EC), this means the process of going 
back - whether in voluntary compliance with an obligation to return, or enforced to: i) one's 
country of origin; or ii) a country of transi t in accordance with Community or bilateral 
readmission agreements or other arrangements;  or iii) another third country, to which the 
third-country national concerned voluntarily deci des to return and in which he/she will be 
accepted. 
Forced return  means the compulsory return of an indi vidual to the country of origin, transit 
or third country, on the basis of an  administrative or  judicial act. 
Voluntary return means the assisted (in which case it w ould be Assisted Voluntary Return) or 
independent return to the country of origin, tr ansit or third country, based on the free will of 
the returnee. 
Borders 
External borders  means the Member States' land borde rs, including river and lake borders, 
sea borders and their airports, river ports, sea po rts and lake ports to which the provisions of 
Union law on the crossing of external borders apply, whether these borders are temporary or 
not. 
Schengen Agreement and Convention : By the Schengen Agreement signed on 14 June 1985, 
Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg and the Netherlands agreed  that they would 
gradually remove controls at their common bor ders and introduce freedom of movement for 
all nationals of the signatory Member States, other Member States or third countries. The 
Schengen Convention supplements the Agreement and lays down the arrangements and safeguards for implementing freedom of move ment. The Agreement and the Convention, the 
rules adopted on that basis and the related agre ements together form the "Schengen acquis". 
Since 1999, this has formed part of the institutional and legal framework of the European Union by virtue of a protocol to the Treaty of Amsterdam. As of January 2010, EU Member 
States which are part of the Schengen Area are Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, 
Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hunga ry, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, 
Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Slove nia, Spain and Sweden. This 
means that the other EU Member States (i .e. Bulgaria, Cyprus, Ireland, Romania and the 
United Kingdom) are not part of Schengen. Whilst Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and 
                                                
 
45 Definition for the purpose of Decision No 573/2007/EC establishing the ERF for the period 2008-2013.  
 
EN 61   EN Switzerland are not EU Member States, they have signed an Agreement on Association in 
order to be associated with the implementati on, application and development of the Schengen 
acquis. 
Local Border Traffic  means the regular crossing of an  external land border by border 
residents in order to stay in a border area, for example for so cial, cultural or substantiated 
economic reasons, or for family reasons, for a period not exceeding three months. 
Eurodac  means the system which enables EU countries  to help identify asylum applicants and 
persons who have been apprehended in connecti on with an irregular cr ossing of an external 
border of the Union. By comparing fingerprint s, EU countries can determine whether an 
asylum applicant or a foreign national found illegally present within an EU country has 
previously claimed asylum in another EU country  or whether an asylum applicant entered the 
Union territory unlawfully. 
Schengen Information System  means the joint (EU plus Member States) information system 
that enables the relevant authorities in each Me mber State, by means of an automated search 
procedure, to have access to alerts on persons  and property for the purposes of border checks 
and other police and customs checks carried out  within the country in accordance with 
national law and, for some specifi c categories of alerts (Artic le 96), for the purposes of 
issuing visas, residence permits and the administ ration of legislation on aliens in the context 
of the application of the provisions of the Sc hengen Convention relating to the movement of 
persons. 
Visa Information System  means the system for the exchange  of visa data between Member 
States, which enables authorised national author ities to enter and update  visa data and to 
consult these data electronically. 
Internal security 
Radicalisation  commonly refers to individuals or gr oups becoming intolerant with regard to 
basic democratic values like equality and dive rsity. As well, the term relates to a rising 
propensity towards using means of force to reach  political goals that negate and/or undermine 
democracy. “Violent radicalis ation” is defined in COM(2005)313 as “the phenomenon of 
people embracing opinions, views and ideas which c ould lead to acts of terrorism as defined 
in Article 1 of the Framework Decisi on 2002/475/JHA on Combating Terrorism.”  
Crime prevention  means all measures that are intended to reduce or otherwise contribute to 
reducing crime and citizens' feeling of in security, as defined in Council Decision 
2009/902/JHA of 30 November 20 09 setting-up a European Crime Prevention Network. 
Organised crime  means a punishable conduct committed by a structured group of three or 
more persons, existing for a period of time and ac ting in concert in order to obtain, directly or 
indirectly, a financial or other material benefit. 
Terrorism  means any of the intentional acts and o ffences as defined in Framework Decision 
2002/475/JHA of 13 June 2002 on combating terro rism, as amended by Framework Decision 
2008/919/JHA of 28 November 2008. 
Risk and crisis management  means any measure relating to the assessment, prevention, 
preparedness and consequence management of terrorism and other security-related risks; 
 
EN 62   EN 'prevention and preparedness' means any measur e aimed at preventing and/or reducing risks 
linked to possible terrorist  attacks or other securi ty related incidents. 
Consequence management  means the effective coordination of measures taken in order to 
react to and to reduce the impact  of the effects of a terrorist attack or any other security 
related incident in order to ensure an effectiv e coordination of actions at national and/or EU 
level. 
Critical infrastructure  means any physical resources, services, information technology 
facilities, networks and infrastructure assets which, if disrupted or destroyed, would have a 
serious impact on criti cal societal functions , including the supply chain, health, safety, 
security, economic or social well-being of peopl e or of the functioning of the Union or its 
Member States. 
Terrorist Financing Tracking System:  On 28 June 2010, the Europ ean Union and the United 
States of America signed the agreement on the processing and transfer of financial messaging 
data for the purpose of the Terrorist Fi nancing Tracking Programme (EU-US TFTP 
Agreement). At the same time, the Council of  the EU asked the European Commission to 
propose, by 1 August 2011, "a lega l and technical framework for the extraction of data on EU 
territory". The Commission has since worked on  the possible introduction of such a system. 
Developing an EU TFTS is part of a wider age nda to prevent terrorism and protect European 
citizens. 
 
EN 63   EN ANNEX 3 – OVERVIEW OF HOME AFFAIRS FUNDING (2007-2013) 
General overview  
The share of funding for home affairs in the EU budget is relatively small but has been 
growing steadily. According to  the latest figures availabl e (budget amendments and budget 
2011), the budget for home affairs policies in the period 2007-2013 amounts to €6 449 
million46. Home affairs policies are considered in ternal policies and are funded under Heading 
3a "Freedom, Security and Justice" of the EU budget, representing 0.77% of the total EU 
budget for the period 2007-2013 (ceilings of the current financial framework).  
These figures cover not only home affairs fina ncial programmes, but also funding for large-
scale IT systems (VIS, SIS,  Eurodac) and agencies.  
Overview of Home Affairs funding (2007-2013)
62% 12%18%7% 1%General Programme Solidarity
and Management of MigrationFlow s
General Programme Security andSafeguarding Liberties
Agencies
Large-scale IT Sytems
Other (European MigrationNetw ork, Pilot Projects)
 
The external dimension of home  affairs policies is  currently covered through geographic and 
thematic external instruments under budget he ading 4 "EU as global player". Funding to 
support third countries in home affairs policy ar eas is channelled mainly through the Thematic 
Programme "Cooperation with Third Countries in the Area of Migration and Asylum" which 
is relatively small (€55 million annually). Although additional funding is also available 
through geographic and other th ematic programmes, the amounts actually allocated vary 
depending on the programming needs of the be neficiary countries (roughly estimated at 
approximately €135 million per year). 
                                                 
46 Figures provided are commitment appropriations expressed in current prices and based on latest figures 
available (including all budget amendments 2007-2010 and 2011 budget).  
 
EN 64   EN Overview of funding managed by DG Home Affairs ( 2007-2013) - figures in mil lion euro, current prices 
General Programme Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013  Total 
European Refugee Fund (1) 78,3 82 107,79 102,65 104,03 104,03 122,83  701,63 
External Borders Fund 170,3 170 186 208 254 349,6 481,7  1819,6 
European Fund for the Integration of Th ird-country Nationals 65 78 98 111 132 163 183  830 
European Return Fund 0 56 67 88 114 163 193  681 
Total 313,6 386 458,79 509,65 604,03 779,63 980,53  4032,23 
General Programme Security and Safeguar ding Liberties 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013  Total 
Prevention, preparedness & consequence management of terrorism 12,84 15,38 19,77 20,52 24,4 23,68 25,58  142,17 
Prevention of and fight against crime 45,16 53,62 72,86 86,38 109,6 118,32 121,42  607,36 
Total 58 69 92,63 106,9 134 142 147  749,53 
Agencies 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013  Total 
FRONTEX 38,75 68 78 83 78 78 78  501,75 
Agency for the operational management of larg e-scale IT Systems 0 0 0 0 5,45 54,5 39,4  99,35 
EASO 0 0 0 5,25 8 12 15  40,25 
Europol 0 0 0 79,72 83,47 84 85  332,19 
European Police College 7,44 8,7 7,8 7,8 8 8,8 9,2  57,74 
European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Dr ug Addiction 13 13,4 14,15 14,8 15,17 15,75 16,1  102,37 
Total 59,18 90,1 99,95 190, 57 198,09 253,05 242,7  1133,65 
Pilot Projects 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013  Total 
Preparatory action — Migration management — Solidarity in action 15 0 0 0 0 0 0  15 
Creation of network of contact  & discussion between munici palities 0 0 0 0 1,5 0 0  1,5 
Total 15 0 0 0 1,5 0 0  16,5 
Large-scale IT Sytems 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013  Total 
Schengen information system 20 26,62 39,28 35 30 (2) (2)  150,9 
Visa information system (VIS) 43,23 20 35,70 21 21,2 54,5 82,6  278,23 
Eurodac 2 8 2 2 1,5 (2) (2)  15,5 
Total 65,23 54,62 76,98 58 52,7 54,5 82,6  444,63 
Other 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013  Total 
European Migration Network 3 6,5 8,8 7,5 7,5 8 8  49,3 
Prince — Area of freedom, security and justice (communication) 2,2 3,91 2,5 2,6 2,7 2,8 2,9  19,61 
Evaluation and impact assessment 0,5 0,5 0,45 0,45 0,55 0,6 0,6  3,65 
Total 5,7 10,91 11,75 10, 55 10,75 11,4 11,5  72,56 
TOTAL DG HOME AFFAIRS 516,72 610, 63 740,10 875,67 1001,07 1240,58 1464,33  6449,09 
(1) Includes "Emergency measures in the event of mass influxes of refugees" for € 69,9 million for 2007-2013. 2007 figures refe r to ERF II. (2) Covered by the VIS budget line 
 
EN 65   EN Financial programmes  
(1) General Programme "Solidarity and management of migration flows" 
The main instrument in support of home af fairs activities is the General Programme 
"Solidarity and management of migration flow s" which comprises four Funds, each with its 
own legal basis: the European Fund for the Integration of Third Country Nationals, the 
European Refugee Fund (III), the External Bo rders Fund and the European Return Fund. The 
table below provides an overview of the amount s allocated to each Fund and the types of 
actions that can be supported by the Funds. Afte r a brief explanation of the implementation 
arrangements common to the four Funds, each Fund is subsequently described in more detail 
below. 
Solidarity and migration Flows Total m € Type of actions funded 
External Borders Fund 1,819.6 Infrastructure and equipment for EU external borders and 
visa policy, national components of SIS/VIS 
European Return Fund 681 Voluntary & forced return, including joint return 
operations, cooperation between return agencies 
European Refugee Fund (III) 701.63 Capacity building (asylum procedures, reception 
infrastructure), integration of refugees, resettlement, emergency measures 
European Fund for the Integration of Third-country Nationals 830 Provision of integration measures such as language courses, 
courses of civic orientation, pre-departure measures in third 
countries 
Total 4,032.23  
Implementation under the shared management mode 
The four Funds are implemented mainly (93 to 96%) under the shared  management mode. 
Through annual programmes from Member States , the EU budget seeks to support structured 
intervention (capacity building) in Member States , as well as activities specific to the national 
or local circumstances in the po licy area concerned pursuant to the scope set out in the basic 
acts. Although the Member States are in charge  of the management of the Funds and select 
the actions that will receive financial support,  the Commission bears ultimate responsibility 
for the overall legal framework and fo r the implementation of the budget.  
In accordance with the requirements set out in th e basic acts, the Member States designate a 
Responsible Authority, responsible for the ma nagement of the multiannual programme and 
annual programmes supported by the Funds, an Aud it Authority, responsible for verifying the 
effective functioning of the management and c ontrol system and a Certifying Authority in 
charge of certifying the declarat ions of expenditure before th ey are sent to the Commission. 
Annual programmes within a multi-annual framework 
In terms of programming, the General Programme currently combines a common multiannual 
framework in line with broadly defined political priorities set in EU strategic guidelines with 
annual programmes. Each year, the Member Stat es submit a draft annua l programme which is 
subsequently approved by the Commission. With four Funds, there are therefore around 100 
 
EN 66   EN annual programmes to manage on a yearly basis (approval and amendment of programmes, 
monitoring, progress reports, pr e-financings and closure).  
The closure of the first annual programmes under  the current financial framework started at 
the end of 2010 with the receipt of the first fina l reports from the Member States. So far, this 
concerns the two Funds which started in 2007 (EBF  and EIF). However, in the first quarter of 
2011 the start of the closure of the 2008 annual programmes will concern a ll four Funds. With 
the closure of the first annual programmes, the implementation of the four Funds has reached 
"cruising speed". 
Annual distribution of allocations 
For each Fund the annual distribution of the available EU financial resources among the 
Member States is based on specific and objective  criteria which reflect the situation of the 
Member State with regard to th e obligations undertaken  on behalf of or for the overall benefit 
of the Union in the policy area concerned: e.g. th e size of the external borders to be protected 
and the number of persons crossing them; th e number of legally staying third-country 
nationals to be integrated into society; the num ber of return decisions to be implemented. The 
definition of the criteria is the most concrete expression of the principle of solidarity in the 
sense that those Member States most affect ed by the management of migration flows are 
meant to benefit the most from EU funding. Moreover, because the criteria reflect  the 
evolution in migratory trends in previous years; it is based on retro-active solidarity. 
The criteria and the procedure to apply these criteria are laid down in detail in the basic acts 
of the Funds. Each year, the Commission dr aws upon both EU statistics from EUROSTAT 
and ad hoc data supplied by Member States to perform the calculations. Once the calculations 
are communicated to the Memb er States in the year N-147, the EU contribution to the annual 
programme is known to the Member States and they can start drafting their annual programmes for the year N. These are indicativ e amounts ("provisional al locations") that are 
subsequently confirmed or modified once the Budgetary Authority ha s adopted the EU budget 
in the year N-1. The Commission takes a deci sion establishing the final allocations. 
Financial control 
Three authorities are in charge of assuring soun d financial management of the funds allocated 
to the Member State. The firs t level of control is represen ted by the Responsible Authority, 
which performs management verification thr oughout the implementation period of actions. 
The next level of control is represented by the Audit Authority, which has the responsibility to 
perform audits of the management and control systems and audits of operations. The Audit 
Authority reports the results of its checks to th e Commission in its audit report as part of the 
annual closure of programmes, including an a nnual audit opinion on the functioning of the 
systems. Finally, the Certifying Au thority takes steps to satisfy itself that adequate controls 
have been carried out by the Responsible Authority  and that the results of the controls of the 
checks performed by the Audit Authority were duly taken into account. If considered necessary, the Certifying Authority can also carry out its own checks. 
                                                
 
47 The allocations are indicative as the total Fund's ap propriations are subject to the approval of the final 
budget of the European Union by its budgetary authority by the end of  the year. Furthermore, they are 
also provisional as subject to formal approval by the Commission. 
 
EN 67   EN The Commission monitors the operational and fina ncial implementation of  the Funds closely, 
inter alia  by carrying out monitoring visits and maintaining in regular contact with the 
Responsible Authorities. These checks are co mplemented by a second layer of checks 
consisting of desk reviews of the manageme nt and control systems, compliance audit 
missions, reviews of the Member States' a udit strategies and annual audit reports.  
Implementation under the centralis ed direct management mode 
A small part of the four Funds (between 4 and 5% of the annual allocation) is implemented by 
the Commission under the centralised direct management mode (so called "Community 
Actions"). This includes, for the External Bo rders Fund, the "Specific actions" (€10 million 
annually) which seek to address weaknesses at specific border sections in the EU. 
(a) External Borders Fund 
The External Borders Fund48 was established for the period 2007-2013, as part of the General 
Programme Solidarity and Manage ment of Migration Flows, w ith a total envelope of €1,820 
million. This amount is supplemented by the c ontributions from the Associated States, 
Norway, Iceland, Switzerland and Lichtenste in, participating in the Fund as of 2010. 
The general objective  of the Fund is to help Schengen States comply with one of the key 
obligations under the Schengen acquis, namely to  ensure efficient, high level and uniform 
controls at the external borders. In addition, it  contributes to the de velopment of the common 
visa policy while tackling irregul ar immigration on one hand, and facilitating legitimate travel 
to the Member States, on the other hand. Since all Schengen participating Member States 
benefit from the principle of free movement of persons, every Member State in the Schengen 
area has an interest in the eff ectiveness with which others control the external borders for 
which they are responsible. Cons equently, a high level control of the external borders is the 
necessary corollary to the free move ment of persons within the EU. 
The External Borders Fund entered into force in the new geopolitical context  which arose in 
the aftermath of the enlargement of the Europe an Union in 2004 and with  the decision to lift 
the internal borders and exte nd the Schengen area with 9 Me mber States in December 2007, 
which left only a few Member States with a physic al external border to guard on behalf of the 
other Schengen States. The External Borders Fu nd addresses the issues arising from this new 
context and puts in place a mechanism for shar ing responsibility for border management 
among all participating Member States in a ccordance with the principle of solidarity. 
Accordingly, the Fund contributes to achieving the key EU policy objectives  in the area of 
border management and visa:  
• Achievement of efficient, high level and uni form controls at the external borders 
through reinforcement of the  integrated border management system ;  
• Support for the development, prepara tion, implementation, management and 
coordination of  large-scale IT systems , needed for effective border checks, 
migration control and visa procedures,  notably the second generation Schengen 
Information System (SIS II) and the Visa Information System (VIS), including their 
biometric aspects; 
                                                 
48 Decision No 574/2007/EC, OJ L144, 6.6.2007, p.22 
 
EN 68   EN • Further development of the common visa policy , to facilitate legitimate travel, tackle 
illegal immigration, fight against visa fr aud and improve local consular cooperation. 
In the period 2007-2009, 23 Member States pa rticipated in the Fund. The United Kingdom 
and Ireland do not participate in  the Fund. In accordance with its Protocol, Denmark opted in 
the Fund. In the period 2007-2009, Bulgaria a nd Romania, on the basis of the Act of 
Accession to the EU, benefited from the Schenge n Facility II (Schenge n part of the Cash 
Flow and Schengen Facility), in preparation of  these countries' joining the area without 
internal borders. The nature of  expenditure under this Facil ity principally coincided with 
eligible expenditure under the Fund. Hence, Bulg aria and Romania began to participate in the 
Fund only after its expiry, i.e. as of 2010. Also, three Associated States, Norway, Iceland and 
Switzerland, take part in  the Fund as of 2010 only. 
Actions implemented by Member States are co-financed by the Fund within the five 
priorities  laid down in these EU guidelines49: (1) the gradual establishment of the common 
integrated border management system (infra structure and equipment, border control); (2) 
national components of a European Surveillan ce system for the external borders and a 
permanent European Patrol network at the Southern maritime borders; (3) the issuing of visas and the tackling of illegal immigration (consula r offices and consular cooperation); (4) IT 
systems required for the implementation of EU legal instruments (SIS II, VIS) and (5) the 
effective and efficient application of EU acq uis on external borders and visas (Schengen 
Code, Visa Code, training, risk  analysis, core curriculum). 
The Fund's contribution to projects in Member St ates is set at 50% of the total costs of an 
action and at 75% for Member States covered by the Cohesion Fund and for actions reflecting 
specific priorities mentioned in the strategic guidelines. 
As part of the programmes for Lithuania, su pport is provided to the implementation by 
Lithuania of the Special Transit Scheme (STS)  for Russian Federation citizens travelling on 
EU territory to and from the Kaliningrad regi on. The STS provides support to compensate for 
foregone fees from transit fees and additional cost involved in implementing the scheme in 
accordance with Protocols of the Act of Accession into the EU a nd the specific priorities in 
the basic act. In the period 2007-2010, each year €15 million was made available. In the period 2011-2013, €16 million is available each year . The Fund is the successor instrument to 
the Special Kaliningrad Transit Programme ( 2004-2006), which endowed Lithuania with €40 
million to implement the scheme.  
Besides the contribution to the national progr ammes, up to 6% of the Fund's available 
resources may be reserved for Community Actions (CA),  essentially to support visa policy 
and emergency situations at external borders. The projects are carrie d out in the direct 
management method and the Fund's contribution may amount to 80% of the total eligible 
costs of an action.  
In addition, up to €10 million each year is available under the Specific Actions (SA)  
addressing weaknesses at stra tegic border crossing points. The Fund's contribution may 
amount to 90% of the total eligib le costs of an action. The meas ures are meant to complement 
the activities carried out unde r the national annual program mes. Whereas the programmes 
allow for more strategic interventions, the specif ic actions are reserved for needs arising at 
                                                
 
49 OJ L233, 5.09.2007, p.3 
 
EN 69   EN specific border sections of partic ular interest to the EU and projects are implemented within a 
period of maximum 6 months.  
(b) European Return Fund 
The European Return Fund was established for the period 2008-2013, as part of the General 
Programme Solidarity and Manage ment of Migration Flows, with a total envelope of €676 
million. The objective  of the Fund is to support the efforts made by Member States to 
improve the management of return in all its dimensions ("integrated return management"), 
including through cooperation between Member Stat es for the purpose of economies of scale.  
The target groups  under the Fund include third-country nationals having received a negative 
decision in asylum or immigra tion procedures and irregular migrants apprehended at the 
border or in the territory of Member States. To  enhance efficiency in return management at 
national level, the Fund also covers the vol untary return of those who are not under an 
obligation to leave the territory, such as applic ants for asylum who have not yet received a 
negative decision or beneficiarie s of international protection. Here the Fund has taken over a 
category of action which was supported by the European Refugee Fund till 200750.  
The Fund also aims to support the corre ct and harmonised application of the EU acquis on 
return,  in particular the Directive 2008/115 on co mmon standards and procedures in Member 
States for returning illegally staying thir d-country nationals (" Return directive")51.  
The Fund is mainly implemented by the Member States, in the shared management method. 
Through annual programmes from Member States , the EU budget seeks to support in Member 
States a structured intervention (capacity bui lding), as well as activities specific to the 
national or local circumstances in  the field of return. These acti ons are co-financed within an 
EU strategic framework of four priorities on return52. The priorities  are (1) the development 
of a strategic approach ; (2) co-operation between Member St ates; (3) specific innovative tools 
and (4) EU standards and best pr actices. Member States have to implement at least three out 
of four priorities but many Member States ha ve chosen to implemen t all four of them.  
The resources are distributed among 26 Member States as, in accordance with its Protocol, 
Denmark is not participating in the Fund. The Fund's contribution to projects in Member 
States is set at 50% of the total costs of an  action and at 75% for Member States covered by 
the Cohesion Fund and for actions reflecting sp ecific priorities mentioned in the strategic 
guidelines.  
Besides the programmes, annually up to 7% of the EU available resources can be 
implemented directly by the Commission for tran snational projects, stud ies or other types of 
action of EU interest through the " Community actions " concerning return policy and 
measures applicable to  the target groups.  
For the budgetary years 2005-2007  there were preparatory act ions under the EU budget, 
namely the "Return Preparatory Actions" 2005-2 006 and, the "Preparatory  Action – Migration 
Management, Solidarity in Action 2007 – retu rn and reintegration of returnees". The 
                                                 
50 See inter alia the final evaluation of the European Refugee Fund for the period 2005-2007, 
COM(2011)2 final  
51 OJ L348, 24.12.2008, p.98 
52 OJ L330, 15.12.2007, p.48 
 
EN 70   EN instruments created first-hand pract ical experience with transna tional projects and thus helped 
Member States prepare for the launch of the Return Fund in 200853.  
(c) European Refugee Fund 
The European Refugee Fund54 was established for the period 2008-2013, as part of the 
General Programme Solidarity and Management of  Migration Flows, with an indicative total 
envelope of €614 million. 
The general  objective of the Fund is to support and enc ourage the efforts made by Member 
States in receiving, and bearing the conseque nces of receiving, re fugees and displaced 
persons, taking account of EU le gislation on those matters by  co-financing the actions. The 
Fund contributes to achieving the key EU policy objectives  in the area of asylum: 
• To put in place a common policy on asylum  as set out in Article 78 TFEU, in line 
with the renewed commitments contained in  the European Pact on Immigration and 
Asylum, in the Stockholm Programme and its Action Plan and in the Europe 2020 
strategy. 
• To contribute to the completion of  the Common European Asylum System  by 
adopting higher common standards of inte rnational protection, supporting practical 
cooperation and increasing solidarity within  the EU and between the EU and third 
countries affected by refugee flows 
The target groups  under the Fund include refugees (Gen eva Convention), pe rsons enjoying a 
form of subsidiary protection within the m eaning of Directive 2004/83/EC, asylum seekers 
and persons enjoying temporary protection with in the meaning of Directive 2001/55/EC.The 
Fund is mainly implemented by the Member St ates, in the shared management method.  
Through annual programmes submitted by the Member  States, the actions are co-financed in 
compliance with Strategic Guidelines of the Commission55, which provide for three 
priorities : (1) implementation of the principles and measures set out in the Community 
acquis  in the field of asylum, in cluding those related to integr ation objectives;(2)development 
of reference tools and evaluation methodologi es to assess and improve the quality of 
procedures and to underpin administrative stru ctures by enhanced practical cooperation with 
other Member; (3) actions helping to enhance responsibility sharing be tween Member States 
and third-countries (transfer and resettlement of refugees. 
The Fund also provides additional financial in centive of €4,000 to Member States for each 
resettled refugee according to specific categ ories (vulnerable groups and persons from 
countries and regions designated for the implem entation of a Regional Protection Programme) 
on the basis of a pledging exercise. 
The resources are distributed among 26 Member States as, in accordance with its Protocol, 
Denmark does not participate in the Fund.  
                                                 
53 The evaluation of the preparatory actions is available at http://ec.europa.eu/home-
affairs/funding/2004_2007/solid arity/funding_solidarity_en.htm  
54 Decision No 573/2007/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, OJ L144, 6.6.2007, p.1. 
55 Commission Decision 2007/815/EC, OJ L326, 12.12.2007, p. 29. 
 
EN 71   EN The Fund also includes an annual reserve of €9.8 million to support emergency measures  in 
Member States facing situations of particular  migratory pressure, ch aracterised by the sudden 
arrival at particular points on the borders of a large number of third-country nationals who 
may be in need of international protection. 
Besides the national programmes, up to 4% of the EU availabl e resources can be implemented 
directly by the Commission on an annual basis fo r transnational projec ts, studies or other 
types of action of EU intere st through the so-called " Community actions ".  
(d) European Fund for the Integration of Third-Country Nationals 
The European Fund for the Integration of third-country nationals56 was established for the 
period 2007-2013, as part of the General Pr ogramme Solidarity and Management of 
Migration Flows, with an indica tive total envelope of €825 million.  
The general  objective of the Fund is to support the effort s made by the Member States in 
enabling third-country nationals of different economic, social, cultural,  religious, linguistic 
and ethnic backgrounds to fulfil th e conditions of residence and to  facilitate their integration 
into the European societies. The Fund focuses primarily on actions relating to the integration 
of newly arrived third-country nationals. In order to further this ob jective, the Fund 
contributes to the development and implementati on of national integration strategies for third-
country nationals in all aspects of society, in particular taking into account the principle that 
integration is a two-way dynamic process of mutual accommodation by all immigrants and 
residents of Member States.  
The Fund’s scope encompasses legally residing  third-country nationals,  i.e. any person who is 
not a citizen of the Union within the meani ng of Article 17(1) of the Treaty, but does not 
include the European Ref ugee Fund’s target group. 
The Fund contributes to the following specific objectives : 
• Facilitation of the developmen t and implementation of admi ssion procedures relevant 
to and supportive of the integration process of third-country nationals; 
• Development and implementation of the inte gration process of newly-arrived third-
country nationals in Member States; 
• Increasing of the capacity of Member St ates to develop, implement, monitor and 
evaluate policies and measures for the integration of third-country nationals; 
• Exchange of information, best practices  and cooperation in and between Member 
States in developing, implementing, monito ring and evaluating policies and measures 
for the integration of third-country nationals. 
The Fund is mainly implemented by the Member States, in the shared management method.  
Through annual programmes submitted by the Memb er States, the EU budget seeks to support 
in Member States activities in th e field of integration of third- country nationals specific to the 
national or local circumstances, as well as capacity building in public a nd private services 
dealing with third-country nationals. The actions are co-financed in compliance with 
                                                 
56 Decision 2007/435/EC, OJ L168, 28.6.2007, p.18 
 
EN 72   EN Strategic Guidelines of the Commission57, which provide for four Priorities : 
(1) Implementation of ac tions designed to put the 'Commo n Basic Principles for immigrant 
integration policy in the European Union' into  practice; (2) Development of indicators and 
evaluation methodologies to assess progress, adjust polic ies and measures and to facilitate co-
ordination of comparative learning; (3) Po licy capacity buildi ng, co-ordination and 
intercultural competence building in the Memb er States across the different levels and 
departments of government and (4) Exchange of  experience, good practic e and information on 
integration between the Member States. Member St ates have to implement at least three of the 
aforementioned priorities, among which priori ties 1 and 2 are mandatory, but many Member 
States have chosen to implement all four of them. 
In addition, the Strategic Guidelines set out five Specific Priorities , applicable under any of 
the aforementioned Priorities. Any project im plementing one or several of the Specific 
Priorities may receive an in creased EU funding rate. The Specific Priorities are: (1) 
Participation as a means of promoting the inte gration of third-country  nationals in society 
(Actions involving the participation of thir d-country nationals in the formulation and 
implementation of integration po licies and measures); (2) Specif ic target groups (e.g. women, 
youth and children, the elderly, illiterate person s and persons with disa bilities); (3) Innovative 
introduction programmes and activities (e.g. part- time courses, fast-track modules, distance or 
e-learning systems); (4) Interc ultural dialogue and (5) Involveme nt of the host society in the 
integration process (e.g. awareness raising). 
Besides the national programmes, annually up to 7% of the EU available resources can be 
implemented directly by the Commission for tran snational projects, stud ies or other types of 
action of EU interest through the " Community actions ".  
For the budget years 2003-2006, there were prepar atory actions under the EU budget, namely 
the ‘INTI Preparatory actions promoting the in tegration of third-country nationals’. This 
instrument created first hand practical experience  with transnational projects and thus helped 
organisations of various types in Member St ates prepare for the launch of the Fund in 200758.  
It should be noted that the EIF does not su pport integration measur es on access to and 
integration into the labour market which are funded under the European Social Fund. Instead, 
the EIF complements such actions by financing measures such as reception and introductory 
schemes, participation in social  and civic life, equal access to services, etc. Similarly, whereas 
the ERDF can support a large range of integration measures  in the context of regional 
development, the objectives which guide the ch oice of actions funded in each region are very 
different from those of the EIF (contribution to regional de velopment in the context of 
convergence, regional competitiveness and employment, and European territorial 
cooperation).  
(2) General Programme "Security and Safeguarding Liberties 
In the area of internal security, the Ge neral Programme on "Sec urity and Safeguarding 
Liberties" is the main instrument for funding. It  is administered under the centralised direct 
management mode and consists of two smalle r Specific Programmes: ISEC (Prevention of 
                                                 
57 Commission Decision C(2007) 3926 final of 21.8.2007 
58 The evaluation of the INTI preparatory actio ns is available at http://ec.europa.eu/home-
affairs/funding/integration/funding_integration_en.htm. 
 
EN 73   EN and the fight against Crime) and CIPS (P revention, Preparedness and consequence 
management of Terrorism and ot her Security-related risks).  
Security and Safeguarding 
Liberties Total m € Type of actions funded 
Prevention, preparedness & 
consequence management of terrorism 142,17 Critical infrastructure protection, reducing CBRN threats: 
risk assessment, development of security standards 
Prevention of and fight against crime 607,36 Development of horizontal ap proaches, cooperation between 
law enforcement authorities, development & exchange of best practice 
Total 749,53  
The Programmes are implemented through Annual Work Programmes which set thematic 
and/or sector priorities and are administered  directly by the Commission through calls for 
proposals and the conclusion of grant agreements with final beneficiarie s. Funding is provided 
primarily for action grants following open calls  for proposals although some action grants are 
also through restricted  calls for proposals reserved for p ublic sector entities with which 
"framework partnership agreements" are conclu ded. Beneficiaries are mostly law enforcement 
and customs authorities, justice and home affa irs ministries and agencies, and to a lesser 
extent non-governmental organisations, academia  and profit-making organisations active in 
the field of internal security. The ISEC pr ogramme provides operating grants to support non-
governmental organisations with a European  dimension and both Pr ogrammes support public 
procurement contracts, for example for studi es to inform policy making. Funding is also 
provided to the Joint Research Centre (JRC) via administrative arrangements. 
In the period from 2007 to 2009, the Genera l Programme on "Security and Safeguarding 
Liberties" cumulatively supporte d 400 projects and financed some 150 procurement contracts 
(accounting for about 10% of funds), worth a to tal of €167 million. These actions complement 
the actions financed by other EU instruments in  the area of security research, IT systems, 
transport security etc. 
Nature of Activities 
Given the broad areas covered, the Programmes pr ovide support for a wide  range of activities, 
from training to the purchase of equipment, a nd from the preparation of  technical publications 
to assistance to cross border police operations  (including the Joint Investigation Teams). In 
the case of ISEC, projects tend to concentrate in five main areas, namely (i) tools and infrastructure, which is the main output fo r 22% of the projects,  (ii) support to law 
enforcement operations (18%), (iii) training prog rammes (17%), (iv) publications (17%), and 
(v) conferences (14%). For CIPS, (i) 23% of projects have an operational cooperation and 
coordination component, (ii)15% are focused on  the development and creation of networks, 
(iii) 49% of projects are involved in technol ogy and methodology transfer and (iv) another 
44% deal with analytical activities. 
Objectives and priorities 
For ISEC, the legal basis identifies four obj ectives, of which two refer to operational 
approaches (the development of horizontal me thods of crime prevention and the development 
of cooperation among law enforcement agencies a nd other bodies) and two relate to specific 
 
EN 74   EN groups of beneficiaries (the development of be st practices for the protection and support of 
witnesses and crime victims). Many projects targ et more than one objective, with the vast 
majority focusing on horizontal methods of cr ime prevention (targeted by 79% of projects) 
and/or on cooperation between law enforcement agencies and other bodies (74%). Protection 
of victims of crime and protection of witnesses tend to attract much less attention, being the focus of, respectively, 14% and 3% of projects.  
For CIPS, reference is made to seven objectiv es, subsumed under two broad categories, i.e. 
the prevention and preparedness of risks and consequence manage ment. Three quarters of the 
projects are linked to both broa d objectives. Overall, prevention and preparedness is targeted 
by 92% of the projects, while consequence management is an objective pursued by 63%. 
Both Programmes present a high level of trans- nationality. Trans-nationa l projects account for 
80% of the projects in ISEC and 64% in CI PS. The transnational orientation of the 
Programmes is generally highly appreciated by stakeholders, who emphasize the importance 
of having the opportunity to test new cooperati on agreements or, in many cases, to build on 
pre-existing longstanding co-ope ration. In fact, survey results  reveal that some 90% of 
beneficiaries envisage a conti nuation of trans-national cooperation in the future, irrespective 
of any further participation in the Programmes. This is positive in that it points to, on one 
hand, the operational impact of the Programmes in the Member States and, on the other hand, 
their contribution towards the establishment of a trans-national approach. 
Geographic coverage 
In general, the geographic distri bution of projects is fairly skewed, with a relatively small 
number of countries playing a leading role. In  the case of ISEC, four  countries (Germany, 
Italy, Netherlands and UK) account for about 48% of all the proj ects and for 51% of project 
value. The degree of concentrati on is even greater in the case of  CIPS, with just two countries 
(Italy and Spain) accounting for 48% of projects a nd for 60% of projects value. The nature of 
proposals submitted and approved is one factor  contributing to explain the geographical 
distribution of ISEC/CIPS initiativ es, especially in terms of value. For instance, in the case of 
ISEC, actions related to the im plementation of the Prüm Treaty (which sometimes involve the 
purchase of equipment), the provision of support to Joint Investigatio n Teams (JIT) or the 
establishment of complex networks (e.g. FIU.N ET) tend to request higher grant amounts. In 
the case of CIPS, the size of projects is most ly correlated with the nature of beneficiary 
organizations, i.e. larger projects tend to be  proposed by commercial en tities and/or research 
institutes, while projects promoted by pub lic entities are comparatively smaller. 
European Migration Network
 
The European Migration Network (EMN) consists inter alia  of national contact points in each 
Member State financed from the EU B udget (2007-2013: €49.3 million). Its mission is to 
provide up-to-date, objective, re liable and comparable inform ation on asylum and migration 
to support policymakers, and to provide this  information also to the wider public.  
The external dimensio n of home affairs  
The geographic and thematic external instrume nts which support the external dimension of 
home affairs policies under budget heading 4 "EU as global player" are programmed and 
 
EN 75   EN managed under the centralised direct management mode59. Although funding for third 
countries in home affairs policy areas is increasingly being channelled through geographic 
programmes, the Thematic Programme "Cooperat ion with Third Countries in the Area of 
Migration and Asylum" under the Development Cooperation Instrument (DCI) remains the 
main instrument in support of the external di mension of migration and asylum policies. This 
programme is relatively sma ll, with an average annual budget of €55 million (period 2007-
2013: €384 million).  
Although the Programme's objectives encomp ass the different facets of migration 
management policy, it is increasingly seen as a development oriented instrument because it has its legal basis in the Deve lopment Co-operation Instrument. As such, these funds make a 
very limited contribution to home affairs polic y priorities because they do not provide any 
leverage in areas such as readmission and return negotiations, where the Commission is 
nonetheless expected to deliver. Of  special interest is also the Instrument for Stability, which 
supports actions in third count ries in policy areas  such as crisis management, counter-
terrorism, the fight against organi sed crime and police cooperation.  
Home affairs agencies
 
Various regulatory agencies have been create d in the home affairs area: the European Police 
College (CEPOL), the European Police Office (EUROPOL), the European Agency for the 
Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders (FRONTEX), the European 
Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addic tions (EMCDDA) and the European Asylum 
Support Office (EASO) and the future IT Agenc y, whose legal basis is currently negotiated). 
These agencies represent approximately 18 % of the home affairs budget and play an 
important role in fostering practical cooperation between the Member States. 
Home affairs agencies Total m € Type of actions funded 
FRONTEX  501,75 Coordination of external borders (including joint 
operations) 
European Asylum Support Office (EASO) 40,25 Transnational cooperation on asylum, common portal on 
Country of Origin information, support Member States under particular pressure 
Europol 332,19 Support and strengthen actions of competent public 
authorities in MS in their fight against organised crime and terrorism 
European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) 102,37 Provide reliable information at EU level on drugs, drug 
addition and its consequences; collect, register and analyse information on emerging trends; facilitate exchange of best practices 
European Police College 57,74 Training for police officers 
IT-Agency  99,35 Operational management of SIS, VIS and Eurodac 
Total 1 133,65  
                                                 
59 Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance; the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument; 
European Development Fund; Development Coope ration Instrument; Instrument for Stability. 
 
EN 76   EN Large-scale IT systems   
Large-scale IT systems account for a reasona bly large share of the Home Affairs budget 
(approximately 7%). Although these system s are currently being managed by the 
Commission, their management will be gradually transferred to the future IT-Agency which 
will begin operations in 2012. The IT-Agency w ill also be responsible for developing and 
managing future IT systems such as the Entr y/Exit System and the Registered Traveller 
Programme. 
Large-scale IT systems Total m € Type of actions funded 
Schengen Information system (SIS) 150,9 Development SIS (EU component) 
Visa Information system (VIS) 278,23 Development VIS (EU component) 
Eurodac IT system 15,5 Implementation of Dublin II Regulation 
Total 444,63  
 
EN 77   EN ANNEX 4 – SUMMARY ASSESSMENT OF THE HOME AFFAIRS PROGRAMMES 2007-2013 
Home affairs programmes  
(1) General Programme "Security and Safeguarding Liberties" 
In the area of internal securi ty, the mid-term evaluation of the General Programme Security 
and Safeguarding Liberties60 provides information on the implementation of the two Specific 
Programmes (ISEC and CIPS) and identifies areas for improvement. First conclusions show 
that the Specific Programmes ach ieve their objectives and shoul d be continued. The mid-term 
evaluation also identifies areas for improvement . In particular, the Programmes are considered 
to cover too wide a range of activities and should be used more strategically by focussing 
more on political priorities as list ed e.g. in the Internal Security  Strategy. At the same time, 
important policy aspects such as the growingl y important external dimension of the EU's 
internal security policy and emergency and crisis  situations are not covered. In addition, more 
efforts should be made to streamline procedur es (better timing of calls for proposals, 
amending the budget review exercise to increase efficiency, discontinuing the use of operating 
grants (ISEC), implementing a project m onitoring system, enhancing the framework 
partnership concept) and stepping -up simplification efforts (use of  flat-rates, lump sums etc) 
in order to reduce administrative burden. 
(2) General Programme "Solidarity and management of migration flows" 
Due to the timing imposed by the legal base s of the Funds under the General Programme 
"Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows" , the results of the mid-term evaluations of 
the European Fund for the Integration of thir d-country nationals, the External Borders Fund 
and the Return Fund are not yet available. Howe ver, the national evalua tion reports from the 
Member States on the implementation of actions  co-financed by these Funds are available and 
serve as basis for formulating preliminary c onclusions on the qualita tive and quantitative 
aspects of the management and implementation of  these three Funds. No mid-term evaluation 
was required for the European Refugee Fund (2008-2013) because the ex-post evaluation of 
the implementation of the F und during the previous progr amming period (2005-2007) was on-
going and has meanwhile become available. 
(a) European Refugee Fund II 
The ex-post evaluation of the European Refugee Fund II (2005-2007) demonstr ates that that it 
directly benefitted more than 350,000 persons (asy lum seekers, refugees and persons enjoying 
other forms or protection)61. In addition, more than 6,500 persons belonging to the project 
implementing organisations received support from th e Fund, in particular fo r training or as a 
result of additional recruitment. It was instru mental in driving improvements in asylum and 
subsidiary protection in EU Member States and in particular in supporti ng the Member States 
that joined the EU since 2004 to quickly and effectively upgrade asyl um seekers’ reception 
conditions and the asylum procedure to EU sta ndards; this was a majo r contribution to their 
compliance with the EU acquis of the Common European Asylum System. Of particular 
                                                 
60 COM(2011)318 final of 16 June 2011: Communication on the mid-term evaluation of the Framework 
Programme "Security and Safeguarding Liberties" (2007-2013) 
61 COM(2011)2 final of 14 January 2011: Communicati on on the results achieved and on qualitative and 
quantitative aspects of implementation of the Euro pean Refugee Fund for the period 2005-2007. 
 
EN 78   EN importance in this context was the emphasis put on vulnerable groups which account for an 
increasing proportion of asylum seekers. In th e other Member States, the Fund supplemented 
national resources to support operations with genuine a dded-value, often innovative 
operations, to improve the reception conditions of asylum seekers and the integration of 
refugees over and above the minimal cond itions. From 2005 to 2007, actions regarding 
voluntary return of asylum seekers, refugees a nd beneficiaries of intern ational protection were 
also supported through ERF II, wi th 26,200 persons return ed to their country  of origin under 
these schemes. The Fund’s assessment is therefore positive in all Member States. Overall, these achievements can be considered remarkab le given the ERF’s relatively limited resources 
(some €50 million per annum for the 2005-2007 programming period). 
(b) European Fund for the Integration of Third-Country Nationals 
In the 2007-2009 period the EIF supported about  1,950 projects, with  an average EU 
contribution of € 76,000. As a rule, the projec ts were selected following open calls for 
proposals and beneficiaries belong to all orga nisation types (non-govern mental organisations, 
local authorities, state bodies, et c). In line with the EIF's prio rity, implementation focussed on 
the integration process of newl y arrived third-country nationa ls (70% of all projects), 
implementing the ‘Common Basic Principles fo r Immigrant Integration Policy in the EU’, 
with a wide range of operations, the most repres ented being participation is civic and social 
life, practical information and civi c orientation, and language training. 
Feedback from the Member States in the context of the mid-term review of the EIF indicates 
that it provides a rather flexible framework for supporting the efforts made by Member States 
to implement their integration strategies. In all but two Member States it is perceived as 
having a genuine added value that could not have been obtained through national 
programmes, policies, budgets and other EU financial instruments in the area of integration. 
The EIF enabled several Member States to set up, for the first time, a comprehensive policy 
framework for the integration of third-coun try nationals encompassing all of the Common 
Basic Principles. In more experienced Member St ates, the EIF was targeted in particular at 
specific or vulnerable groups, wh ich were difficult or even impossible to reach with other 
funding instruments. It brought ab out substantial effects in areas  such as the improvement of 
linguistic skills, promoting meaningful contact  and constructive dialogue between third-
country nationals and the receiving society, a nd addressing he alth problems. Although the EIF 
can co-finance actions in third countries such as pre-travel measures, litt le use has been made 
of this possibility by Member St ates so far because this practice is not widely established in 
the Member States.  
The overall consumption of appropriations by Me mber States for the first years has been 
fairly high (around 82% for 2007 and 83% for 2008). Six Member States reported a budget 
use close to 100 % for the first year and four in 2008. Because the EIF is implemented mainly 
through open calls for proposals, programme implementation for 2007 and 2008 was delayed 
by the late approval of the national programmes near the end of 2008, but most Member 
States have caught up since.  
(c) Return Fund 
Since its creation in 2008, the Return F und (RF) (2008-2013: €676 million) has supported 
both forced and voluntary returns, as well as the development of wider return management 
approaches and a specific focus on vulnerable persons.  
 
EN 79   EN In 2008-2009, the Return Fund supported measures  aimed at capacity building of staff, 
investments in infrastructure and tools, rese arch and identification of best practice and 
networking between Member States and with th ird countries. The most significant budgets 
were allocated to concrete return operations  with a focus on assisted voluntary return, 
addressing the specific situ ation of vulnerable groups as  well as support for specific 
innovative tools for return management such as tailor-made pre-departure counselling and 
reintegration projects with the goal to improve  sustainability of returns. Numerous smaller 
projects are also implemented with the ai m of supporting Community standards and best 
practices.  
On the basis of the reporting for the mid-term review, most Member States gave a (partly) 
positive overall assessment of the results achieved through ac tions co-financed by the Fund. 
In some Member States, the Fund has facilitate d the initiation or deve lopment of previously 
quasi-non-existent po licies in assisted voluntary return  and reintegration aid, and appears 
slowly to lead to a shift from forced return to associated voluntary return. Moreover, other 
Member States were able to offer more or  higher financial incentives and/or support to 
returnees for setting up income-generating activi ties, thus resulting in sustainable returns. 
Besides improvements in assisted voluntary return and reintegration measures, outreach and 
counselling, activities co -financed by the Fund have led to increases in voluntary return in a 
number of Member States wh ile co-operation projects betw een Member States and third 
countries have resulted in more removals by improving work ing arrangements with these 
countries on identification and the issuing of travel documents. Other positive results include increased exchange of information and best pr actices between Member States, improved data 
management, more sophisticated return operation s and more flexibility in the reintegration 
assistance extended to returnees: instead of a lump-sum policy for all returnees, projects now 
also consider offering assistan ce in the form of training, in dividual guidance with business 
plans, purchase of necessary equipment for en terprises, rent and schooling charges etc. 
According reports submitt ed in the course of 2010, the over all consumption of appropriations 
by the Member States for the fi rst years has been fairly high (around 85% for 2008 and 80% 
for 2009). Several main beneficiary Member St ates, such as Spain and the United Kingdom, 
have consistently committed their entire allocation.  
A study was published in March 2011 by the Eur opean Migration Network's on "Programmes 
and Strategies in the EU Member States foster ing Assisted Return to and Reintegration in 
Third Countries"
62. The study maps the different forms of Assisted Return that are in place in 
the EU Member States in order to identify lessons learned, best practices and possible 
synergies to further develop and improve Assisted Return programmes in the EU. Overall, the 
report concludes that Assisted Return is increas ingly seen by Member States as a valid and 
often preferable alternative to Forced Return. As  a result, Member States are taking steps to 
make this a credible and feasible return option, including by meas ures to overcome the 
various obstacles persons who wish to return may face during the different phases of return 
(i.e. pre-return, transportation and post-return). Furthermore, in several Member States, the 
focus has also shifted from organising Assisted Return measures (solely) regarding the pre-
return and transportation phase s, to the post-return phase. 
                                                 
62 Available from http://www.emn.europa.eu  under "EMN studies" 
 
EN 80   EN (d) External Borders Fund 
In the 2007-2009 period Member States put a noticeable emphasis on actions aiming at 
improvement of the border infrastructure and equi pment as well as investments related to the 
implementation of the necessary IT-systems such as VIS and SIS II. According to the 
approved programmes, between 70- 75% is allocated to these tw o priorities, with support for 
visa policy amounting to 15-20%. In terms of results, Member States have flagged the 
following achievements: signifi cant technical improvements in border infrastructure, 
reduction of time needed for passenger ch ecks, possibility of implementing innovative 
projects, strengthening and mode rnisation of the systems of surveillance of the external 
maritime borders, increase in the effectivenes s and mobility of services, increase in the 
capacity and efficiency of the IT systems and improvements in the visa issuing process.  
Most Member States gave a positive overal l assessment of the results achieved through 
actions co-financed by the EBF, classifying th e possibilities under the EBF for projects as 
effective and useful. The Member States obs erved the following positive impacts (among 
others): significant technical improvements in border infrastruc ture, reduction of time needed 
for passenger checks, possibility of implementi ng of innovative projects, strengthening and 
modernisation of the systems of surveillance of the external maritime borders, increase in the 
effectiveness and mobility of services, increase in capacity and efficiency of the IT-systems 
and improvements in the visa issuing process. 
The overall consumption of appropriations by Memb er States for the first years has been high 
(around 90% for 2007 and 2008). The rate for 2009 is  at 70% but reportin g did not cover the 
entire implementation period. Several main be neficiary Member Stat es, such as Spain, 
Lithuania, Malta, have consistently committe d the entire allocation although lower rates have 
been reported for Italy (90%) and Greece (between 60-70%). 
Report on the application of the criteria for allocating to the Member States the 
resources available under the four Funds  
A report on the application of the criteria for allocating to the Member  States the resources 
available under the four Funds has been elaborated  and is expected to be available by autumn 
2011. The report describes the approach, procedur es and tools put in place to carry out the 
annual calculations for the allo cations and the implementation challenges encountered during 
the period 2007-2011. Preliminary conclusions i ndicate that the systems set up for the 
collection of the data on the basis of which f unding is distributed are adequate. However, the 
amount and the complexity of the data to be collected and verified each year imposes a 
significant recurring burden on the Member Stat es and the Commission; there may therefore 
be more cost-effective distribution keys to expres s the principle of solidarity at the heart of the 
Funds.  
European Migration Network  
Whilst the evaluation of the EMN was not completed at the time of this impact assessment, 
one element identified for the EMN's further deve lopment was for it to evolve into a true EU 
advisory council for migration gathering toge ther representatives of Member States, 
academia, civil society, think-tanks a nd other EU/international entities.  
 
EN 81   EN External dimension of home affairs policies  
(1) Thematic Programme for Cooperation wi th Third Countries in the Areas of 
Migration and Asylum 
The mid-term review of the Thematic Programme  for Cooperation with Third Countries in the 
Areas of Migration and Asylum63 carried out in 2009/2010 gave a positive overall assessment 
of the Thematic Programme and highlighted th e high quality of the technical assistance and 
capacity building provided through the projects. Ho wever, the evaluators also noted that the 
Thematic Programme did not manage to effec tively involve governments from third countries 
as active stakeholders and therefore did not succ eed in stimulating broad policy dialogue with 
third countries, which obviously limits considerably its impact. The over-dispersion of the Programme's rather limited resources is also a prob lem that should be tackled in the future if it 
is to become a real strategic tool in EU cooperation with third countries on migration and 
asylum. As a Programme under the Developmen t Cooperation Instrument, the mid-term 
review also recommended to take more in c onsideration migration flows between developing 
countries and to other destinati ons than the EU. It was also re commended to better coordinate 
between the Thematic Programme and the geogra phical instruments, to provide more support 
to local civil society organizations and local  authorities, to strengthen the Programme’s 
mainstreaming of human rights and democratic pr inciples and to ensure that third country 
governments are fully informed at the highest le vel of the projects being implemented in the 
country, so as to increase the Programme's vi sibility and facilitate the political dialogue. 
(2) Regional Protection Programmes (RPP) 
A 2009 external evaluation of pilot Regional Protection Programmes (RPP) concluded that 
the concept of RPP constitutes a first successful step towards establishing a mechanism for an 
increase of the capacity of areas which are clos e to regions of origin, or which are areas of 
transit, to protect refugees through the three durable solutions: repatr iation, local integration 
and /or resettlement and that the RPP pilot proj ects have clearly cont ributed to achieving 
some of the objectives of the RPP Communicati on from 2005. The evaluation also noted that 
the fact that RPP were not funded through a dedicated fundi ng stream but through several 
funding programmes with a more general, broa der outlook, resulted in the diminution of the 
possible achievements of RPP, in particular in terms of visibility a nd understanding of the 
overall RPP concept and RPP awareness in th e beneficiary countries. It recommends an 
earlier involvement of third country authoritie s, a higher degree of involvement of Member 
States and the integration in a more comprehe nsive way of a resettlement component in RPP 
by developing a participatory a pproach involving both Member  States and third country 
authorities. The evaluation also recommends that the selection of RPP regions should 
continue to be based primarily on the assessment of the particular refugee situation in third 
countries, in particular the needs analyses und ertaken by UNHCR, and that adequate funding 
be allocated to ensure that a truly regional inte rvention can be carried out  and that the regional 
character is ensured, thus enhancing th e effectiveness of the intervention. 
                                                
 
63 Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/what/migration-asylum/index_en.htm   
 
EN 82   EN ANNEX 5 – POLICY CHALLENGES IN THE HOME AFFAIRS AREA  
(1) Asylum 
The Common European Asylum System (CEAS) requires that regardless of where they enter 
the EU, asylum seekers should receive minimum st andards of treatment. In  order to meet this 
obligation, Member States provide reception f acilities and services and process asylum 
applications in line with these standards. Th is also implies identifyi ng key areas for improving 
compliance with EU standards and devel oping capacity-building actions, including 
recruitment and training of staff and support to legislative and administrative transposition 
processes, as well as investment in infrastructure. 
Asylum seeker and refugee flows are driven by military conflicts in third countries and 
political risk factors such as oppressive or au tocratic regimes and human rights abuses. These 
often lead initially to incr eased emigration from the country concerned to neighbouring 
countries, with flows extending to countries fu rther afield over a longe r period. Those seeking 
asylum are also drawn by the relative high econo mic growth, employment , religious tolerance 
and cultural freedom enjoyed in the EU compared to some third countries.  
Dealing with these flows of people seeking asyl um or some form of international protection 
requires substantial resources and capabilities  from Member States. Some Member States 
receive higher numbers of asylum  seekers than the capacity of th eir system to process, support 
(through the provision of reception, h ealth and social services) and protect asylum applicants. 
This is reflected in the difference in numbers  of those seeking asylum or international 
protection relative to the population and wealth  of the Member States. In the decade 1998-
2007 there were each year on average 661 asyl um applications in the EU per million 
population, with very marked vari ations between Member States in the rates of applications 
per million population (from 5,159 in Cyprus to 48 in Romania). These differences can to a 
large extent be explained by the geographical ch aracteristics of the Member States such as 
proximity to third countries (e.g. Greece, Cypr us, Italy, Malta and Spain), the nature and 
number of border crossing points,  but are also linked to the ma turity and standards of the 
asylum systems (some Member States have less  experience than others, and some may adopt 
higher standards than required by the CEAS). 
The number of asylum applications can also fluctuate significantly. For example, in 2007 
applications in Greece were three times the annual average in the preceding decade. 
Moreover, flows of migrants seeking asylum or international protect ion are composed of 
many different groups with different needs and motivations, some of which are particularly 
vulnerable such as unaccompanied minors, wo men, and victims of violence (including 
torture) and of traffick ing in human beings.  
In 2007, asylum-related costs were estimated at €4,160 million in the EU (i.e. on average 
€155 million per Member State). The estimated co sts of dealing with asylum seekers on 
arrival and providing reception facilities during their application and possible returns process 
as a proportion of Gross Domestic Product (G DP) vary markedly between Member States. 
Amongst the countries where data are available,  the proportion is highest in Malta (0.26%) 
 
EN 83   EN and lowest in Slovakia (0.005%)64. Although the number of asyl um seekers received by each 
Member State is the main driver of this variation in costs, the complexity of and fluctuation in migration flows are also factors which increase th e costs of asylum procedures and systems.  
Although there was a marked reduc tion in applications for asylum within the EU from circa 
425,000 in 2001 to circa 250,000 in 2010, this was driven primarily  by a reduction in the 
number of applications motivated by economic factors and more effec tive border controls. 
There is a strong likelihood that the drivers that give rise to  bona fide asylum applications in 
the EU (war, repressive regimes, political inst ability etc.) will continue and even that new 
factors (such as water shortage s and environmental disasters) emerge to contribute to the 
‘push’ factors that in turn lead to the seek ing of asylum. On the other hand, the number of 
those seeking protection in the EU may be reduced through enlarg ement and neighbourhood 
policies, the adoption of EU right s and standards of governance in third countries so that they 
become ‘safe’ and improvement of third countries' systems providing support for asylum seekers and those seeking in ternational protection.  
(2) Legal migration and integration 
A forward-looking and comprehensive EU la bour migration policy can help the EU's 
economy to meet the demographic challenge it is currently facing. The EU 2020 Strategy has 
recognised this need and the fact that better integration of migr ants allows them to take full 
advantage of their potential and can help th e EU reach its objec tive of increasing the 
employment rate of the population aged 20-64 fr om the current 69% to at least 75% by 2020. 
The Stockholm Programme states that integr ation policies should be supported through the 
further development of structures and tools for knowledge exchange and coordination with 
other relevant policy areas, such as em ployment, education and social inclusion. 
According to Eurostat, an estimated 1.8 million third-country nationals immigrated to the EU 
in 2008
65, following a steady increase between 2 000 and 2007. The stock of third-country 
nationals in the EU in 2010 was 20.2 million, i.e. 4% of the total population66. According to 
Eurostat, in 2009 there were 570,000 long-term migran ts (those who have legally resided in a 
Member State for at least five years)67. Apart from those granted refugee or other forms of 
international protection, who account for 15% of  residency permits issued in 2008, there are 
three main groups of legal migrants: first, thos e seeking employment in the EU thereby filling 
labour gaps and addressing skills shortages (economic migrants, 28%); second, those who 
come to the EU to complete education courses and training and research in the EU (student 
and researcher migrants, 15%); and third, those th at relocate with an economic migrant to the 
EU or join them at a later date (non-economic or family migrants, 35%). 
                                                 
64 Directorate-General for Home Affairs (2010): “What system of burden-sharing between Member States 
for the reception of asylum seekers?” 
65 Eurostat. Data are residence permit data in acco rdance with the Migratio n Statistics Regulation. 
Immigration means an action by which a person establishes his or her usual residence in the territory of 
a country for a period that is, or is expected to be, at least twelve months, having previously been 
usually resident in another country. Immigrant means a person undertaking immigration. See also: 
http://epp.eurostat.ec. europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-SF- 11-001/EN/KS-SF- 11-001-EN.PDF   
66 Eurostat. See also: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/I TY_OFFPUB/KS-SF-11 -034/EN/KS-SF-11-
034-EN.PDF  
67 These migrants are also required to  fulfil a set of other conditions, as specified under Council Directive 
2003/109/EC, to qualify for ‘long-term’ resident status 
 
EN 84   EN The integration of these migrants is a key chal lenge for the EU and Member States, ensuring 
that they take active part in their new society and enjoy the sa me benefits, freedoms and rights 
as EU citizens, thus enabling the EU to benefit fully from their skills. Currently, some migrants experience lowe r labour market participation rates,  poorer than average educational 
attainment and reduced social mobility compared  to EU citizens. The lack of integration can 
lead to social difficulties, the cost of whic h is ultimately borne by society as a whole.  
Moreover, there are marked variations in the proportions of third-country nationals in the 
workforces of Member States, ranging from 18 % in Latvia to only 0.1% in Poland (EU 27 
average was 5%). In addition, the need for integration is often more localised as particular 
migrant groups may choose to cluster in a pa rticular neighbourhood, city or region. Such 
concentrations may lead to pressures on housi ng, health, social and education services and 
provoke social tensions which, in  turn, may increase the need fo r integration measures. There 
are also gaps in employment rates between EU nationals and third-coun try nationals. In 2009, 
the average gap across the EU- 27 was 9 percentage points ( 12pp for women) with the gap 
being largest in the Netherlands (23pp) and lowest in Malta (1pp)
68. 
There is also a cost to the EU if, as a result of  the lack of integration or other factors, new 
potential migrants who would have the potential  to make an economic contribution to the EU 
chose not to migrate. This is best expressed in lost economic output or  the costs to society 
from an otherwise increasing dependency rate . For example, the nearly 5 million legally 
resident foreign nationals in Italy (now accounting for about 7%  of the population) play an 
important role in supporting demographics and the economy of th e country, contributing 
11.1% to national gross domestic product69.  
In terms of future developments, the level of legal migration from thir d countries to the EU 
for the purposes of employment post 2014 will depend upon the demand for employment and the supply of EU nationals but overall it is anti cipated that certain categ ories of third-country 
nationals will specifically be encouraged to mi grate (e.g. highly skilled, seasonal workers) and 
that there will be an increase in annual net inflows (net difference in numbers entering and 
exiting the EU) of migrants to the EU for the purpose of remunerated activities to 5.45 million 
in 2014 and 6.99 million in 2020. It is estimated th at the number of third country migrants 
entering the EU for family reunification purpose will be 4.76 million in 2014 and 4.86 million 
in 2020
70 and student migration will is expected to remain relatively stable at around half a 
million in both 2014 and 2020. Overall, based on the aggregation of each type of migration, 
the annual inflow of legal migrants is expe cted to increase to 11 million in 2014 and 12.77 
million in 2020. As a consequence, the effective integration of migrants from outside the EU 
is likely to be increasingly im portant to maintain ing labour productivity and living standards 
in the EU71.  
                                                 
68 Lodovici, M. S. (2010): ‘Making a success of integrating immigrants in the labour market’, Discussion 
Paper 
69 Caritas (2010): Dossier Statistico Immigrazi one Caritas-Migrantes 2010, available at: 
http://www.caritasitaliana. it/materiali/Pubblicazioni/Libri_2010/ dossier_immigrazione2010/scheda_sint
esi.pdf   
70 European Migration Network: Study on Family Reunification (January 2008) 
71 Another report, commissioned by the OECD and published in 2007, suggests that, in the absence of 
immigration and at constant labour force participation rates, the European labour force would shrink to 
201 million in 2025 and to 160 million in 2050. 
 
EN 85   EN (3) Irregular migration and return 
An EU policy on legal migration can be credible only if the EU simultaneously takes effective 
action against irregular immigration.  Irregular migration occurs wh en migrants gain entry into 
the EU illegally, for example by crossing the borders of a Member State via smuggling or 
trafficking, by using false documents or a fraudul ent statement of the purpose of stay. In other 
cases, migrants who entered the EU legally be come irregular migrants by overstaying their 
visa or by violating the conditions of their vi sa, work permit or permit to stay. Similarly, 
asylum seekers who do not leave the EU when having received a (final) negative decision on 
their application for internati onal protection or who abscond th e application process without 
leaving the EU become irregular migrants. Criti cally, due to the free movement of persons in 
the Schengen area, the burden of  dealing with irregular immigr ation does not necessarily fall 
on the country of entry but rath er on the destination Member St ate targeted by the migrant. 
The ‘push’ factors underlying asyl um flows are also the main dr ivers of irregular migration, 
as are the extent to which effec tive controls at borders prevent illegal entry and the fact that it 
is difficult for Member States to detect and e ffectively remove those staying on their territory 
irregularly. On the other hand, st ructural ‘pull’ factors significantly influence the distribution 
of irregular migrants across Member States, such  as historical ties between destination and 
source countries which tend to en courage irregular migrants to prefer specific countries over 
others as destinations, wage differentials and employment oppor tunities which tend to attract 
more irregular migrants and geographic proxim ity between source and de stination countries.  
Estimates of irregular immigration in the EU  27 vary, with estimates of between 4.5 million72 
and 8 million73 irregular migrants living in the EU in 2009 being cited frequently. 
Approximately 500,000 of these are apprehen ded annually, the majority of whom are 
overstayers choosing to remain in a Member State for economic reasons74. Due to their 
geographic situation or attractive economic pr ofile, some Member States face greater 
challenges in the area of irregular migratio n, receiving numbers of  irregular migrants 
disproportionate to their capacity to detect, regularise or return  such migrants. According to 
Eurostat, the estimated number of persons found to  be illegally present is unevenly distributed 
across the EU 27, ranging from around 100 indivi duals per million population in Denmark in 
2009, Latvia and Poland to over 9,000 in Cyprus and Greece. Moreover, the numbers of return orders served annually, on average, sign ificantly exceeded the nu mber of third-country 
nationals actually returned following su ch orders in most Member States. 
As a result of the above, the co sts incurred in meeting the ch allenge of irregular migration 
also vary considerably between Member States , depending on the number and cost of forced 
removals, the degree of development and use of  the assisted voluntary return schemes and 
reintegration packages and the scope of other enforcement meas ures (such as reception and 
detention facilities for irregular migrants).  
Irregular immigration is costly  not only for the ‘target’ Member States which spend 
considerable sums on enforcement measures, including detention, iden tification, return and 
                                                
 
72 European Commission, Directorate General for Communication (2009): ‘Migration in the European 
Union: An opportunity and a challenge’, ‘Europe on the move’ document completed in May 2009 
73 Lodovici, M. S. (2010): ‘Making a success of integrating immigrants in the labour market’, Discussion 
Paper 
74 European Commission, Directorate General for Communication (2009): ‘Migration in the European 
Union: An opportunity and a challenge’, ‘Europe on the move’ document completed in May 2009 
 
EN 86   EN reintegration operations, but also  for the migrants involved. Eu ropol estimates that recent 
migration flows from Iraq into the EU were  exploited by organised crime groups, which 
facilitated irregular immigration fo r fees of €10,000 per individual or more75. Irregular 
immigration provides finance to organised crim inal gangs through activities such as travel 
document misuse or falsification (acquisition of  visas or residence permits on false grounds). 
Moreover, in terms of development of harm onious relations between the host population and 
migrant communities, continued irregular stay ma y give rise to hostility, prejudice and social 
division. This prejudice tends to be reinforced  by the association of irregular immigration 
with criminal activities in general.  
The number of ‘new’ irregular migrants in the EU is  likely to decrease in future years, largely 
as a result of the implementation of policy measur es and practices to prev ent, detect and take 
care of irregular migrants. However, the stock of irregular migrants is unlikely to reduce 
markedly even if there were significant impr ovements in detection and removal rates of 
existing irregular migrants but some reduction can be anticipated. The EU's attractive labour 
market and high living standards are the main fa ctors encouraging irregu lar migration and it is 
very likely that this will remain the case after 201476. Through assisted voluntary return and 
reintegration programmes, readmission agreements , migration partnerships and other forms of 
cooperation with third countries, the EU may seek to reduce the flows of irregular migration 
to end the incidence of irregul ar stay in its territory.  
(4) Management of the EU's external borders 
About 240 million individuals cross the external  land borders and 80 million the external 
maritime borders of the Schengen area, incl uding Cyprus, Bulgaria and Romania (2010 
figures). These Member States registered a bout 364 million passengers arriving by air in the 
same year. The number of visas issued by th e Schengen States in 2010 amounted to nearly 12 
million (including airport-transit, transit and s hort term stay visas). The drivers of cross-
border movements are the same as those linked to migration (legal and i rregular). In addition 
to these drivers, changes to economic activity and disposable incomes in the emerging BRIC 
economies77 and in other developed economies (i.e. Japan, US, Canada) have an impact on 
the number of people passing thr ough European borders for busin ess or recreational purposes.  
The external land border of the EU is nearly 8,000 km long and the maritime border almost 
80,000 km long78. There are 1,802 border crossing points in the EU Member States, of which 
nearly half (810) are along the maritime borders, 667 compri se airports and the remaining 325 
are land border points. The external Schengen land border is 8,826 km long, while the 
maritime Schengen border is nearly 43,000 km l ong and accounts for over half (53%) of the 
EU-27 maritime borders. Integrat ing the management and surveilla nce of borders is therefore 
a complex and costly exercise, but necessary to maintain effective border control. The 
resources required to deploy around 11,500 bor der guards on the external border was 
                                                 
75 Europol (2008): ‘Facilitated irregular migration into the European Union’ 
76 Duvell, F. (COMPAS) Irregular Migration in Northern Europe: Overview and Comparison  
Clandestino Project Conference , London, 27/3/2009 
77 Commonly refers to Brazil, Russia, India and China, and in some cases South Korea and South Africa 
(BRICKS) 
78 UK House of Lords, European Un ion Committee (2008): ‘FRONTEX: th e EU external borders agency 
– report with evidence’, 9th Report of Session 2007-08 
 
EN 87   EN estimated at approximately €400 million in 200879, or around €35,000 per border guard on 
average.  
Effective border control is an important pre- condition for the development of the Schengen 
area without internal borders and for the accomplis hment of all of the ob jectives in the areas 
of migration and security. Once an individual has entered at a particular point he or she can 
then move virtually without restriction to other Member States, irrespecti ve of his/her right to 
reside elsewhere. In consequence, every Member State in the Schengen area has an interest in 
the effectiveness with which others contro l the external borders for which they are 
responsible, since they stand to be adversely a ffected through an unwanted influx of irregular 
migrants if this task is performed ineffici ently. This is a compelling argument for common 
standards and some means of ensu ring the effective application of  these standards, despite the 
fact that the ultimate responsibility remains with the Member States concerned, and it has 
been the basis for the development of the Schenge n acquis in this area. Effective, efficient and 
secure border control is essential for the fr ee movement of legally residing third-country 
nationals and EU citizens, as well as to ma intain internal security. Information sharing 
between different law enforcement authorities, training of border staff and the development of 
shared competencies are therefore also important.  
The responsibilities fo r border control differ considerably  from Member State to Member 
State, resulting in them bearing a disproportio nate share of the associated costs. Member 
States at the periphery of th e EU with long borders and ma ny border crossing points have 
larger responsibilities than ot her Member States to prevent irregular migr ation, facilitate bona 
fide cross-border movements and provide secu rity. For example, Romania accounts for 24% 
of the EU's Eastern external borders, whereas  Hungary and Slovakia account for only 2% and 
1% respectively. In terms of the EU's S outhern maritime borders, Greece accounts for 40% 
and Slovenia for 0.1%. The length of external  border therefore varies widely between 
Member States, as does the associated cost of protecting it.  
A number of border control char acteristics also contribute to the rationale for EU action, 
namely the workload in terms of the checks on persons depends largely on migration flows 
and the location of key entry poi nts which are the first points  of entry for passengers and 
goods. Another indicator of the variation in the burden borne annually by different Member 
States in this area is the number of visa appl ications received per consular office in each 
Member State. In 2009, an average of 22,741 vi sa applications was received per consular 
office in Finland against on average 1 ,374 per consular office in Luxemburg. 
To ensure adequate control, two crucial large- scale IT systems are being established for the 
management of the external borders: the Vi sa Information System (VIS) and the Schengen 
Information System (SIS II). Sufficient financia l support is needed to ensure the maintenance 
of these systems and the functioning of a future IT Agency which will gradually take over the 
management and development of these systems.  Sufficient financial assistance will also be 
needed for the development and maintenance of any future IT-systems, such as the Entry/Exit 
System and the Registered Traveller Programme.  
Frontex supports the efficient implementation of the acquis on border co ntrol and coordinates 
joint operations, including the pooling of human and technical resources made available by 
                                                 
79 European Commission (2008): ‘Impact assessment: Preparing the next steps in border management in 
the European Union’, SEC(2008) 153 
 
EN 88   EN Member States at European level in order to  provide short-term assistance in order to 
safeguard the integrity of the EU's border security system in case of urgent and exceptional migratory pressures. For example, in respons e to the detection of massive illegal border 
crossings (some 75,000) at the Greek/Turkish  border in 2010, Frontex coordinated the 
deployment of a Rapid Border Intervention Team ("RABIT") and in 2011, following the influx of migrants and asylum seekers from northern African countri es witnessed in the 
Pelagic Islands (in partic ular, Lampedusa), Italy made a form al request for a Frontex-led Joint 
Operation to strengthen  border surveillance.  
The further development of the EU common visa policy is another prior ity with a view to 
facilitating legitimate travel , tackling irregular immigration, improving local consular 
cooperation and to fight against visa fraud. In the Schengen area, persons  holding a visa or 
residence permit from a Member State can move freely to other countrie s. Member States are 
therefore issuing visas not only in  their own interest. There is a common interest that all visas 
are issued under common standards so as to en sure that the beneficiaries are bona fide 
travellers and do not pose an unnecessary additional burden on border controls of other Member States at the time of their arrival at the borders. The furt her development of the 
common visa policy would benefit from reinfo rced co-operation and information sharing 
between the Member States' consulates.  
The aforementioned passenger flows and moveme nts of persons crossi ng the EU external 
borders are part of a rising trend which is expe cted to persist in the coming years. Assuming a 
continuing average growth rate of around 2% in  the number of trips made by EU residents 
going abroad for holidays or business purposes (Eur ostat), the number of crossings of the EU 
external borders is expected to rise to  around 324 million in 2014 and 350 million in 2020. It 
is also reasonable to assume that the Schengen area will be extended and some candidate countries will accede to the EU between 2014 and 2020. The challenge of managing the EU 
borders is thus likely to increase. At the sa me time, the applicati on of new technologies 
should ease the border crossing process for bone fide travellers . In addition, more information 
will be known about those crossing borders and the envisaged entry/exit system will facilitate the identification of ‘over-stayers’ who ente red the EU legally. Further harmonisation of 
approaches to border cont rols is also expected. 
(5) Prevention of and figh t against organised crime 
Organised crime in its various forms (e.g. dr ug trafficking, trafficking in human beings, 
crimes by itinerant criminal gangs, mone y laundering, fraud, cybercrime, corruption, 
counterfeited products and firearms, sexua l exploitation of children, and various 
environmental crimes) poses major problems fo r the EU. There is a continued need to 
effectively prevent such crime and, when it does o ccur, to convict its perp etrators in order to 
ensure that "crime does not pay" and in order to  bring justice for victim s. However, organised 
crime is increasingly cross-border in nature. This reduces the effectiveness of national law enforcement activities and encourages criminals to evade law enforcement bodies by crossing over European borders and jurisdictions.  
Data on levels of ‘organised crime’ are not av ailable but according to  Eurostat crime rates 
have been fairly stable in the EU; typically in the 28 to 30 million recorded crimes per annum 
 
EN 89   EN range over the 2000 to 2007 period, with a slight decline to just over 27 million in 200880. The 
aggregate impact of cybercrime, counterfeitin g, organised road cargo/freight theft, drug 
trafficking, payment card fraud and trafficking in human beings in  terms of annua l costs to the 
EU economy is roughly estimated to be close to  €233 billion. Organised crime in all its forms 
could therefore cost the EU over €250 billion per year (if other organised crime is included, 
such as money laundering, trafficking in firearms and environmental crime81). The annual 
costs of cybercrime, organised thef t of road cargo or fr eight and drug traffi cking to the EU are 
the largest in monetary terms, with the costs of  internet crime alone estimated at €220 billion 
in 201082. The direct costs of addr essing these crimes are hi gh. For instance, €4,179 was spent 
on protecting the average victim of tr afficking in human beings in 200983, which could be 
avoided through better crime prevention.  
Whilst the total number of crimes committed has remained relatively stable, their composition 
has changed significantly, with more sophisticat ed crimes such as cybercrime and payment 
card fraud growing in importance.  As knowledge of these crimes  is limited and evolving with 
changes to technology and incr eased internet activity, this is also an area where law 
enforcement authorities benefit most from in formation sharing and greater cooperation. In 
addition, some Member States are more "sensiti ve" to some forms of organised crime than 
others. For example, in relation to incidents of organised road cargo or freight crime, the loss 
rates documented across Member States vary su bstantially with the UK and the Netherlands 
facing significantly higher risks of lo sses incurred than Cyprus and Slovenia84.  
In the coming years, the nature of crime is expected to change. Cross-border and organised 
crime can be expected to increase and it is likely  that the costs of this crime will increase, as it 
becomes more sophisticated and international in nature. Some types of organised crime such 
as drug trafficking and trafficki ng in human beings are anticipated  to remain at current levels 
or decline through targeted legi slation and improvements in borde r controls. By contrast, it 
can be expected that other types of crim e (e.g. fraud, money laundering and cybercrime) will 
grow as technology develops and criminals invol ved become more sophisticated. The costs of 
these crimes are very high. For example, the ove rall annual EU-level costs of cybercrime 
were estimated to be €750 billion in 201085 or 1% of world GDP. On  the other hand, there 
will be improved measures to f acilitate information sharing and cooperation between Member 
State law enforcement authorities. This should make it easier to combat organised crime 
which is often cross-border in nature. 
(6) Prevention of and fight against terror ism and other security-related risks 
Terrorism and other security-related risks incl uding their assessment and management present 
a major challenge to internal security in the EU. Following the 9/11 attack and the subsequent 
                                                 
80 However, these estimates do not differentiate between organised crime and other types of crime (for 
instance, the figures include pe tty robberies and burglaries). 
81 The heading ‘environmental crime’ encompasses crime pertaining to pollution (i n particular, hazardous 
waste dumping and the trade in ozone-depleting subs tances) and illicit harvesting of natural resources 
(in particular, threatened anim al species, fish and timber) 
82 Office of Cyber Security & Information Assurance, UK and Detica (2011): “The Cost of Cyber Crime” 
83 European Commission (2009): “Impact assessment of a Council Framework Decision on preventing 
and combating trafficking in human beings, and protecting victims, repealing Framework Decision 
2002/629/JHA”, SEC(2009) 358 
84 Europol (2009): ‘Cargo Theft Report: Applying the Brakes to Road Cargo Crime in Europe’ 
85 EurActiv update (2010): ‘EU to estab lish cybercrime agency’, available at 
http://www.euractiv.com/en/infosociety/eu-establish-cybercrime-agency-news-486715  
 
EN 90   EN bombings in Madrid and London, the EU has developed a coherent counter-terrorism 
approach by way of the 2005 EU Counter-Terro rism Strategy and the strategic priorities 
identified by the 2010 Internal Security Stra tegy. Terrorism presents  unique threats in 
comparison to organised crime owing to the sporadic and transnational nature of offences, the potential for generating fear acr oss Member States and the longer term fear perceptions that 
tend to be created. The la tter is highlighted by qua litative survey evidence
86 which indicates 
that terrorist offences constitute an area of increasing concern for the EU public.  
In 2010, nine EU Member States reported that 249 terrorist attacks ha d failed, foiled or been 
successfully undertaken on their territory87, representing a 20% fall relative to the 
corresponding statistic for 2009 (319 attacks). Th e overall number of arrests for terrorism-
related offences remained almost unchange d, decreasing slightly from 623 (2009) to 611 
individuals (2010), and co mprise both individuals linked to Islamist terrorism and individuals 
arrested for terrorist offences related to violent se paratist activities. In relation to the latter, the 
majority of arrests were made in France (123  individuals) and Spain (104 individuals), given 
the preponderance of sepa ratist attacks in these countries. Ho wever, the fact that the arrests 
were made across fifteen Member  States while attacks were actually carried out in only nine 
Member States in 2010 highlig hts the transnational character of the threat, and the 
significance of an EU-level strategy and coordination betw een national authorities.  
Data on the costs of terrorism are extremely limited88. The costs of financing terrorist attacks 
are often low89. The Madrid bombings, for instance, are estimated to have cost the terrorists 
involved about €8,00090. The consequences of such attacks are much more important. The 
Madrid bombings, blasting severa l commuter trains, caused the death of  191 people and left 
1,841 injured. The immediate material damage s of the attack we re estimated at €17.62 
million, and minimum direct economic cost has been estimated at more than €211.58m91. 
It can be anticipated that the continued effort s of Member States a nd EU legislative action 
will reduce terrorist activities  and their consequent harm through improvements in the 
cooperation of law enforcement authorities, targ eted legislation and action plans as well as 
practices that restrict the oppor tunities of would-be terrorist s to access and use explosive 
precursors and CBRN materials. However, there is little prospect of the threat of terrorism 
reducing substantially in the foreseeable future : Irrespective of the death of Osama Bin Laden, 
islamist terrorism is expected to continue to be a threat, the connections between terrorism and organised criminal activities appear to  be growing, separati st and ethno-nationalist 
terrorist groups continue to be active and single-issue extrem ism (e.g. animal rights activists) 
is on the increase and the internet continues to be used as a tool for facilitating terrorism. 
                                                
 
86 See for instance European Commission (2007): “Euroba rometer 67: Public opinion in the European 
Union”, available at http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/eb/eb67/eb67_es_exec.pdf  
87 Europol (2011): “TE-SAT 2011: EU Terr orism Situation and Trend Report”  
88 See e.g. the EP commissioned study on estimated cost s of EU Counter-Terrorism measures (June 2011), 
available at 
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/activities/committees/s tudies/download.do?language=fr&file=36811; 
89 Europol (2010): “TE-SAT 2010: EU Te rrorism Situation and Trend Report” 
90 UK House of Lords, European Union Committee (20 05): ‘After Madrid: the EU’s response to terrorism 
– Report with Evidence’ 
91 The economic costs of March 11: M easuring the direct economic costs of  the terrorist attacks on March 
11, 2004 in Madrid. Mikel Buesa, Aurelia Valiño, Joost Theijs, Thomas Baumert and Javier González 
Gomez 
 
EN 91   EN ANNEX 6 – COMPLEMENTARITY OF THE ASYLUM AND MIGRATION FUND AND INTERNAL 
SECURITY FUND WITH OTHER EU INSTRUMENTS  
A number of other EU instruments will provide support to activities which are complementary 
to the activities that will be financed under th e Asylum and Migration Fund and the Internal 
Security Fund: 
• European Social Fund:  The European Social Fund currently supports integration 
measures on access to the labour market whereas the Integration Fund finances 
measures such as civic orientation courses, participation in social  and civic life, equal 
access to services, etc. The complementarity  between both instruments is considered 
to work. Integration measures will therefor e continue to be supported along the same 
lines under the Asylum and Migration Fund and the future European Social Fund.  
• Civil Protection Financial Instrument: The dividing line to  the civil protection 
financial instrument will not change and remain as described in Article 3 of the 
current CIPS programme: natural disaster s as well as unintentional man-made 
disasters are for civil protection (accidents),  whereas intentional, man-made disasters 
are security-relevant and will therefore fo r covered by the Internal Security Fund.  
• EU Solidarity Fund: Terrorist attacks or other security-related incidents are 
currently not covered by the EU Solidarity Fund. In 2005, the Commission proposed 
to broaden the EU Solidarity Fund. This proposal was welcomed by Parliament but 
rejected by Council. As there has been no change in the position of the Council, 
emergency funding possibilities in case of a major terrorist  attack or other security-
relevant incidents need to be includ ed in the Internal Security Fund.  
• 8th Framework Programme: The gap between security re search and the practical 
application of the results of  such research will be closed under the next Multiannual 
Financial Framework. The Intern al Security Fund will fores ee specific objectives and 
eligible actions to allow for the funding of testing and valida ting of scientific 
research results ("prototypes") with a view  to their serial application in practice 
("pre-commercial procurement").  
• Justice Programme:  The currently six programmes in the area of justice, rights and 
equality will be merged into two pr ogrammes: a Justice programme and a 
Citizenship programme. The Ju stice programme is closely linked and complementary 
to the Internal Security F und, especially its criminal justice component but is more 
focussed on judicial cooperation, procedur al harmonisation and mutual recognition 
which in practise preven t substantial overlaps. 
The external dimension components of the As ylum and Migration Fund and the Internal 
Security Fund will support actions in and in re lation to third countries which cater primarily 
for EU interests and objectives, have a direct impact in the EU and its Member States and ensure continuity with activities implemented in  the territory of the EU. This funding will be 
designed and implemented in coherence with EU external action and foreign policy. It is not 
intended to support actions whic h are development oriented and will complement, when 
appropriate, the financial assist ance provided through external aid instruments. While those 
instruments either support be neficiary countries developmen t needs or support general EU 
 
EN 92   EN political interests with strategic partners, hom e affairs funds will support specific actions in 
third countries in the interest of EU migration policy and EU internal security objectives. 
They will therefore fill a specific gap and w ill contribute to completing the toolbox at the 
disposal of the Union.  
Home affairs policies should be strongly embe dded in EU external action and this should 
logically be translated into more financial assistance to third countries in those policy areas 
both through geographic (which constitute the main  source of funding) and thematic  
instruments.  
In this context, the following thematic instru ments would be of particular interest for the 
home affairs area: 
• The successor to the Thematic Programme "Migration & Asylum": in principle, 
four of the thematic programmes in cluded in the current DCI Regulation 
(Environment, Food Security, Investing in People and Migration & Asylum) will be 
merged under the future DCI Regulation in to a single thematic programme dedicated 
to global public goods. Migration and asylum  should be one of the main focuses of 
such an instrument. 
• Instrument for Stability: The main focus of the future Instrument for Stability (IfS) 
is the response to situations of crisis  or emerging crises (peace building, support to 
interim administrations, support to the deve lopment of pluralis tic and democratic 
institutions, support for international criminal courts, demobilisation and 
reintegration, anti-personnel land mines, etc. ). However, it will also support security-
related actions, mainly thr ough its long-term component, such as actions addressing 
sudden population movements, the fight against terrorism and organised crime, support to law enforcement authorities, bor der management, fight against trafficking 
in human beings, etc.). 
 
EN 93   EN ANNEX 7 – SUMMARY RESULTS OF THE PUBLIC CONSULTATION ON THE FUTURE OF EU 
FUNDING FOR HOME AFFAIRS AFTER 2013 
(1) General information 
The public consultation ran from 5 January  to 20 March 2011. An on-line questionnaire, 
hosted by the European Union’s Eu ropa website, was open to all stakeholders interested. The 
questionnaire had 32 questions c overing both general questions a bout the future needs of the 
home affairs policy area, and mo re detailed questions about specific policy fields and delivery 
mechanisms.  
The exercise was open to all stakeholders, bot h within the EU and third countries and all 
citizens and organisations were therefore welc ome to contribute. Contributions were sought 
from persons, Member States, EU Institutions , local, regional and national authorities, 
international organisations, intergovernmen tal and non-governmental organisations, academic 
institutions, third countries, soci al partners and civil society, and in particular organisations 
with experience of the programmes in support of home affairs policies.  
In order to receive as many responses as possible the ques tionnaire was produced in 22 
different languages and could be printed off and submitted separately by post, fax or email. Additionally, some stakeholders provided position papers expressing their views as an 
organisation or individual. These are al so included in the following summary. 
The consultation documents and full results are available at the DG Home Affairs website: 
http://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/ne ws/consulting_public/consulting_0020_en.htm
  
(2) Responses to the questionnaire 
At the end of the consultation exercise, 115 resp onses were received from individuals and on 
behalf of organisations, including 8 position papers92. Omitting any duplicates and accounting 
for missing responses to some questions, most questions achieved a response rate above 100 
(i.e. over 100 responses).  
78% of responses were receiv ed on behalf of organisatio ns and 22% from individuals93. A 
breakdown of responses by organi sation type shows that 51% of  responses were received 
from national public administrations, 17% fr om Non-governmental organisations and 10% 
from regional and local public bodies. Additionally, responses were received from international organisations (6%), research ins titutes (4%) and business organisations (3%), 
including private companies (4%). Of these responses, most were received from respondents in Spain (11%) and Belgium
94 (12%), Cyprus, Finland, Hungary and Italy (6% each). 
Respondents from all Member States however contributed to the c onsultation as well as 
respondents in some third countries (4%). Overall,  the sample is deemed to be representative 
of the organisations benefiting and managing EU  funds in the home affairs area. However, it 
was found that many organisations that gave a no opinion response to many of the questions 
did so due to the unfamiliarity of the topic under discussion. For example, many national law 
                                                 
92 A number of responses were found to be incomplete or submitted in duplicate .  
93 Comments presented in this document are aggregated from individuals and organisations, comments 
attributed to individuals are ho wever indicated where appropriate.   
94 Many international and European organisations are located in Belgium 
 
EN 94   EN enforcement authorities did not respond or gave a no opinion res ponse to questions  relating to 
migration management and borders. Equall y, non-governmental organisations in the 
migration field provided similar respons es to internal se curity questions. 
(3) Main results and conclusions 
In general, respondents strongly support the need  for simplification in the delivery of home 
affairs policies, the need for greater flexibility (specifically in relation to the ability to deal 
with migration and security related crises), and the need for increa sed funding and support in 
areas with a strong burden sh aring (asylum and bor ders) and/or cooperative dimension 
(internal security, agencies). Responses demonstrate that only through these measures can EU 
added value be enhanced and the effectiven ess and efficiency of instruments improved. 
Greater home affairs policy leverage in third c ountries was also shown to be important and 
desired by stakeholders.  
The headline results of the stakeh older consultation exercise are: 
• EU Value Added:  Was judged to be greatest by res pondents in areas of prevention and 
fight against terrorism and organised crim e, law enforcement, legal migration and 
integration of third country nationals, and in building a Common European Asylum 
System (CEAS). This reflects the added value to  be gained in the newer areas of the EU's 
competency.  
• Funding Sources:  Responses on behalf of organisa tions clearly identified EU level 
funding as an important source of funding in all policy areas. However, individual 
respondents demonstrated a much higher pr eference for national funding sources.  
• Future Level of Financial support:  A lack of consensus appeared to exist in many areas 
as to whether current spending levels of the EU should be maintained or increased. Calls 
for funding to be reduced were however stro ngest in relation to the visa, returns and 
integrated border management policy areas. 
• Future needs in Immigration and Asylum:  Future needs were found to be greatest in 
capacity building for asylum systems and integr ation of refugees, in tegration policies and 
best practice, and in the prevention and co ntrol of irregular migration and criminal 
activities. This highlights the important n eed to support cooperation across policy areas, 
the need to support Member States dealing with disproportionate  inflows of asylum 
seekers and to share the res ponsibility of building and main taining necessary capabilities 
to deal with influxes of third coun try nationals (legal and irregular). 
• Future needs in Migration and Border Control:  A clear preference for preventive 
action was highlighted by respondents, as oppos ed to control measures, indicating the 
potential importance of the external dimension to improve the efficiency and effectiveness 
of border systems, through ac tions in third countries. 
• Future needs in Internal Security: The need to support crisis management, fund training 
of law enforcement officials and provide assi stance in the developm ent of new security 
solutions were all highlighted as importan t needs in the internal security field.  
 
EN 95   EN • Future needs in the External Dimension:  Strong support was indicated for a more 
comprehensive approach to internal and extern al aspects of home affairs policies as well 
as for operations in third countries with a direct impact on EU internal security.  
• Practical Cooperation:  The scope for greater practical cooperation across all policy areas 
between Member States was clearly evident in stakeholder responses. 
• Agencies:  The majority of respondents indicated th at agencies positively contributed to 
the achievement of Home Affairs policies. Howe ver they also agreed that agencies do not 
currently receive sufficient f unding to carry out their task s. Again, greater scope for 
cooperation and more synergies between agen cies, the Commission, and Member States 
was highlighted as an important need in the future.  
• Simplification of Delivery Mechanisms:  Respondents unanimously identified the need 
for simplification in the delivery of Home Af fairs policies. The most popular suggestions 
for how this could be achieved included: 1) Al lowing for an increase in the levels of EU 
co-financing percentages to und erpin performance, to promot e strategic priorities or to 
address specific needs of Member States; 2) Replacing the combination of a multiannual 
strategy and annual programmes with a multiannual programming document and annual reporting on progress made, a nd 3) Supporting strategic prog ramming in Member States 
by defining common targets at EU level. Pr oposals for reducing the number of Funds, 
establishing a performance rese rve and increasing the use of the shared management mode 
also found strong support. 
• Flexibility:  Respondents highlighted the fact that cr ises such as a terrorist attack, the 
sudden arrival of asylum seekers or irregular migrants in large numbers at the borders of 
the EU are representati ve of situations where an emergency response could be triggered 
and where Member States could need EU s upport. The need for an emergency response 
mechanism is therefore clearly identified. Many respondents indicate d that the current 
mechanisms are not adequate and that an  improved emergency mechanism should be 
incorporated under the next Mu lti-annual Financial Framework. 
 
EN 96   EN ANNEX 8 – EXAMPLES OF INDICATIVE INDICATORS  
Specific objectives Examples of key output indicators Examples of key result and impact indicators 
To facilitate legal 
migration to the EU 
in line with the economic and social 
needs of the 
Member States and support the 
integration of legally 
residing third-
country nationals  • Number of third-country nationals who benefited from social and/or legal services or 
specific assistance within the framework of re lated administrative procedures (by gender) 
• Number of third-country nationals who benefited from orientation, language and other 
support furthering their integration into society (by gender) 
• Number of persons reached with a two-wa y process integration activity (by gender) 
• Number of integration professionals, incl uding from non-profit organisations, benefitting 
from capacity building measures • Improved capacity in providing third-country nationals 
with services and specifi c assistance within the 
framework of related administrative procedures  
• Improved integration of third-country nationals in the 
receiving society 
• Consistent strategies for the integration of third-country 
nationals at regional and local level 
To support the 
implementation of the Common 
European Asylum 
System (CEAS) • Number of target group persons (asylum s eekers, refugees etc.) who benefited from 
social and/or legal services or  specific assistance (by gender) 
• Number of reception infrastructure and services added or improved for the benefit of the 
target-population 
• Number of refugees resettled into the EU (by gender) 
• Number of beneficiaries of and/or applicants for international protection relocated from 
one Member State to another Member State (by gender) 
• Number of asylum procedures improved 
• Number of cooperation activities between national asylum administrations • Development of an EU resettlement programme 
• Improved facilities and services for asylum seekers 
• Improved capacity in asylum processing  
• Speeding-up the full implementation of the EU acquis  
in Member State(s) joining the EU 
To reduce irregular migration and promote voluntary 
return • Number of third-country nationals who benefited from social and/or legal services or 
specific assistance within the framework of  administrative (removal) procedures (by 
gender) 
• Number of third-country nationals who availe d themselves of assisted voluntary return • Improved facilities and services for returnees  
• Increase in numbers of third-country nationals having 
returned, voluntarily or not, as a results of measures 
 
EN 97   EN programmes (where appropriate including reintegration measures) 
• Number of reception and/or detention places added or improved for the benefit of the 
target population 
• Number of return management professionals, including from non-profit, benefiting from 
training and exchange programmes 
• Number of measures improving the practical  co-operation with third countries in the 
identification and readmission of third-country nationals  improving capacity in return management 
To support the 
external aspects of the EU's migration 
policy  • Number of third-country nationals who bene fited from a Mobility Partnership supported 
by the EU (by gender) 
• Number of refugees resettled into the EU in the context of Regional Protection 
Programmes supported by the EU (by gender) 
• Number of third-country nationals who were returned under readmission arrangements 
supported by the EU (by gender) • Improved cooperation with third-countries on the 
management of migration flows 
• Speed of operations: time between request for 
resettlement /return operation and completing it 
• Speed of operations: time between request for 
identification and readmission of the person concerned 
To strengthen EU 
external borders • Number of border crossing points equipped, secured and/or enhanced with state-of the-
art technology facilitating smooth and secure border checks 
• Number of operating equipment and/or systems allowing optimal documentary checks 
purchased, replaced and/or upgraded 
• Number of third-country nationals benefiting from local border traffic agreements 
• Number of border surveillance systems introduced and/or upgraded within the 
framework of EUROSUR 
• Number of means of transport (air, sea or  land borne) purchased, replaced and/or 
upgraded for border surveillance 
• Number of communication tool s and systems purchased, re placed and/or upgraded for 
co-operation between border guards, migra tion and law enforcement authorities within • Improved resources deployment at external borders 
• Reduced permeability of external borders 
• Number of travellers affected  by EU entry/exit system  
• Increased size of the external  borders affected covered 
by the EUROSUR  
• Increased border security 
• Uniform and correct appli cation of EU acquis on 
borders 
• Increased internal secur ity through an improved 
interagency co-operation at the borders 
 
EN 98   EN the framework of an integrated border management 
• Number of third-country nationals apprehended at the external border 
• Number of border guards and related staff benefiting from training and exchange 
programmes 
To facilitate 
mobility across EU 
external borders • Number of third-country nationals benefiting from consular services abroad 
• Number of regional consular co-operation activities carried out 
• Number of immigration liaison officers sta tioned in third countries supporting the visa 
issuing process and the prevention of irregular entry 
• Number of consular posts equipped, secured and/or enhanced to provide quality of 
service to visa applicants 
• Number of consular staff benefiting from training and exchange programmes • Facilitated access for third-count ry nationals to the EU 
• Number of passengers affected by an EU registered 
traveller programme 
• Uniform and correct applicatio n of EU acquis on visa 
• Improved capacity in visa issuing 
To reduce the risk of 
and increase detection and 
successful 
prosecution of cross-
border and organised 
crime, terrorism and other serious 
security-related 
threats • Number of networks , exchange of informat ion and/or operational co-operation activities 
(e.g. JITs) established between Member States/EU and Agencies 
• Number of policemen trained by Member  States and relevant EU agencies 
• Number of acquired interoperable technologies, equipment and/or infrastructure 
• Number of secure links and cooperation channels between crisis coordination actors at 
EU and national level 
• Number of threat and ri sk assessments produced 
• Number of economic sectors covered by Directive 2008/114 
• Number of networks, exchange of informa tion and/or operational co-operation activities 
established between Member States/EU and Agencies • Enhanced sharing of information, co-ordination and/or 
co-operation between Member States in crime, 
terrorism and other security-related threats 
• Enhanced administrative and operational capabilities 
• Coherent EU policy on risk management linking threat 
and risk assessments to policy making 
• Effective and coordinated EU response to crisis, linking 
up existing capabilities and expertise 
 
EN 99   EN To support the 
external aspects of 
the EU's internal security policy  • Number of networks, exchange of informa tion and/or operational co-operation activities 
established between Member States/E U, Agencies and third countries • Enhanced sharing of information, co-ordination and/or 
co-operation between Member States and third 
countries