EN   EN 
 
 
 EUROPEAN  
COMMISSION   
Brussels, 12.5.2020  
SWD(2020) 86 final  
 
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  
EVALUATION  
 
 
of the      
    
     
TEMPORARY SCHENGEN FACILITY OF CROATIA  
{SWD(2020)  84 final}   
 
1 
 Table of contents  
1. INTRODUCTION  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 4 
Purpose and scope  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........  4 
2. BACKGROUND TO THE IN TERVENTION  ................................ ...........................  5 
Description of the intervention and its objectives  ................................ ..........................  5 
Management of Schengen Facility and roles of Authorities ................................ ...........  7 
Intervention logic  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............  8 
Baseline and points of comparison  ................................ ................................ ...............  10 
3. IMPLEMENTATION / STA TE OF PLAY  ................................ ..............................  13 
Description of the current situation  ................................ ................................ ..............  14 
4. METHOD  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................  17 
Short description of methodology ................................ ................................ .................  17 
Deviation from the evaluation roadmap  ................................ ................................ ....... 18 
Limitations and robustness of findings  ................................ ................................ .........  18 
5. ANALYSIS AND ANSWERS  TO THE EVALUATION QU ESTIONS  ................  19 
Relevance  ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................  19 
Effectiveness  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................  22 
Efficiency  ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................  28 
Coherence  ................................ ................................ ................................ .....................  30 
Sustainability  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................  34 
EU-added value ................................ ................................ ................................ .............  37 
6. CONCLUSIONS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 39 
ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION  ................................ ................................  43 
ANNEX 2: SYNOPSIS REPO RT OF THE STAKEHOLDE R CONSULTATION  ........  44 
ANNEX 3: METHODS AND  ANALYTICAL MODELS  ................................ ...............  49 
 
2 
  
Glossary  
Term or acronym  Meaning or definition  
AMIF  Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund  
ARPA  The Agency for the Audit of EU Programmes 
Implementation System  
BC Border Crossing  
BCP  Border Crossing Point  
BPS Border Police Station  
CEF Connecting Europe Facility  
CR Comprehensive Report on the implementation of 
measures and the execution of the payments under the 
Schengen Facility for Croatia  
CS Case study  
EOD/IED  Explosive Ordnance Disposal/Improvised Explosive 
Devices  
EQ Evaluation Question  
ERDF  European Regional Development Fund  
ESF European Social Fund  
eu-LISA  European Union Agency for the Operational 
Management of Large -Scale IT Systems in the Area of 
Freedom, Security and Justice  
EBCGA  The European Border and Coast Guard Agency  
GIS Geographic Infor mation System  
IBM  Integrated Border Management  
IBM AP  Integrated Border Management Action Plan  
IP Indicative Programme of the Schengen Facility for 
Croatia  
ISF – B&V  Internal Security Fund – Borders and Visa  
 
3 MFEA  Croatian Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs  
MoI Croatian Ministry of Interior  
N.SIS  National component of the Schengen Information 
System  
NBMIS  National Border Management Information System  
PPF Project Preparation Facility  
SAP Schengen Action Plan  
SIRENE  Supplementary Information Request at the National 
Entries  
SIS II  Schengen Information System  
VIS Visa Information system  
TC Transit Centre  
 
4 
 1. INTRODUCTION  
Purpose and scope  
Croatia joined the European Union on 1 July 2013. As of the accession date, the 
provisions of the original Treaties and the acts adopted by the institutions before 
accession were binding on Croatia and applied in Croatia under the conditions laid down 
in those Treaties and the Act of  Accession1. Article 31 of the Act of Accession entailed 
the creation of a temporary financing instrument (i.e. Schengen Facility) from the date of 
accession until 31 December 2014, whose objective was to help Croatia finance actions 
at the new external bo rders of the Union for the implementation of the Schengen acquis 
and external border control.  
The main objective of this evaluation is to examine all outcomes, including outputs, 
results and impacts resulting from the implementation of actions and measure s under the  
Schengen Facility  for Croatia, in the period 1 July 2013 - 21 January 2017. Based on the 
examinations of implemented measures, the evaluation provided elements which could 
be taken into consideration for any  future EU funded interventions with  similar features.  
The preparation for entering the Schengen Area started before Croatia’s accession to the 
EU. Croatia introduced the Integrated Border Management concept (IBM) in 2005 and 
has since then continuously been upgrading it to align it to the a cquis communitaire.  
In 2007, Croatia adopted the Schengen Action Plan (SAP)2 with the goal of aligning the 
national legislation to the Schengen acquis and planning for activities that would allow 
strengthening administrative capacity. The key areas outlin ed by the SAP overlapped 
largely with the areas that will later on be mentioned in the Indicative Program of the 
Schengen Facility (IP): border police management, asylum and migration, visa 
management, police cooperation, and fight against crime and terror ism. The SAP was 
revised in 2014 to reflect the updated status of actions that still needed to be undertaken 
in aligning to the Schengen acquis, complementary to the provisions of the IP 2013 -
2014.  
In 2013, the Croatian Government adopted the Law on state border surveillance and the 
Law on amendments and additions to the Law on foreign nationals, which ensured the 
harmonisation of Croatian law with the Schengen acquis of provisions related to border 
police activities. In the same year, the Regulation on bor der crossings in the Republic of 
Croatia was adopted, establishing the border crossings, locations, categories as well as 
the types of transportation allowed.  
An evaluation of the Schengen Facility  for Croatia was launched on 6 April 2018 with 
the publica tion of a Roadmap that describes the context, purpose and scope of the 
evaluation as well as its main evaluation criteria: (1) effectiveness of the intervention; (2) 
efficiency in relation to resources used; (3) relevance in relation to identified needs an d 
                                                           
1 Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of Croatia (L  112/21), Council of the 
European Union.  
2    Reference in the Integrated Border Management Strategy (Strategija integriranog upravljanja 
granicom), Section 2, article 3 (published by the Croatian Official Gazette NN 92/2014, available at 
https://narodne -novine.nn.hr/clanci/sluzbeni/2014_07_92_1864.html ). 
 
5 problems; (4) coherence; (5) sustainability; and (6) EU added value compared to what 
could have been achieved at Member State or international level. As part of the 
evaluation, a public consultation took place.  
This staff working document describes the evaluation  process , how it was carried out, 
and what it found. It is accompanied by four annexes that contain procedural 
information, a summary of the consultations and an overview of the methodology.  
An external contractor has carried out a study that has informed the evaluation. The study started 
in November 2018 and ended in July 2019.  
 
2. BACKGROUND TO THE INT ERVENTION  
Description of the intervention and its objectives  
The Schengen Facility   for Croatia is the third such instrument for new EU Member 
States. The first one ( Schengen Facility I), in the period 2004 -2006, helped seven new 
EU Member States3 to get prepared for accession to the Schengen area4. The second 
Schengen Facility ( Schengen Facility  II) was set up for Bulgaria and Romania for the 
perio d 2007 -20095.  
The Schengen Facility  for Croatia ensured EUR 120 million to finance actions at the new 
external borders of the Union for the implementation of the Schengen acquis and external 
border control  
The general objective of the Schengen Facility  is the compliance of Croatia with the 
Schengen acquis.  
The Schengen Facility  addressed the general need  of full compliance with the Schengen 
acquis, including improved external borders control, surveillance, and interoperability, as 
well as specific needs  such as: insufficient/outdated operating equipment, inadequate 
border crossing infrastructure and related buildings, non -interoperable IT and insufficient 
qualification of border police and consular staff. There was also a horizontal need to 
support the n ecessary logistics and operations, required to fulfil the obligations in respect 
of Schengen acquis.  
In order to meet this general objective of the Schengen Facility , Croatia drafted an 
Indicative Programme (IP), which covered three areas of intervention:   
- enhancing control and surveillance of the borders,  
- implementation of the Integrated Border Management (IBM) principle at national 
and international level and  
- enhancing the skills and knowledge of the border police and employees at 
consular and diplomatic mission in relation to the Schengen acquis.  
 
                                                           
3  Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, the Slovak Republic and Slovenia.  
4  Commission Decision C(2004)  248 on the management and monitoring of the Schengen Facility.  
5 Commission Decision C(2007)  1417 on the management and monitoring of the Schenge n part of the 
Schengen Facility.  
 
6 The IP further defined 11 objectives6: 
 Objective 1: Acquisition of new technical equipment for surveillance and c ontrol of 
external borders  
 Objective 2: Moderni sation and development of radio communication system 
necessary for surveillance and control of external borders  
 Objective 3: Development and upgrading of information systems and computer 
networks related to the implementation of the Schengen acquis   
 Objective 4: Construction of new and renovation and moderni sation of the existing 
border infrastructure  
 Objective 5: Increase of the qualification of the border police  
 Objective 6: Development of the Croatian Vi sa Information System and connection to 
the EU Visa Information System (VIS)  
 Objective 7: Improvement of Schengen related knowledge and skills of the consular 
staff.  
 Objective 8. Providing Croatian diplomatic missions and consular offices with 
additional  security equipment;  
 Objective 9: Support costs for logistics and operations for managing the Instrument;  
 Objective 10: Increasing the number of police officers for border control and police 
officers for state border protection;  
 Objective 11: Equipment for  border police.  
The objectives of the Schengen Facility  for Croatia and their links to all other elements 
of the intervention logic of the Schengen Facility  are presented in section 2.4.1.  
 
The 11 objectives of the Schengen Facility  were further broken down to measures, out of 
which the procurement of equipment accounted for most of the financial allocations, with 
more than 30% of allocated funds, followed by infrastructure (approx. 28%).  
It was expected that a share of contracted am ounts would not be pa id as some of the 
planned actions may not be implemented within the eligibility period. Thus, i n order to 
increase the absorption rate and utilise as much funds as possible within the eligibility 
period, the Responsible Authority  excee ded the available Schengen Facility  funding in 
procurement plans , up to EUR 122 ,75 million .  
 
 
                                                           
6  Initially, the IP defined 7 objectives (1 to 7). Throughout the implementation, four additional 
objectives were added (8 to 11), by three amendments of the IP.  
 
7 Table 1 Financial allocation of the Schengen Facility  per activity type in euro  
Activity type  Programmed  Cost s incurred7 
Amount (EUR)  % out of 
total   Amount (EUR)  % out of 
total  
Equipment  41 027 079,26 33,42% 38 207 321,79 32,69%  
Infrastructure  34 224 523,71 27,88% 33 747 343,85  28,87%  
IT solutions  8 841 599,15 7,20% 8 303 506,91  7,10%  
Means of transport  37 583 663,37 30,62% 35 274 952,97  30,18%  
Operations  340 000,00 0,28% 228 264,20  0,19%  
Salaries  350 000,00 0,29% 887 532,61  0,75%  
Training  381 000,00  0,31%  212 493,45  0,18%  
Grand Total  122 747 865,49  100 %  116 861 415,78  100,00 % 
 
The Schengen Facility  helped Croatia in securing border management that would help it 
with tackling the complexities of the border and allow it to join the Schengen area. The 
needs of Croatia in relation to border surveillance and control are strongly influenced by 
the specifi cities of the national border, which is relatively long given the size of the 
country. The total border length is 3  318,6 km, out of which the external border is 2  
304,3 km. A high volume of cross border traffic and large number of traffic routes makes 
the surveillance and control of the border challenging. Other challenges concern the 
geographical features, the remaining potential mine fields in the vicinity of bord ers with 
Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Montenegro, and the discontinuity of the land 
border between Dubrovnik and the rest of the Croatian territory.  
The implementation of the Schengen Facility  for Croatia was finalised in January 2017; 
however Croat ia has not yet entered the Schengen area. The Commission adopted a 
Communication8 to the E uropean Parliament  and Council on 22 October 2019 in which it 
is concluded that the Commission considers that Croatia has taken the measures needed 
to ensure that the  necessary conditions for the application of all relevant parts of the 
Schengen acquis are met. It also indicates that Croatia will need to continue working 
consistently on the implementation of all the ongoing actions, in particular in the field of 
manage ment of the external borders, to ensure that these conditions continue to be met. 
Furthermore, the Council of the European Union should take a decision on Croatia’s 
accession . 
 
Management of Schengen Facility and r oles of Authorities  
As per Article 13 of t he Commission Decision C(2013)2159, Croatia was required to 
designate a responsible authority, a certifying authority and an audit authority that would 
oversee the implementation of the Schengen Facility . These authorities, as well as a 
                                                           
7 The amounts are subject to further verifications by the Co mmission  
8     COM(2019) 497 final.  
 
8 coordinating body a nd the beneficiaries of the Schengen Facility , were nominated by 
Government Decision9. 
The Independent Sector for Schengen coordination and EU Funds of the Ministry of 
Interior (MoI) was set up as the Responsible Authority (RA), whose role was the 
management of the Schengen Facility  and the implementation of actions under the 
defined objecti ves.  
The Agency for the Audit of EU Programmes Implementation System was designated as 
the Audit Authority, whose main duty was to ensure that independent verifications on the 
effective functioning of the management and control system are performed.  
The Sector for National Fund Affairs of the State Treasury in the Ministry of Finance 
was appointed as the Certifying Authority and performed tasks related to the certification 
of the declared expenditure. It was in charge of processing the receipts for servic es 
procured under the Schengen Facility  and paying contractors.  
A separate Coordination and Monitoring Board was also established, consisting of  the 
Minister of interior, deputy ministers of several relevant ministries10, the representative 
of the State Commission for Supervision of Public Procurement Procedures, Chief of 
Police, Head of the Border Police Directorate, Head of the Responsible Authority and a 
representative of the Audit Authority  (as observer). The Board gav e recommendations 
related to the IP and its possible changes, assessed the overall implementation of the 
Schengen Facility  and advised the Responsible Authority .  
Five beneficiaries of the Schengen Facility  were chosen on the basis of their 
administrative jurisdictions and legal status related to project implementation: the Border 
Police Directorate (MoI), the IT and Telecommunications Sector (MoI), the Service for 
Construction and Maintenance of Border Crossings (Ministry of Finance), the Consular 
Affairs Sector and the Sector for Informatics, Distribution of Data and Protection  of the 
Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs . 
Intervention logic  
The intervention logic presented below serves to depict the chain of expected effects 
associated with the Schengen Facility .  
The intervention logic illustrates the causality between objectives, activities and the 
expected effects. Understanding it is essential for the design of the analytical framework 
and the evaluation of the actions and measures performed under the Schengen Facility  
for Croatia.  
                                                           
9  Croatian Government Decision of 28 November 2013 (Class:022 -03/13 -04/493) available in Croatian 
at http://eufondovi.mup.hr/UserDocsImages/dokumenti/Odluka%20Vlade%20RH%20 -
%20sustav%20upravljanja%20i%20kontrole%20Schengenskog%20instrumenta.pdf  [28.03.2019].  
10  Ministry of Regional Development and EU funds, Minis try of Finance, Ministry of Construction and 
Spatial Planning, and Ministry of Foreign and EU affairs.  
 
9 
 Figure 1 Intervention logic of the Schengen Facility  for Croatia
Objectives
InputsActivitiesOutputsResultsImpactsNeedsOperational
Contribute to compliance with the Schengen acquis
Financial 
resources
Management 
resources
Enhance 
control and 
surveillance of 
the borders
Implement the 
principle of 
integrated border 
management at 
national and 
international level
 Support the acquisition of new 
technical equipment for border 
control of the external borders and at 
diplomatic missions /consular posts 
(Objectives 1, 2, 8, 11)
General need : Full compliance with the Schengen acquis , including improved 
external borders control , surveillance , and interoperability 
Insufficient / outdated operating 
equipment
Equipment 
procured
Infrastructure 
renovated / 
modernised / 
constructed
Trainings 
provided
Costs and 
logistics covered    Outcomes
Procure 
technical 
equipment
Construction / 
renovation of 
existing 
infrastructure
Trainings of 
border police 
and consular 
staff
Coverage of costs and logistics 
of the SF and police officers for 
border control and police 
officers for border protection
IT 
development 
and upgrading
IT systems 
developed / 
upgraded
Strengthened 
external 
borders 
control and 
surveillance
Increased 
interoperability 
of the IT 
systems
Enhanced 
skills and 
knowledge 
Increased compliance with the Schengen acquisExternal Factors
Traffic at the borders
National measures
Ensuring sustainabilitySpecific General
Inadequate  border crossing 
infrastructure and related buildings
Non-interoperable IT
Insufficient qualification of border 
police and consular staff
Support costs for logistics and operations , including payment of the salaries of the 
personnel required to fulfil the obligations of Croatia in respect of Schengen acquis
Enhance the skills and 
knowledge of the Border 
Police and employees at 
consular and diplomatic 
mission in relation to the 
Schengen acquis
Support the construction 
of new and renovation 
and modernization of the 
existing border 
infrastructure (Objective 
4) 
Provide support for 
the development 
and upgrading of 
IT systems 
(Objectives 3 and 
6)
Increase the 
qualification of border 
police and consular 
staff (Objectives 5 
and 7)
Support costs and 
logistics 
(Objectives 9 and 
10)
Complexity of the 
procurement procedures
 
10 
  
The general objective of the Schengen Facility was the compliance of Croatia with the 
Schengen acquis. The Schengen Facility  addressed the general need  of full compliance 
with the Schengen acquis, including  improved external borders control, surveillance, and 
interoperability, as well as specific needs  such as: 1) insufficient/outdated operating 
equipment ; 2) inadequate border crossing infrastructure and related buildings ; 3) non-
interoperable IT and 4) insufficient qualification of border police and consular staff. 
There was also a horizontal need to support the necessary logistics and operations, 
required to fulfil the obligations in respect of Schengen acquis.  
In order to meet this general objective of th e Schengen Facility , the Indicative 
Programme (IP) covered three areas of intervention:  
- enhancing control and surveillance of the borders,  
- implementation of the Integrated Border Management (IBM) principle at national 
and international level and  
- enhanci ng the skills and knowledge of the border police and employees at 
consular and diplomatic mission in relation to the Schengen acquis.  
 
The IP further defined 11 operational objectives (as described on Section 2.1 above). The 
inputs  are the financial and management resources needed for the implementation of the 
Schengen Facility .  
The envisaged activities  - procurement of technical equipment, construction/ renovation 
of existing infrastructure, development and upgrading of IT systems , trainings of border 
police and consular staff, coverage of the costs and logistics for border police officers as 
well as for the management of  the Schengen Facility – are clearly linked to the 
operational objectives  of the S chengen Facility .  
The outp uts of the abovementioned activities11 have contributed to the achievement of 
three main results :  
 strengthening of the external border control;  
 increased interoperability of the IT systems;  
 enhanced skills of the relevant staff.  
The implementation of the Sch engen Facility in Croatia has been influenced by some 
external factors.  
Certain factors have influenced negatively the implementation process; aspects such as 
the complexity of the procurement procedures, the limited administrative capacity of 
public Auth orities  in some situations as well as the extended traffic at the borders did not 
allow for a the smooth progress of certain activities.  
                                                           
11  Equipment procured; Infrastructure renovated/modernised/constructed; IT systems 
developed/upgraded; Trainings provided; Costs and logistics covered.  
 
11 On the other hand, some national measures which complemented or facilitated the 
actions funded by the Schengen Facility, such as the investments near the state border, 
influenced positively the implementation of the Schengen Facility.  
Baseline and points of comparison  
Overall situation at the external and internal boarder  
Since the Schengen Facility  implementation started in 2014, the baseline year for the 
evaluation was considered 2013 , the last year before the intervention for which relevant 
information/ data is available.  
In 2013, Croatia had 189 border crossing points. The external land border w as supervised 
by border police distributed across 27 police stations.  
In 2013, 136.347.236 passengers crossed the Croatian border. The highest share of these 
crossings occurred at the border with Slovenia, where 65.133.886 crossings were 
registered. The s econd highest traffic was recorded at the Bosnian border crossing, 
amounting to 43,688,380 passengers. The most frequently used border crossings were at 
the border with Slovenia: Macelj (11,632,571), Bregana (11,251,484), and Kaštel 
(9,157,498). A total nu mber of 45.866.702 vehicles have crossed the Croatian border in 
2013. Out of those, 41.563.900 were personal vehicles, 3.600.212 were cargo vehicles, 
568.572 buses, 65.057 airplanes, 18.417 trains and 50.544 ships. Maritime border 
crossings in 2013 amounte d to 3.183.408 passengers.  
The number of registered illegal border crossings in 2013 was 4.734 (including EU 
nationals). Looking at illegal crossings according to police directorates shows that the 
highest number of illegal crossings (1.091) occurs in the Zagrebačka police directorate, 
followed by Vukovarsko -srijemska police directorate (993) and Primorsko -goranska 
(874). Out of the registered illegal border crossings 603 took place at the border crossing 
and 1.363 close to the border crossing. According to  Eurostat data, the number of third 
country nationals found to be illegally present in Croatia in 2013 was 4.150.  
In 2013, reception and accommodation of asylum seekers was organised by two 
reception centres, one in Zagreb (Dugave) and the other in Kutina , which received 
funding through PHARE12 and IPA13. A reception centre for foreigners14 in Ježevo was 
also functional and data on its functioning is provided below:  
 Number of persons in the centre: 784 (2012)  
 Number of days spent in the centre: 18,494 (2012)  
As mentioned above, the number of apprehended irregular migrants in 2013 was 4.734, 
which presents a decrease in comparison to the previous year (6.839). The number of 
asylum seekers amounted to 1.089 in 2013, presenting a slight decrease since the year 
before (1.193).  
When it comes to the registration of human trafficking cases, there is no available data 
for 2013 and 2014 concerning persons coming into formal contact with the police 
                                                           
12  Poland and Hungary: Assistance for Restructuring their Economies.  
13  Instrument for Pre -Accession Assistance.  
14  The reception centre for foreigners (prihvatni centar za strance) is a facility that accommodates 
migrants who are to be returned to their or igin countries.  
 
12 (suspected, arrested, or cautioned), but only for 2011 and 2012: 14 and 1 1 cases 
respectively.  
The number of all valid residence permits in Croatia in 2013 was 12.259. According to 
Eurostat data, the number of immigrants in Croatia in 2013 was 10.378. No publicly 
available data was available for the number of visas issued in 20 13, but according to data 
provided by the MFEA, their number was around 110 000. In 2014, 72 463 visa 
applications were processed.  
 
Technical equipment  
Although significant progress was made in providing technical equipment to the border 
police even before  the Schengen Facility , further modernisation was needed in order to 
reach the technical standard of Schengen external borders. The equipment for border 
surveillance and checks at border crossing points did not adequately meet the 
requirements in order to ensure compliance with the Schengen acquis. In particular:  
 the TETRA15 system did not ensure adequate signal in the overall area along the land 
and maritime state border;  
 there was insufficient optical and other special surveillance equipment required to 
prevent or reduce the illegal crossing of EU external borders;  
 patrols did not have sufficient vehicles and were hence did not have the required 
mobility to appropriately respond to dynamic situation at the border;  
 lack of special surveillance equipment to perform border protection, border control 
and surveillance functions from the air;  
 Not all Border Crossing Points (BCPs) at the external border were covered with 
permanent video surveillance;  
 the maritime police had access to 6 type A vessels, 13 type B ve ssels and 24 type C 
vessels16, all of which were used to control the high risk areas. However, more A and 
B type vessels were needed for the purpose of ensuring presence of police vessels at 
sea.  
 
Infrastructure  
According to the IP 2013 -2014, BCPs in Croatia were not constructed and equipped 
according to standards and requirements imposed on BCPs and the standards and 
recommendations of the EU on the future external border of Republic of Croatia and EU. 
Respective ly, indoor facilities in existing containers and control booths were considered 
too small and not adequately technically equipped.  
The border control of incoming passengers was done in accordance to national 
regulations that were aligned to the EU legisla tion. However, a ccording to the revised 
SAP, the state of play at the Croatian airports in 2013 did not entirely meet EU standards. 
The infrastructural units and the organisational procedures conducted by the airport 
police in relation to border controls were not congruent to Schengen standards. An 
                                                           
15  Terrestrial Trunked Radio / Trans European Trunked Radio.  
16  Type A (over 18 m length), type B (10 -18 m length), and type C (less than 10 m length).  
 
13 infrastructural reconstruction was needed for the purpose of dividing arriving passengers 
based on location of departure (Schengen vs non -Schengen).  The number of air traffic 
counted by passengers crossing the C roatian border was 5.380.081 in 2013.  
From 2014, the Maritime Police Development Strategy for blue border surveillance  
was incorporated in the IBM Strategy and its Action Plan. Thus, a strategic framework 
for the establishment of a surveillance system of t he blue state border has been set up. 
However, as identified by the IP 2013 -2014, the premises of the maritime police stations 
were not completely functional and did not satisfy the organisational needs.  
 
IT systems  
In 2013, the NBMIS17 was functional and i n use on all external border crossings that 
were operating at the time, and at 7 border crossings at the internal border. Even though 
the system was considered critical, before the launch of the Schengen FS it did not fully 
meet the standards required for safe and reliable operation.  
The Croatian SIRENE18 Bureau was set up within the Sector for General Crime and 
International Police Cooperation of the General Police Directorate in 2012. It employed 
10 police officers whose work related primarily to tracing a nd handing over persons with 
issued European Arrest Warrants, as well as cooperation with EU Member States’ police 
departments on topics of international interest. There was, however, a need to develop 
SIRENE application that would allow the connection to the MoI Information System and 
as well as to other SIRENE offices in EU member states.  
In relation to the EU Visa Information System, the MFEA identified the need to modify 
and extend the functionalities of the existing Croatian Visa Database and to establ ish the 
Croatian VIS. As concerns radio communication equipment, prior the implementation of 
the Schengen Facility , it was considered that the coverage of TETRA signal at the 
borders with Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Montenegro was insufficient, and  
other communications capabilities that provide public communications operators were 
weak or non -existent.  
The National Maritime Centre for Data Collection was established in May 2012 in Zadar. 
In 2013, the Vessel Traffic Management and Information Systems  (VTMIS), which 
would give the MoI direct access to the maritime surveillance database, was in its final 
phases of implementation.  
 
Human resources  
The total number of border police officers in October 2013 amounted to 6,163, out of 
which 4,904 police of ficers were stationed at the external border. The SAP envisaged an 
increase of police officers to 5,825 at external borders.  
According to SAP, the border police officers had received specialised training on a 
regular basis since 2005. The following areas were emphasised as priorities during the 
                                                           
17  The National Border Management Information System is the Croatian IT system for condu cting border 
control of entry and exit of vehicles, passengers and objects.  
18  The Supplementary Information Request at the National Entries (SIRENE) Bureau is responsible for 
any supplementary information exchange and coordination of activities connected to SIS alerts 
between Member States.  
 
14 specialisation process: EU law, combating smuggling of vehicles and misuse of 
documents, risk analysis, using the NBMIS, combating trafficking in human being, 
maritime police related topics, fundamental rights and i ssuing visas at border crossing 
points. The IP identified the training needs concerning the maintenance and use of the 
newly developed SIS II and SIRENE, improvement of Schengen related knowledge and 
skills of the consular staff, as well as the need for mo dernising and equipping the 
premises at the Police Academy, which provides trainings to the MoI.  
 
 
3. IMPLEMENTATION / STATE OF PLAY 
As a temporary financing instrument, the Schengen Facility  provided  EUR 120 million to 
finance actions at the new external borders of the Union for the implementation of the 
Schengen acquis and external border control. The types of actions that were eligible for 
financing under the Schengen Facility included: investments in border crossing 
infrastructure, investments in operating equipment and IT systems needed to implement 
the Schengen acquis, training of border guards, and support to costs for logistics and 
operations. In the following paragraph , more details on the impl ementation of the 
Schengen Facility  are provided.  
 
Description of the current situation  
For the period 1 July 2013 to 31 December 2014, the total amount of EUR 120 million 
was made available to Croatia (in two lump sums of EUR 40 million for 2013 and EUR 
80 million for 2014). These funds were supposed to be used within three years from the 
first payment. The first expenditure was executed on the 24 July 2013, setting the end of 
the expenditure admissibility period to 23 July 2016. Due to the low execut ion caused by 
the limited capacity or the responsible authorities in the first years of the implementation 
of the programme19, the MoI requested a six -month prolongation of the implementation, 
which was approved by the Commission. Decision C(2016) 4656 allo wed for 
expenditures until the 23 September 2016 and payments until 21 January 2017.  
The costs incurred in the implementation period and declared to the Commission 
amounted to EUR 116  861 415,77. The breakdown of the programmed Schengen Facility  
allocation s per objective (and the actual declared expenditure) is presented in Table 2.  
 
                                                           
19  For more details see below, Evaluation Question 2.4.  
 
15 
 Table 2  Financial allocation of the Schengen Facility  per objective in euro  
Objectives  Programmed  Cost s incurred20 Percentage point 
difference between 
the share of 
programmed and 
incurred cost  Amount (EUR)  % out of 
total  Amount (EUR)  % out 
of total  
1 2 3 4 5 6 (3-5) 
Objective 1 Acquisition of new technical equipment for border 
control of the external borders  71 146 051,41  57,96  66 983 911,67  57,31  -0,64 
Objective 2 Moderni sation and development of radio communication 
system necessary for surveillance and control of external borders  8 668 534,08  7,06 8 263 138,31  7,07 0,008  
Objective 3 Development and  upgrading of information systems and 
computer networks related to the implementation of the Schengen 
acquis  14 129 107,07  11,51  14 279 507,45  12,21  0,70 
Objective 4 Construction of new and renovation and moderni sation of 
the existing border infrastructur e 20 328 700,93  16,51  19 610 964,31  16,78  0,22 
Objective 5 Increase of the qualification of the border police  300 000,00  0,24 207 031,70  0,17 -0,067  
Objective 6 Development of the Croatian Visa Information System 
and connection to the EU Visa Information  System (VIS)  1 560 000,00  1,27 1 053 480,13  0,90 -0,36 
Objective 7 Improvement of Schengen related knowledge and skills 
of the consular staff  81 000,00  0,06 5 461,75  0,004  -0,061  
Objective 8 Investment in security equipment at diplomatic 
missions/consular posts according to the Schengen standards  2 109 000,00  1,71 958 387,27  0,82 -0,89 
Objective 9 Support costs for logistic and operations for managing 170 000,00  0,13 227 980,10  0,19 0,056  
                                                           
20  The amounts are subject to further verifications by the Commission.  
 
16 Objectives  Programmed  Cost s incurred20 Percentage point 
difference between 
the share of 
programmed and 
incurred cost  Amount (EUR)  % out of 
total  Amount (EUR)  % out 
of total  
the Instrument  
Objective 10 Increasing the number  of police officers for border 
control and police officers for state border protection  350 000,00  0,28 887 532,61  0,75 0,47 
Objective 11 Equipment for border police  3 905 472,00  3,18 4 384 020,48  3,75 0,56 
Grand Total  122 747 865,4921 100,00  116 861 415,78  100,00  - 
                                                           
21  According to the CR, the Responsible Authority assessed in 2016 that a share of contracte d amounts would not be payed as some of the planned actions may not be implemented 
within the eligibility period. In order to increase the absorption rate and utilise as much funds as possible within the elig ibility period, the Responsible Authority exceed ed the 
available Schengen Facility  funding in procurement plans.  
 
17 
 The Schengen Facility  significantly supported the modernisation process and completing 
the gaps concerning the insufficient/outdated equipment, through the measures 
implemented under Objectives 1, 2, 8 and 11 of the IP, aiming to attain the technical 
standard of Schengen exter nal borders.  
Most of the targets of Objective 1 were achieved, consisting of procurement of border 
surveillance equipment (cameras, stationary radars), devices and materials for border 
control, specialised vehicles, vessels and helicopters, setting up the  border surveillance 
IT system and purchase of the necessary hardware.  
The measures of Objective 2 led to the upgrade of the MoI national network 
(MUPNet)/TETRA system for digital radio -communication system for blue and green 
border.  
Under Objective 8, technical protection equipment (video surveillance, access control, 
intrusion detection etc.) was delivered to 50 locations. In addition, interior adaptation 
works were performed for priority Diplomatic Missions/Consular Offices.  
Under Objective 11, necess ary equipment was purchased for the border police such as 
motorcycle gears, police uniform articles, weapon kits.  
The need for construction, renovation or upgrading of border related infrastructure and 
related buildings was addressed by the measures implem ented under Objective 4, such 
works being done in 13 locations.  
Due to the measures implemented under Objectives 3 and 6, the relevant IT systems have 
been developed and upgraded, in particular the national component (N.SIS II) of the new 
Schengen Informa tion System (SIS II) and the IT backup for SIS II, the NBMIS 
infrastructure of the MoI`s Information system, the application for the SIRENE bureau, 
Croatian VIS and the communication channels MoI - MFEA and MFEA – DM/CPs.  
Objectives 5 and 7 addressed the n eeds identified in the human resources area, through 
language training, training on Schengen acquis and training for identification and 
detection of counterfeited and false documents.   
4. METHOD  
Short description of methodology  
This Commission evaluation reli es on an external study carried out between November 
2018 and July 2019 by a specialised consultancy.  The evaluation aimed to analyse the 
implementation and application of the Schengen Facility in Croatia according to a 
number of specific criteria (relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, EU added 
value and sustainability) set out in the Commission’s Better Regulation Guidelines . The 
evaluation covered the implementation of the Facility from its entry into force in July 
2013 to January 2017.  
 
18 The study’s metho dology combined desk research, and both qualitative and quantitative 
analysis; information was drawn from various primary and secondary sources, such as:  
- Desk research;  
- Interviews with EU staff, senior public officers of the relevant Croatian 
Authorities, beneficiaries etc.;  
- Surveys with recipient and end -users benefiting from Schengen Facility  funding;  
- 8 case studies on various elements of the programme, covering at least 75% of the 
total funding22; 
- Public consultation, as foreseen in the Commission’s  Bette r Regulation  Guidelines .  
A more detailed overview of the methodology used for the evaluation study is presented 
in Annex 3.  
 
Deviation s from the evaluation roadmap  
One deviation from the Evaluation Roadmap was made over the course of the evaluation. 
While according to the Roadmap the evaluation should have been completed in the last 
quarter of 2018, the actual completion date was June 2019. This was due to the fact t hat 
the tendering procedures took longer than expected and the actual timeframe of the 
contract had also to be adjusted, providing more time for consultation activities.  
 
Limitations and robustness of findings  
The overall assessment of the availability an d robustness of data is that they provide 
sufficient basis to answer the evaluation questions.  
Nevertheless, the data collection and analysis faced limitations:  
- Changes in the Indicative Programme, which hampered a clear comparison 
between planned and ach ieved measures/allocations ;   
- The semi -structured interviews were informative, nevertheless, they provided 
mostly anecdotal data rather than hard evidence on certain issues;  
- Limited outreach to different types of end users;  
- Beneficiaries did not always hav e sufficient knowledge to provide all the 
information that was requested;  
- Low response rate of the open public consultation.  
 
More information on data limitations is provided in Annex 3 .  
 
                                                           
22 The selected case studies covered a variety of objectives and measures set out in the Indicative 
Programme. In particular, the topics selected for the case studies included: acquisition of new technical 
equipment for surveillance and control (vehicles, helicopters and special equipment); development of 
information systems (development of the national SIS II); (re)construction of border infrastructure; 
development of the national VIS; trainin gs for border guards and consular officers; costs for 
management of the Schengen Facility; and salaries for additional border police officers.  
 
19 5. ANALYSIS AND ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QU ESTIONS  
In accordance  with the Commission's  Better  Regulation  Guidelines,  the evaluation  
looked  at the effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence and the EU added value of 
the Schengen Facility.   
Relevance  
The main criterion to judge the relevance of the Schengen Facility  for Croatia was 
assessing the extent to which it addressed the needs and problems identified in relation to 
external border control and surveillance in Croatia.  
EQ 1.1: To what extent were the objectives of the Schengen Facility relevant for the 
needs of EU and Croatia, including stakeholders, to prepare the accession to the 
Schengen area?  
 
Findings: The objectives of the Schengen Facility  were relevant to a large extent to the 
needs of the EU and Croatia. In particular:  
 The analysis showed that there was a strong link between the needs identified in 
national strategic documents and through the stakeholder consultation and the 
objectives of  the IP 2013 -2014.  
 The Schengen Facility  in Croatia was designed to meet the European Union priorities 
with regard to the Schengen acquis . The Schengen Facility  has contributed to EU 
priorities with regard to the Schengen acquis by ensuring technical mean s to prepare 
Croatia for the accession to the Schengen area.  
 The objectives setting of the Schengen Facility  showed flexibility in light of newly 
identified needs. Thus, the original objectives were supplemented, which was 
considered as one of its greatest  advantages compared to other EU assistance 
programs.  
 At the same time, the Schengen Facility  did not address needs related to trainings for 
border police in human rights protection and interactions with immigrants, an issue 
which was  highlighted by NGOs a nd the Ombudsman of the Republic of Croatia.  
 Furthermore, there were outstanding needs, which were not fully addressed by the 
Schengen Facility  due to financial limitations: land border surveillance of the green 
border with Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Mon tenegro, further trainings on how to use 
the equipment, and infrastructure needs at BCPs.  
Overall, the objectives of the Schengen Facility  were relevant to addressing the needs of 
Croatia to prepare for the accession to the Schengen area.  
Concerning the IT  systems, the need to address insufficient and outdated operating 
equipment was of major significance to achieve the required level of border surveillance 
and control, therefore several Schengen Facility  objectives address this need. 
Furthermore, there was  a need for construction, renovation or upgrading of border 
crossing infrastructure and related buildings. This included changes to external objects 
(e.g. booths) for performance of border control, which were judged to be too small and 
not functionally org anised, as well as changes to indoor facilities (police stations).  
Although the National Border Management Information System (NBMIS) was 
developed and the IT structure at borders were in place to some extent, improvements 
were needed. Specifically, there  was lacking capacity for data provision and data 
 
20 management, as well as the need to adapt to the Schengen information system. This 
entailed the establishment of the National component of the Schengen Information 
System   and the SIRENE23 bureau and developm ent of an adequate national interface for  
the Schengen Information System  and storage facilities. Insufficient qualification of 
border police and consular staff required to fulfil the obligations of Croatia in respect of 
the Schengen acquis was assessed as  another need that the Schengen Facility  sought to 
address. Lastly, support to costs for logistics and operations was needed, including 
payment of the salaries of the personnel required to fulfil the obligations of Croatia in 
respect of Schengen acquis.  
 
Insufficient and outdated operating equipment  
Enforcement of border control as well as a continuous development of external border 
surveillance, were pointed out in the Integrated Border Management Action Plan as one 
of the main goals in the process of har monisation with the Schengen standards. The 
Council of the European Union24 recognised the lack of necessary technical equipment at 
land, air and sea borders. The investments relating to external border surveillance 
(Objective 1) were designed to address ne eds that the border police was facing due to the 
challenging terrain along the Croatian border, as well as to ensure proper border controls 
and prevent illegal crossings.  
Objective 2 envisaged the establishment of the TETRA system25 in order to enable more 
efficient border police communication as identified in the Council recommendations26.  
In order to comply with the standards of the EU Schengen Catalogue27, the consular 
offices end diplomatic missions were upgraded through implement ation of technical 
protection and surveillance systems at consular offices (Objective 8).  
Objective 11 provided for procurement of equipment like motorcycle gear, police 
uniforms and weapon kits.  
 
Need for construction, renovation or upgrading of border c rossing infrastructure 
and related buildings  
Many BCPs were not constructed and equipped according to applicable standards and 
requirements for safe and economic performance of border control, as well as standards 
and recommendations of EU at the future ex ternal border of Republic of Croatia and EU. 
Some police facilities were not satisfying the organisational needs of the border police. 
Hence, under Objective 4 several investments in construction, reconstruction and 
renovation of border infrastructure were  carried out.  
 
Development and upgrading of IT systems  
                                                           
23  Supplementary Information Request at the National Entries.  
24  Council Implementing Decision (2017/0037 (NLE)) setting out recommendations addressing the 
deficiencies identified in the evaluation of Croatia in view of fulfilling the conditions necessary for the 
application of the Schengen acquis in the field of management of the external border.  
25  The terrestrial Trunked Radio is a European standard for a trunked radio system, is a professional 
mobile radio and two -way transceiver specification.  
26  SCH -EVAL 96, 2017.  
27  EU Schengen Catalogue, Volume 3, Council of the European Union, General Secretariat, March 2003.  
 
21 The SAP indicated that the Croatian IT equipment and infrastructure was inadequate. 
This issue was addressed under Objective 3.  
Furthermore, it was necessary to develop the Croatian  component of Visa Information 
System  and to connect it to the EU VIS as stated in the IBM Action Plan, the SAP and 
the Migration Policy and further addressed by the IP under Objective 6.  
 
Insufficient qualification of border police and consular staff  
Priority areas for inc reasing the qualification of border officers were linked to Objective 
5 of the IP. These were in line with the  Schengen Action Plan , which defined several 
fields such as strengthening of the competencies in English, qualification of trainers, 
combatting hu man trafficking, and trainings on database searches. Moreover, the Council 
recommendations outlined the need for training on operational planning, use of tracking 
dogs, technical surveillance systems, patrol ling and interception tactics.   
 
Support to costs  for logistics and operations  
According to the Commission’s monitoring visit in 2014, Croatia needed to strengthen 
the capacity of the Responsible Authority;  thus Objective 9 being added to the IP, 
providing support for additional staff in the Responsible Authority.   
The lack of capacity (e.g. lack of enough police officers) was a major gap for border 
surveillance, border control and related administrative capacity, as outlined in the 
Council’s recommendations. Accordingly, this was translated to Objective 10 of the IP.  
In order to address the evolving needs of the country with respect to border surveillance 
and control, the scope of the IP had be extended during its implementation. The 
possibility of changing / supplementing the actions in order to better a chieve EU 
priorities with respect to the Schengen acquis was a great advantage compared to other 
programs in which this possibility was very limited.  
The Council provided two recommendations outlining further needs at the time of their 
evaluation in 2017 a nd 201828. Outstanding needs, which were not fully addressed by the 
Schengen Facility , included:  
 Policy related areas (e.g. updating development of projects related to the IBM 
Strategy), which were not within the scope of the Schengen Facility ; 
 Human resources and trainings29, which represent a reoccurring need and were not at 
the focus of the Schengen Facility  (these included as well trainings related to risk 
analysis methodology);  
                                                           
28  SCH -EVAL 96, 7739/17 - Schengen evaluation of CROATIA - Action Plan to remedy the deficiencies 
identified in the 2016 evaluation of Croatia in view of fulfilling the conditions necessary for the 
application of the Schengen acquis in the field of manage ment of the external borders (27 March 
2017); and SCH -EVAL 218, 13902/18 - Schengen evaluation of CROATIA - Action Plan to remedy 
the deficiencies identified in the 2017 evaluation of Croatia in view of fulfilling the conditions 
necessary for the applicati on of the Schengen acquis in the field of management of the external borders 
(revisit) (6 November 2018).  
29  For instance, even though the Schengen Facility  entailed an increase in Border Police officers, the 
allocated funds for this measure were not suffi cient to cover the needs. The Council recommendations 
(2018) still mention the need to further increase the number of staff responsible for performing 
 
 
22  Infrastructure and technical equipment - Land border surveillance of th e green border 
with Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Montenegro, which included the need to set up a 
mobile technical surveillance system during the time one border crossing point is 
under construction30.  
As concerns the EU objectives, the IP actions and measur es had to fall entirely or 
principally within the Schengen acquis31 and be designed to further strengthen and 
upgrade external border control and must be physically located at external borders, or 
otherwise must be related to the protection of the external borders. The enlargement of 
the European Area required the development of appropriate infrastructures, institutions 
and mechanisms to protect public and internal security in the enlarged Schengen Area 
and ensuring smooth and swift crossing the external bor ders. The evaluation showed that 
all measures funded under the Schengen Facility  satisfy the above -mentioned criteria as 
objectives were related to construction and investment in equipment, training of staff and 
logistical support.  
All versions of the IP were approved by the Commission, ensuring thereby full alignment 
with EU priorities with regard to the Schengen acquis.  
 
Effectiveness  
Under the criterion Effectiveness, the extent to which the objectives of the Schengen 
Facility  have been achieved is explored.  
EQ 2.1: To what extent were the operational objectives of the Schengen Facility 
achieved? What outcomes (positive and negative, intended or unintended) can be 
attributed to the Schengen Facility in Croatia?  
Findings: Most targets of the Schengen Facility  have been met, with only a few 
exceptions under some objectives as described in the IP. Out of 11 objectives defined in 
the IP, 5 were fully achieved (100%), 4 were achieved to a large extent (> 90%) and 2 
were partially ac hieved (between 50% - 90%). Consequently, in line with the 
Intervention Logic presented in section 2.4.1, the operational objectives of the Schengen 
Facility  were achieved to a large extent.  
While some modifications did not necessarily have a negative imp act on the 
effectiveness of the Schengen Facility  (e.g. acquisition of helicopter instead of aircraft 
under Objective 1), equipment and services that were planned but not procured/delivered 
hampered the effectiveness (most notably for Objectives 5 and 8). Effectiveness was 
diminished in particular by the long duration of procurement procedures, unresolved 
property -legal relations and inability to reallocate premises for diplomatic missions.  
Positive outcomes of the Schengen Facility  implementation include improved mobility 
and efficiency of border control, upgraded communication and information systems, 
                                                                                                                                                                            
practical border tasks, especially number of staff at land border crossing points to provide effective 
border checks during peak times (Recommendation 4).  
30  Even though the surveillance system was partially covered through Objective 4, there was no need for 
a mobile surveillance system at the time that the IP was drafted.  
31 The Schengen acquis - Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between 
the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and 
the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders; Official Journal L 
239 , 22/09/2000 P. 0019 - 0062.  
 
23 improved working conditions for Border Police, and improved capacity and working 
conditions of staff at consular missions in third countries.  
The achieveme nt of the operational objectives of the Schengen Facility  can be attributed 
to the achievement of the IP objectives, which built on the achievement of targets32. Out 
of the 5 operational objectives, 2 were fully achieved ( Provide support for the 
development  and upgrading of IT systems; Support costs and logistics ), 2 were achieved 
to a large extent ( Support the acquisition of new technical equipment for border control 
of the external borders and at diplomatic missions/consular posts ; Support the 
construction  of new and renovation and moderni sation of the existing border 
infrastructure ) and 1 was partially achieved ( Increase in qualification of border police 
and consular staff ).  
More details are provided on Table 3 below.  
  
Table 3  Assessment of the achievem ent of targets  
Objectives (11) as defined in the Indicative 
programme of the Schengen Facility  and 
Operational objectives (5) as presented in Figure 1.  Level of 
achievement of 
target values  
Operational objective: Support the acquisition of new technical  equipment for 
border control of the external borders and at diplomatic missions/consular 
posts  
Objective 1 Acquisition of new technical equipment for 
border control of the external borders  
- Measure 1.1 - 100% of target met  
- Measure 1.2 - 82% of target met  
- Measures 1.3 - 1.4 - 100% of targets met  
- Measure 1.5 - 100% of targets met  
- Measure 1.6 - 100% of targets met after 
modification of measure  
- Measure 1.7 - 53% of targets met  
- Measure 1.8 - 100% of targets met  
- Measure 1.9 - 87% of targets met  
- Measure 1.11 - 1.12 - 100% of target met  Achieved to a large 
extent  
Objective 2 Moderni sation and development of radio 
communication system necessary for surveillance and 
control of external borders  
- Measure 2.1 - 90% of targets were met  Achieved to a large 
extent  
Objective 8 Investment in security equipment at 
diplomatic missions/consular posts according to the 
Schengen standards  Partially achieved  
                                                           
32  Targets fell within one of the following categories: targets fully met; targets met to a large extent; 
targets partially met; and targets met but modified. When planned and achieved targets were fully 
aligned, they were judged as fully met. In cases of minor amendments between planned and achieved 
targets (at least 90% correspondence) the targets were met to a large extent. Targets were judged to be 
partially met when there was a lower correspondence between planned and a chieved targets (at least 
50%). In cases where targets were met but solely due to modifications done to planned measures, the 
‘targets met but modified’ categorisation is noted.  
 
24 - Measure 8.1 - 86% of targets met  
- Measure 8.2 - 75% of targets met  
- Measure 8.3 - 50% of targets met  
Objective 11 Equip ment for border police  
- Measure 11.1 - 100% of targets met  Fully achieved 
(based on targets 
from revised 
Indicative 
Programme)  
Operational objective: Support the construction of new and renovation and 
moderni sation of the existing border infrastructure  
Objective 4 Construction of new and renovation and 
moderni sation of the existing border infrastructure  
- Measure 4.1 - 66% of targets met  
- Measure 4.2 - 100% of targets met  
- Measure 4.3 - 100% of targets met  
- Measure 4.4 - 100% of targets met after 
modification  of measure  Achieved to a large 
extent  
Operational objective: Provide support for the development and upgrading of 
IT systems  
Objective 3 Development and upgrading of information 
systems and computer networks related to the 
implementation of the Schengen  acquis  
- Measure 3.1 - 100% of targets met  
- Measure 3.2 - 100% of targets met  
- Measure 3.3 - 100% of targets met  
Measure 3.4 - 100% of targets met after modification of 
measure  Fully achieved  
Objective 6 Development of the Croatian Visa 
Information System and connection to the EU Visa 
Information System (VIS)  
- Measures 6.1 - 6.6 - 100% of targets met  Fully achieved  
Operational objective: Increase in qualification of border police and consular 
staff 
Objective 5 Increase of the qualification of the border 
police  
Measure 5.1 - 50% of targets met  Partially achieved  
Objective 7 Improvement of Schengen related 
knowledge and skills of the consular staff  
- Measure 7.1 - 75% of targets met  
- Measure 7.2 - 100% of targets met  Achieved to a large 
extent  
Operational ob jective: Support costs and logistics  
Objective 9 Support costs for logistic and operations for 
managing the Instrument  
- Measures 9.1. -.9.5 - 100% of targets met  Fully achieved 
(based on targets 
from revised 
Indicative 
Programme)  
Objective 10 Increasing the number of police officers 
for border control and police officers for state border 
protection  Fully achieved 
(based on targets 
from revised 
 
25 - Measure 10.1 - 100% of targets met  Indicative 
Programme)  
 
 
EQ 2.2: To what extent and how have external/internal  factors influenced the 
implementation of the Schengen Facility in Croatia?  
Findings: Both internal and external factors have influenced the implementation of the 
Schengen Facility , but their effects are not judged to be significant. External factors 
influencing the implementation of the Schengen Facility  included complex procurement 
procedures and time required to acquire permits, while internal factors included limited 
administrat ive capacity and insufficient guidance.  
 
Croatia initially experienced a significant delay in implementing projects financed 
through the Schengen Facility . In some cases, the  inability to implement projects within 
the given timeframe was related to the com plexity of project implementation, mainly due 
to the challenging procurement procedures.  
There were also other issues such as unclear ownership rights of property where 
infrastructure was to be developed, issues with acquiring construction and building 
permits/operational licence, unfavourable conditions on the ground, etc.  
The uncertainty related to the date of accession to Schengen area was the main external 
factor influencing the connection of Croatian VIS with EU VIS inhibiting the full 
realisation of Objective 6. Concerning Objective 8, there was a need to perform interior 
adaptation of 16 priority Diplomatic Missions and Consular Offices of Republic of 
Croatia, which was completed except for one case.  
The limited administrative capacity (within the Responsible Authority specifically) was a 
major  internal factor that hampered the implementation of projects at the beginning of the 
implementation period.  
 
EQ 2.3: To what extent has the Schengen Facility in Croatia been aligned to and 
contributed to the E U priorities with regard to the Schengen acquis?  
Findings : The Schengen Facility  was fully aligned  and contributed to the EU priorities 
with regard to the Schengen acquis. Specifically, the Schengen Facility  for Croatia has 
been designed to contribute to the broad European Union priorities on border and internal 
security. Furthermore, the Schengen Facility  measures are aligned and contributed to all 
specific areas of the Schengen acquis, in particular external borders policy. The 
Schengen Fa cility  did not directly affect only issues related to police, but Objectives 5 
and 7 contributed to the implementation of this part of Schengen acquis.  
 
The Schengen Facility  objectives were fully aligned and contributed to the EU Internal 
Security Strateg y for the period 2015 -2020, which aims at reinforced border security and 
integrated border management as these are specific objectives and benefits of the 
Schengen Facility .  
 
26 Furthermore, the Schengen Facility  is aligned to the priorities of the Schengen a cquis, 
which covers:  
 external borders policy;  
 visa policy;  
 the Schengen Information System;  
 data protection;  
 police cooperation;  
 judicial cooperation in criminal matters;  
 the absence of border control at the internal borders, and;  
 the functioning of the au thorities applying the relevant parts of the Schengen acquis.  
All of the Schengen Facility  objectives correspond to the external borders policy area 
priority. In particular, proper protection of the EU external borders, which requires 
appropriate technical means to protect green and blue borders (Objectives 1 and 2) and 
also ensuring adequate b order crossing infrastructure (Objective 4) directly correspond to 
the policy on external borders. At the same time, Objective 10 concerns employment 
costs of additional border police officers, which is related to the proper implementation 
of the external border policy.  
Although none of the Schengen Facility  objectives were directly related to the absence of 
a border control at internal borders, measures of the Objectives 1, 2, 4, and 10 directly 
affected the implementation of this part of the Schengen acq uis.  
Issues of the Schengen acquis relating to visa policy were covered by Objective 6 
measures as they supported the preparation of an appropriate system that is 
complementary to the EU visa system. Objective 8 provided Croatian diplomatic 
missions and c onsular offices with additional security measures, while Objective 7 raised 
the level of knowledge about Schengen and increased skills of consular staff in Croatia's 
diplomatic posts.  
The Schengen acquis priorities in the areas of Schengen information syst em as well as 
data protection were envisaged under Objective 3. These measures created the basis for 
integration with EU IT systems which are currently under implementation (EES33, 
ETIAS34, ECRIS -TCN35) as well as for their interoperability.  
Police cooperati on was facilitated through implementation of systems such as the 
SIRENE, the VIS and SIS, whose objective was to ensure seamless information flow 
with other Member States (Objectives 3 and 7). Activities that strengthened the border 
surveillance system at the external “green” and “blue” borders contributed to more 
frequent communication with the police of neighbouring countries (Objective 1).  
The only part of the Schengen acquis, which was not directly covered by the objectives 
of the Schengen Facility , is judicial cooperation in criminal matters. This component of 
the Schengen acquis was outside the scope of the Schengen Facility .  
                                                           
33  Entry -Exit System.  
34  European Travel Information and Authorisation System.  
35  The European Criminal Records Information System (Third Country Nationals).  
 
27 The functioning of the bodies applying the relevant parts of the Schengen acquis in 
Croatia was originally planned to be suppo rted by Schengen Facility  through 
improvement of the knowledge and skills related to Schengen consular employees and 
investments in security equipment in diplomatic missions / consular offices in accordance 
with Schengen standards (Objectives 7 and 8). Dur ing the implementation  of the 
Schengen Facility , it was found that support for its logistics and management, increasing 
the number of police officers for border control and police officers for state border 
protection, as well as additional equipment for bo rder police (objectives 9, 10 and 11) 
were necessary to ensure proper functioning of the bodies applying the relevant parts of 
the Schengen acquis.  
Furthermore, the Schengen Facility  for Croatia created the conditions for implementation 
of the Schengen Bo rders Code (Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament 
and of the Council of 9 March 2016 establishing a Community Code on the rules 
governing the movement of persons across borders) - one of the pillars of the Schengen 
acquis.  
 
EQ 2.4: To what extent the monitoring of the Schengen Facility in Croatia has been 
appropriate and supported the achievements of the Schengen Facility? Were the 
monitoring arrangements adequate?  
Findings : In the beginning of the implementation of the Schengen Facility , the 
monitoring of the funding instrument  was not adequate and it partially supported the 
achievements of the Schengen Facility  due to limited administrative capacity. After the 
problems with Schengen Facility  implementation in the first two years caused by t he lack 
of sufficient number of staff, monitoring functioned well. The annual reports are 
comprehensive and of good quality, but did not contain monitoring indicators that can 
present results of the measures, which is a deficiency in the monitoring system.  
There have been several organisational changes within the Independent Sector for 
Schengen Coordination and European Union Projects (Responsible Authority) 
throughout the implementation period, whose aim was to enhance the capacity of the 
unit, in particul ar for management and monitoring of the Schengen Facility . In 2013, the 
Responsible Authority started with one employee in 2013 and one year later the number 
of staff increased to five employees and two trainees. Since 2015, the capacity of the 
Responsible  Authority has significantly been improved due to the contracting of 
temporary staff – in total 9 additional employees.  
The monitoring of the Schengen Facility  has been planned in order to support its 
achievements and prevent misuse of funds. The tasks of  the R esponsible Authority  were 
carried out by the Independent Sector for Schengen coordination and EU Funds within 
the MoI, which provided technical assistance to the Board for coordination and 
monitoring of the Schengen Facility , and monitored the implem entation of related 
activities. The organi sational unit within the Independent Sector for Schengen 
coordination and EU Funds which manages the projects was the Department for 
Schengen Coordination.  
The R esponsible Authority  cooperated with the Schengen Fac ility Coordinator, which 
was established within the Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs (MFEA ). The task 
of the Schengen Facility  Coordinator was to coordinate and monitor the activities of three 
 
28 working groups in MFEA (each of them was responsible for the implementation of one 
Schengen Facility  objective).  
The Responsible Authority was responsible for control of payment (payment wa s 
allowed only after their approval) as well as for final control of all documentation and 
compatibility of issued documents with different regulations. The monitoring of 
individual projects was carried out at the level of departments responsible for proje cts. 
The Infrastructure Department of the MoI was in charge for monitoring of 
implementation for all infrastructural projects.  
The Responsible Authority  carried out on -the-spot check and ex -ante checks of the 
invoices and accompanying documentation before  allowing the execution of payments.  
In total, 27 on -the-spot visits on 12 projects implemented under Objective 1 were 
undertaken by the Responsible Authority,  i.e. 21% of all planned/concluded contracts 
within this objective were verified on -the-spot. The re are 5 on -the-spot visits on 4 
projects implemented under Objective 2 (14% of contracts), 8 on -the-spot visits on 8 
projects under Objective 3 (21% of contracts) and 8 visits on four projects  under 
Objective 4 (21% of contracts).  
The Responsible Authori ty was in charge of preparing quarterly, yearly and the final 
report, as well as checking quarterly and progress reports that were prepared by 
beneficiaries. The Responsible Authority prepared summary reports that were presented 
to the Board for coordinati on and monitoring of the Schengen instrument. Reports were 
approved by the Board before being sent to the Croatian government and the 
Commission for approval.  
As the Schengen Facility  objectives were formulated in the form of immediate effects, 
the monito ring system was based on procurement (product) indicators only, which 
provided information on outputs (e.g. about the number of new technical equipment for 
border control, number of BCPs and transit centres built and renovated, usage of 
technical equipment  etc.). There were no result indicators (e.g. on surveillance equipment 
coverage, illegal crossings detected), which could allow the assessment of the Schengen 
Facility  contribution to the implementation of the Schengen acquis and external border 
control.  
 
Efficiency  
 
The three evaluation questions covered by this criterion consider the relationship between 
the resources used to implement the Schengen Facility  in Croatia, in other words its cost, 
and the changes generated as a result of it. In general, it poses the question of whether the 
achievements were maximised, given the level of resources available or could the same 
have been achieved at a lower cost.  
 
EQ 3.1: Which were the costs and benefits of the Schengen Facility? To what extent were 
the results  of the Schengen Facility achieved at a reasonable cost?  
Findings: The results of the Schengen Facility  were achieved to a large extent, at a 
reasonable cost. This is mostly due to the conducting of competitive procurement 
procedures, which guaranteed fair prices for the goods and services procured. Most of the 
expected outputs of the Schengen Facility  were achieved at a cost below the allocated 
 
29 funds. Comparison with similar ( Schengen Facility ) investments in Bulgaria and 
Romania indicate that costs of acquisition were in line with prevailing market prices.  
The total programmed costs for the Schengen Facilit y for Croatia were EUR 122  747 
865, the contracted amount was EUR 119  318 705, and the costs incurred and declared to 
the Commission were EUR 116  861 415. These costs were allocated to 11 objectives of 
the IP, and each objective was divided into several me asures. The eligible costs represent 
95,2% of the programmed allocations, while the contracted projects amount to 97 ,3% of 
the programmed allocations, showing a reasonably high absorption rate for the Schengen 
Facility  for Croatia as it is close to 100%.  
Significant variances between programmed allocations and actual costs occurred in 
Objective 1 (with savings of EUR 4 ,16 million) and Objective 8 (with savings of EUR 
1,15 million). Competitive bids for the procurement of equipment in these two objectives 
explain the variance between planned and incurred costs.  
The evaluation concluded that the benefits of the Schengen Facility  were achieved at a 
reasonable cost, based on the following:  
 All large investments in equipment (helicopters, vehicles, vessels), inf rastructure 
development, information systems upgrades and development, surveillance facilities 
were procured at or below the programmed allocations for the respective objectives 
and measures;  
 For most procurement projects, competitive bids were received an d the lowest bidders 
were awarded the contract. No significant irregularities with the tendering procedures 
were reported by bidders, by the Audit Authority  or as a result of monitoring visits by 
the Commission, suggesting that procurement was fair and the purchases were done at 
the best possible terms. Most of the acquisitions were through open public procedures. 
For a limited number of items restricted tende rs were held as the nature of the 
equipment or services to be procured did not allow open public tenders either for 
security or for technical reasons, such as need for compatibility with existing 
equipment (e.g. construction of the IT back -up centre of the  MoI, video surveillance 
equipment at BCPs etc.). The value of restricted procurement procedures was about 
EUR 6,5 million, or 5 ,6% of the total eligible costs of the Schengen Facility . 
 Direct comparison of market prices was not possible for most of the in vestments, due 
to their unique requirements and technical specifications. Nevertheless, comparisons 
with similar acquisitions indicate that the costs incurred under the Schengen Facility  
for Croatia are comparable within reasonable deviations with costs in curred by other 
EU Member States under Schengen Facility  (Bulgaria  and R omania ), or under 
External Borders Fund (EBF)36 or ISF -B&V37 projects.  
 
                                                           
36  Decision No 574/2007/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 May 2007 establishing 
the External Borders Fund for the period 2007 to 2013 as part of the Genera l programme Solidarity 
and Management of Migration Flows.  
37  Regulation (EU) No 515/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 
establishing, as part of the Internal Security Fund, the instrument for financial support for external 
borders and visa and repealing Decision No 574/2007/EC.  
 
30 EQ 3.2: Do the outcomes of the Schengen Facility represent value for money?  
Findings : The outcomes of the Schengen  Facility  for Croatia represent good value for 
money. This conclusion was based on the achieved savings and future cost reductions, 
but also on the perception of stakeholders. The management costs are very low compared 
with the management costs of other EU  funds.  
The allocated funds were sufficient for achieving the goals of the IP and were used 
effectively to obtain the desired benefits and impact in terms of strengthening border 
control at the external border and preparing Croatia for joining the Schengen  area.  
The Schengen Facility  has generated good value for money and has brought measurable 
positive changes in critical areas, such as reaction capacity of the border guards, 
connectivity of national information systems with S chengen Information System  II and 
Visa Information System , preparation for introduction of future EU systems (e.g. EES, 
ETIAS), improving the safety and efficiency of border checks, preparedness for full 
introduction of the Schengen acquis.  
Acquisitions financed by the Schengen Facility  have contributed to cost reduction in the 
future (for instance, the construction of additional refugee facilities or BCPs have had a 
long-term effect of reducing transportation costs as refugees can be transported to the 
nearest facilities rather than a central one; additional BCPs reduce waiting lines at the 
border and offer more convenient routes to travellers; surveillance systems at the green 
border reduce the need for border patrols).  
Several tenders resulted in savings of over EUR 6 million.  These savings were re -
allocated to increase the capacity of Border Police through acquisition of technical 
equipment and hiring of additional human resources.  
The management costs of the Schengen Facility  were partially covered under Objective 
9, covering  the compensation for 9 employees of the Responsible Authority,  for a total 
amount of EUR 198 186, representing about 0 ,2% of the total eligible cost of the 
Schengen Facility . Given the number of projects and beneficiaries involved in the 
implementation of  the Schengen Facility  for Croatia, these costs are very low compared 
with management costs of other EU funds (where costs usually account for 3% to 5% of 
the fund). While the low amount provided for management cost can be seen as a sign of 
efficiency, it also shows that, in particular at the beginning of the implementation of the 
Schengen Facility  measures, the required effort for the implementation has not been 
considered and there have been  some delays, due to lack of staff and their limited 
experience .  
 
EQ 3.3: Which were the factors that helped or inhibited the efficiency, simplification and 
reduced burden? What were the simplification and reduced burden gains?  
 
Findings : A variety of factors produced mixed results in terms of helping efficiency 
simplification and reduced administrative burden. While certain areas benefited from 
improved productivity (communications, exchange of information, mobility in 
surveillance), other areas, such as border checks, management of BCPs or use of 
acquired equipm ent had to comply with additional operational and reporting 
requirements which slowed down the work and created new administrative tasks.  
 
 
31 Overall it can be considered the Schengen Facility  contributed to the simplification and 
reduction of administrative burden of the Border Police. However, there are significant 
differences in the opinions and information collected during the evaluation, from 
acknowledging the positive impact of more streamlined processes, better training and 
equipment which facilitates t he work of border police and consular officers, to claims 
that the Schengen Facility  had either no impact on administrative burden or it created a 
heavier burden due to the introduction of new business processes and applications that 
need maintenance and s upervision. The latter was observed at units managing the 
information systems and at BCPs and police stations, where overhead costs had to be 
split for reporting and accounting purposes.  
It should be noted that there were several factors into play, such a s the introduction of 
systematic checks of all travellers crossing the external borders, which caused delays at 
some BCPs. At the same time, automation of access to SIS II and national information 
systems has had a positive impact on the time needed to com plete border checks, and on 
the ability to carry out mobile checks (e.g. on trains or outside of BCPs).  
 
Coherence  
The evaluation of coherence covers both the external  perspective (complementarities and 
synergies between the Schengen Facility  and national and EU -funded programmes) and 
the internal  perspective (looking at how the various components of the Schengen Facility  
operate together to achieve its objectives).  
EQ 4.1: To what extent was the implementation of the Schengen Facility in Croatia 
coherent w ith and complementary to the border control measures in Croatia financed 
from national resources?  
Findings : The implementation of the Schengen Facility  has been to a large extent 
complementary to the overall border control measures in Croatia. The Schengen  Facility  
has been complementary with national actions, when it comes to investments in police 
infrastructure (for example national budget was used for facilities of the regular and 
special police, while the Schengen Facility  was used for facilities for th e border police, 
within the same police station building), but also access roads and other communal 
infrastructure near the border crossing points. Since 2009, Croatia has a well elaborated 
Strategy and Action plan for Integrated Border Management (signifi cantly revised and 
re-adopted in 2014), managed by an inter -ministerial steering group, which ensures 
complementarity and coherence of measures and sources of funding used to improve its 
border management.  
For the purpose of ensuring adequate border management, next to the alignment of the 
legislative framework and continuous institutional capacity building, Croatia has 
elaborated several strategic documents providing key guidance in terms of priority 
actions and investments, taking into account the n eeds of the border police, but also other 
relevant stakeholders linked to the border management: Strategy for IBM and Action 
Plan, Strategy for development of maritime police and Action Plan, Concept for green 
border protection and Concept for implementati on of compensation measures.  
The complementary national funding was primarily used for ensuring the required 
national co -financing for the internationally (mostly EU) funded projects.  
 
32 The majority of the related national investments were in the police inf rastructure, which 
is not exclusively for the border police but located in the same premises and used by 
other police officers. Complementary national funding came not only from the MoI and 
MFEA as beneficiaries of the Schengen Facility , but also from the Ministry of Finance 
and the Ministry of Agriculture. In addition, national funding was used for access roads 
and other communal infrastructure (energy, water, sewage, telecommunication etc.) near 
the border crossing points38, which were not planned under th e Schengen Facility . The 
Schengen Facility  financed structures directly related to the functioning of the Border 
Police, while national funds were used to finance auxiliary infrastructure.  
Furthermore, national funding was used to support EU funded activi ties for the necessary 
but ineligible costs related to infrastructure (construction permits, technical documents)  
Given the limited timeframe of the Schengen Facility  implementation, national resources 
were used in cases where there were delays in the pub lic procurement procedures 
(occurrence of irregularities, lack of valid offers, filed complaints, etc.), which were 
preventing a timely implementation of actions/measures. In such cases, the procurement 
was finali sed using the national budget and savings f rom the Schengen Facility  budget 
were reallocated to other measures.  
Complementarity can also be seen in the example of the development of new 
functionalities of the Croatian VIS (Objective 6, Measure 6.1). The national VIS was 
fully developed through the  combination of the Instrument for Pre -Accession Assistance   
and national resources, while new functionalities were financed through the Schengen 
Facility .   
EQ 4.2: To what extent was the implementation of the Schengen Facility in Croatia  
coherent with and complementary to other EU funded actions in the field of border 
controls, the Schengen acquis implementation and related policy areas (such as PHARE, 
the External Borders Fund 2010 Annual Programme, the European Regional 
Development Fund,  the Cohesion Fund, the Connecting Europe Facility), in particular 
concerning synergies and overlaps?  
Findings : The implementation of the Schengen Facility  was to a large extent 
complementary and consistent with measures financed by other EU instruments. High 
coherence and complementarity has been identified in particular for investments prior to 
the Schengen Facility , in particular CARDS39 and PHARE programmes (e.g. in the field 
of institutional capacity building, strengthening of the border police, NBMIS,  
moderni sation of surveillance system on blue and green border). After  the Schengen 
Facility  investments, there is good complementarity with the ISF (e.g. for purchasing and 
maintaining additional IT equipment, trainings and operational costs) and Asylum, 
Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF ) - actions targeting migrants and asylum seekers).  
Prior to 2013 and since 2005, the concept of IBM was adopted and since then there has 
been a continuous strategic planning effort to identify and prioriti se investments needs so 
                                                           
38  This includes national financing for building of additional infrastructure to/from building site financed 
through the Schengen Facility  and additional support infrastructural works.  
39  Community Ass istance for Reconstruction, Development and Stabilisation.  
 
33 as to ensure the proper use of all the available international funding (mostly EU pre -
accession funds: CARDS, PHARE, IPA). An Inter -ministerial working group was 
established, meeting relatively frequently (on monthly or even bi -weekl y basis), for the 
coordination purposes.  
The Strategy for IBM and Action Plan was elaborated in the framework of an EU 
supported action. It was developed in the frame of a Twinning light programme in 2013, 
together with Slovenian partners, to include alre ady all needs linked to the Schengen -
related requirements of integrated border management. The Strategy was adopted in 2014 
and was the basis for elaboration of the IP, therefore ensuring that the Schengen Facility  
in Croatia would be used in a coherent wa y, linking to the past investments and avoiding 
the possible investments in the political “wish lists”, not relevant for the preparations for 
Schengen40.The main activities from the Strategy which the Croatian government (mostly 
through its Ministry of Inte rior) is implementing can be grouped as follows:  
• harmoni sation of legal framework with the EU acquis,  
• revision of existing bilateral agreements on border crossing and border 
control,  
• organi sational reform and related human resource management,  
• moderni sation and improvement of training programmes and increasing the 
professionalism of the border police officers,  
• upgrading of national IT infrastructure and systems,  
• procurement of technical equipment for border control and protection,  
• introducing risk analysis and information exchange (compliant with  joint 
integrated risk analysis model),  
• increasing fight against corruption,  
• strengthening bilateral and multilateral cooperation.  
For each objective and measure, the Indicative Programme has clearly indicated the 
chapter related to the “Complementarity and consistency with measures financed by 
other instruments“.  
Although in the IP only Objectives 2 and 6 indicated a direct link with other investments 
(the TETRA radio -communication system procured through ERDF and national funds 
and the National VIS funded through IPA 2010 and PHARE PPF 200641), it is clear that 
there is coherence of the investments also in all other topics covered by the Schengen 
Facility . 
The consistency and coherence of the investments started pri or to EU accession, from 
CARDS and PHARE42 programmes, in the field of institutional capacity building, 
asylum, IBM inter -agency cooperation, strengthening of the border police, NBMIS/SIS 
II, criminal intelligence, moderni sation of surveillance system on bl ue and green border 
(including purchase of cars and vessels), combating trafficking in firearms, ammunition 
                                                           
40  The previous version of the Strategy (2009 -2013) did not include all the necessary investments and 
actions in this respect.  
41  PHARE Project Preparation Facility 2006.  
42  Until 2007, when both C ARDS and PHARE were substituted by IPA.  
 
34 and explosives. This complementarity continued though IPA funds, which were used 
through investments in IT and surveillance systems, border police e quipment, 
institutional and administrative capacities, construction and equipping BPSs and 
reception centres.  
Croatia has benefitted from the last 6 months of the implementation of the Programme 
‘Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows’ (July -December 2013), through the 
European Refugee Fund and the European Return Fund, which financed transport of third 
coun try nationals, procurement of basic items, translation services, reception 
infrastructure. Overlapping  investments  with Schengen Facility  were not noted.  
From 2014 Croatia has benefited from AMIF. This Fund covers actions in the 
migration/asylum areas, whi ch are not directly linked to the requirements of Schengen, 
but complementary and relevant for the integrated migration management, where border 
control plays a significant role. On the other hand, ISF is closely linked to Schengen 
Facility  as it provides for additional procurements and maintenance of IT equipment, 
vehicles, vessels and helicopters purchased from the Schengen Facility , operational costs, 
training of border police officers etc.  
Croatia did not benefit from the  External Border s Fund , as this was programmed in 
2010/2011 when Croatia was not an EU Member State. Also, ESI Funds for Croatia 
(ESF, ERDF and Cohesion Fund) were not used for any Schengen Facility  related 
activities.  
 
 
EQ 4.3: To what extent were the measures/actions im plemented under the Schengen 
Facility in Croatia internally coherent?  
Findings:  The measures/actions implemented under the Schengen Facility  were 
internally coherent without overlapping and very often with significant synergies. 
Differences between the initial and final version of IP should be considered as fast 
adaptation to changing needs during the implementation of the Schengen Facility  and 
reaction aimed to substitute time -consuming activities in order to maximise absorption 
rate. 
Several internal synergies and complementarities can be noticed:  
 Measure 3.2 (Enhancing the infrastructure of the MoI`s Information System needed 
for Schengen op eration; Action b - NBMIS application upgrade) was implemented in 
unison with Measure 6.3 (Upgrade NBMIS software for VIS Functionality) as the 
scope of both measures was similar to a large extent.  
 Infrastructural issues were solved by investments in cons truction of new and 
renovation and moderni sation of the existing border infrastructure and investment in 
security equipment at diplomatic missions/ consular posts according to the Schengen 
standards. This allowed better working conditions and the level of efficiency was 
increased by acquisition of new technical equipment for border control of the external 
borders and moderni sation and development of radio communication system 
necessary for surveillance and control of external borders.  
 
35  The development and up grading of information systems and computer networks 
related to the implementation of the Schengen acquis as well as the development of 
the Croatian VIS and connection to the EU VIS increased connectivity inside Croatia 
and with other EU countries. Departm ents using NBMIS and Croatian VIS have 
access to much more data in comparison with the period before the Schengen Facility  
implementation. As reported during the evaluation, the joint development of NBMIS 
and Croatian VIS allowed synergies, which would not  have been accomplished if both 
systems were developed as two stand -alone systems that are connected at a later stage.  
 Internal coherence was visible also in the cases when capacity building activities 
followed the procurement of equipment, to ensure that all the required skills and 
knowledge are in place to maximi se the benefits of procured equipment and 
investments in infrastructure.  
 
Sustainability  
The evaluation questions related to sustainability concern  two issues: the first one looks 
at the prospects  for endurance of the results achieved under the Schengen Facility  
(infrastructure, equipment, and training),  while the second one considers long -term 
effectiveness of the actions funded under the facility.  
 
EQ 5.1: Are the effects achieved under the Schengen Facility in Croatia likely to be long -
lasting?  
Findings : The overall effects achieved under the Schengen Facility  are likely to be 
sustainable in the long -run, but there are also indications of problems due to decreasing 
national funding resulting in inability to maintain and upgrade all the acquired equipment 
and the need for continuation of training. Due to intensiv e use of some equipment and 
vehicles, they need to be replaced by new ones earlier than planned, which reduces the 
sustainability of the Schengen Facility  actions even in the short -term. The Internal 
Security Fund  is often used as a way of ensuring the sus tainability of the Schengen 
Facility  actions.  
The effects achieved under the Schengen Facility  are likely to be sustainable in the long -
run, but there are also exceptions where the useful life of acquired assets has proved too 
short. During the evaluation,  the equipment, systems and facilities acquired and 
developed through the Schengen Facility  were in use, with a few exceptions.  
The evaluation also revealed, to a certain extent, that the acquired equipment was not 
maintained and upgraded on a regular basi s, as well as the fact that there were not 
sufficient human resources to utili se the assets acquired through the Schengen Facility .  
The financial resources required for the exploitation of the acquired equipment, systems 
and facilities have been made avai lable from the Croatian national budget, however 
decreasing in the last 10 years. In some cases this may result in insufficient funds for 
maintaining the equipment and systems acquired through the Schengen Facility  and may 
put their sustainability under risk.  
 
36 The sustainability of large acquisitions, such as vehicles, information systems and 
helicopters, stationary systems for border surveillance, seems to be heavily dependent on 
EU financing (mainly ISF Borders). This would require the allocation of national funds 
to support the sustainability of the acquisitions  through the Schengen Facility .  
An important action that contributes to the sustainability of the investments is the 
training of end users who are operati ng and maintaining the acquired equipment and 
systems. The evaluation revealed that a significant proportion of the staff has received 
training related to the equipment and systems acquired through the Schengen Facility . 
In order to ensure that the effects  achieved under the Schengen Facility  will be long -
lasting, both national and EU financing are used to support operational and maintenance 
costs.  
 
EQ 5.2: Were the actions funded by the Schengen Facility in Croatia designed to further 
strengthen and upgra de external border control?  
Findings : The actions funded by the Schengen Facility  had a significant positive impact 
on strengthening the control at the external borders by providing the necessary 
equipment, information systems and skills to prepare Croatia  for joining the Schengen 
area. There is a decreased number and share of detections of illegal crossings close to the 
border  as a consequence of using the thermal imaging cameras and ground surveillance 
systems.  
A significant proportion of the opinions an d collected information indicate an increase of 
the waiting times at the BCPs, although these were expected to decrease due to the  
technological improvements.  
Access to SIS II and the national information systems enhanced interoperability and 
increased the efficiency of border officers performing border checks. The Schengen 
Facility  contributed to enhancing the skills and knowledge of the relevant staff.  
In line  with the Intervention logic of the Schengen Facility  (see section 2.4.1), the general 
objective of contributing to compliance with the Schengen acquis was to be achieved 
through the following specific objectives:  
 Enhance control and surveillance of the bo rders  
 Implement the principle of IBM at national and international level  
 Enhance the skills and knowledge of the Croatian Border Police and employees at 
consular and diplomatic mission in relation to the Schengen acquis  
An assessment of the achievement of the specific objectives is presented below.  
Enhancing control and surveillance of the borders  
The activities contributing to strengthening of the external borders control included the 
construction of new BCPs and the upgrade of existing BCPs at the external borders, the 
improved surveillance capacities at both the land and sea borders through the a cquisition 
of vehicles, vessels and helicopters, and specialised equipment for surveillance.  
The Schengen Facility  had a positive impact on border control, emphasi sing 
improvements of surveillance and the green and blue borders, including higher capacity 
to detect illegal border crossings, improved communication infrastructure and BCP 
facilities.  
 
37 Overall the border surveillance improved, as surveillance coverage increased 
considerably, while reaction times decreased, mainly due to the new mobility equipme nt 
(vehicles, helicopters, vessels) and the performant surveillance systems and devices 
operating at the external borders.  
To a certain extent, the pattern and size of the illegal crossings have changed due the 
implementation of the Schengen Facility . Still, a clear connection with the developments 
funded under the Schengen Facility  cannot be established, as these could be influenced 
by a variety of other factors.  
As shown in Table 4, there is a significant change in the pattern of occurrence of illegal 
border crossings between 2013 and 2018:  
- a decreased number and share of detections of illegal crossings detected close to 
the border confirms, as a consequence of the upgrading of the surveillance 
systems (e.g. installing thermal imaging cameras at the gree n borders);  
- a significantly increased number and share of illegal border crossings detected at 
BCPs, which may be seen as a displacement effect of the strong surveillance at 
the green borders, forcing irregular migrants to attempt illegal entry through 
BCP s instead;  
- an increased number and share of illegal crossings detected by neighbouring 
countries.  
 
 
 
 
 Table 4. Place of detection of illegal border crossings  
Place of detection  2013  Share  2018  Share  
BCPs  603 14% 2 541 31% 
Close to the border  1 363 31% 583 7% 
Deep inside the territory  1 664 38% 2 699 33% 
Detected by other countries  740 17% 2 384 29% 
Total  4 370 100%  8 207 100%  
The number of irregular third country nationals found in Croatia also increased compared 
to the baseline, from 4150 (2013) to  5580 (2018), similarly to the trend in illegal 
crossings.  
Concerning the waiting times on BCPs, there is no hard data, but only the responses 
received in the online survey carried out as a part of the evaluation. Although there isn’t a 
clear opinion, it s eems that the better equipment and faster checks which are due to the 
Schengen Facility  contributed to the decrease of the waiting times in some BCPs, while 
in other BCPs several internal and external factors (slow internet speed, increased traffic, 
shorta ge of human resources, insufficient trainings etc.) led to increased waiting times.  
Exploring another aspect of the baseline - trafficking in human beings, the data show an 
increase in the registration of such cases during the implementation of the Schenge n 
Facility  (more than double). Even though a direct link cannot be drawn between the 
enhancement of border security achieved through the Schengen Facility  and this increase 
 
38 in registered human trafficking cases, the data show positive development in detect ing 
these serious crime.  
Implementing the principle of IBM at national and international level  
The largest contribution of the Schengen Facility  to the implementation of the principle 
of IBM was performed through Objective 3 - Development and upgrading of information 
systems and computer networks and Objective 6 (Development of the Croatian Visa 
Information System and connection to the EU Visa Inf ormation System (VIS)). As the 
targets of both objectives were achieved, the necessary changes to the NBMIS 
application were realised in order to ensure the introduction of the SIS II. Access to SIS 
II and the national information systems enhanced interope rability and increased the 
productivity of border officers performing border checks.  
Enhancing skills and knowledge  
The Schengen Facility  financed training courses on the Schengen acquis for border 
police officers and employees at consular and diplomatic mission. In addition, language 
training and training for the operation and maintenance of newly acquired equipment and 
information systems was provided to end users. The training of border police officers in 
using the equipment and systems acquired through  the Schengen Facility  is part of the 
police academy curriculum. Sustainability in terms of skills and knowledge is also 
supported by the low level of turnover among Border Police officers.  
 
EU-added value  
EU-added value is a criterion that is exploring c hanges which it can reasonably be argued 
are due to the EU intervention, beyond what could reasonably have been expected from 
national actions by the Member States.  
 
EQ6.1 What is the likelihood that the positive effects of the Schengen Facility in Croati a 
would have occurred without the EU support?  
Findings : There is a very small likelihood that the positive outcomes of the Schengen 
Facility  would have occurred without the EU support. No similar effects would have 
been achieved in terms of both scope and speed.  
There are several positive effects of the Schengen Facility  in Croatia, including: 
improvement of quality during border control, impr oved surveillance of green border and 
blue border, improved connection of BCP and Police Stations to MoI central IT system, 
and higher quality in data exchange collected by NBMIS between police -security and 
other relevant bodies in Croatia and other EU mem ber states. The increased level of 
security on EU external borders brought safer environment for citizens and consequently 
better prospects of Croatia joining the Schengen zone.  
It would have been extremely difficult to have the similar outcomes without th e EU 
support. One of the major advantages of the Schengen Facility  was that it allowed for a 
wide scope of actions that could be financed under a single programme. The Schengen 
Facility  also created a quality foundation for integration with EU IT systems b efore 
Croatia joining the Schengen zone.  
 
39 On the other hand, the EU added value is diminished by the fact that the positive effects 
of the improved IT systems on visas will not be functional before Croatia will have 
entered the Schengen zone.  
EQ6.2 To what  extent has the support provided by the EU helped to improve the ability 
of Croatian authorities in strengthening and upgrading external border control 
compared to what they could do at national level without the support?  
Findings : The support provided by the EU helped to a great extent improve the ability of 
Croatian authorities in strengthening and upgrading external border control and similar 
effects could not have been achieved only with national financing. National financing is 
marginal as compared to the Schengen Facility , but the Schengen Facility  also 
significantly exceeds any other EU support allocated to Croatia in the area.  
The national financing for the management of borders is very limited as compared to the 
support provided by the Schengen Faci lity.  
 
The national financing (excluding salaries) was rather small as compared to the Schengen 
Facility  financing - 23% of the Schengen Facility  in 2014 and just 3% in 2015. 
Furthermore, the Schengen Facility  financing was significantly larger than other  support 
provided by the EU to the management of the borders. Even though this is a positive 
conclusion when it comes to the Schengen Facility  itself, what if of concern is that after 
the completion of the Schengen Facility , none of the subsequent EU 
programmes/instruments (ISF, AMIF etc.) is matching its scale.  
The national budget would most probably have not allowed for the scope that the 
Schengen Facility  had, most notably in terms of  equipment and infrastructure. 
Furthe rmore, based on national funding only it would have taken more time to achieve 
same outputs and results.  
The Schengen Facility  also allowed for more exchange of experience with the other 
Member States, which would have not been prioritised in the case of national financing.  
 
6. CONCLUSIONS  
Relevance  
To a large extent the objectives of the S chengen Facility  were relevant both to the needs 
of the EU and Croatia. There was a strong link between the needs identified in national 
strategic documents and those expr essed by  stakeholders during the evaluation  and the 
objectives of the IP 2013 -2014. Relevance was ensured by having beneficiaries drafting 
the IP by taking into account existing national strategies related to external border control 
and surveillance. The o bjectives setting of the Schengen Facility  showed flexibility in 
light of newly identified needs. Thus, the original objectives were supplemented, which 
was considered as one of its advantages compared to other EU assistance programs that 
offer less opport unities for adding and changing objectives. Furthermore, funds  under the 
Schengen Facility  were provided before the commencement of the project, whereas for 
post-Schengen Facility  financial instruments  the resources  are usually given based on 
fulfilment of the applicable rules,  after a certain period of implementation , which is 
another factor that contributed to the high relevance of the Schengen Facility . 
 
40 At the same time,  new needs have been identified later, such a s the trainings for border 
police in human rights protection and interactions with immigrants, as highlighted by 
NGOs and the Ombudsman of the Republic of Croatia  in their Annual Report for 2017 . 
In spite of the high relevance of the Schengen Facility , the re are current outstanding 
needs, identified by the Council and stakeholders consulted during the evaluation: land 
border surveillance of the green border with Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Montenegro, 
further trainings on how to use the equipment and infras tructure needs at BCPs.  
 
Effectiveness  
The implementation of the S chengen Facility  can overall be considered as effective. At 
the level of objectives defined in the IP of the Schengen Facility , out of a total of 11 
objectives, 5 have been fully achieved, 4  have been achieved to a large extent and 2 have 
been partially achieved. While some modifications did not necessarily have a negative 
impact on the effectiveness of the Schengen Facility  (e.g. acquisition of helicopter 
instead of aircraft under Objective 1), equipment and services that were planned but not 
procured/delivered hampered the effectiveness (most notably under Objectives 5 and 8).  
Hence, the operational objectives of the Schengen Facility  were achieved to a large 
extent. Two operational objectiv es relating to development and upgrading of IT systems 
and contributing to support cost and logistics were fully achieved, while acquisition of 
new equipment for border control as well as construction/renovation of existing border 
infrastructure were achie ved to a large extent. The only operational objective that was 
partially achieved concerned the qualification of border police and consular staff.  
The targets that were not achieved and the corresponding reasons are provided below:  
 The complexity of procurement procedures resulted in a proportion of stationary 
systems for day/night supervision not procured, as these would not have been 
procured within the eligibility period (Objective 1).  
 Unresolved property -legal relations have pro ven challenging on two occasions. In one 
case a small share of concrete pillars for closing road routes were not procured 
because the properties (i.e. routes that were to be closed) could not be used (Objective 
1). In a second case, the inability to acquir e a land use permit resulted with one less 
TETRA base station installation (Objective 2).  
 The cancellation of the reconstruction of the police academy, which was funded under 
another programme resulted in targets not being met under the Schengen Facility  
(Objective 5).  
 The organisation of trainings for the consular staff during the summer period resulted 
in a smaller number of training participants in trainings (Objective 7).  
 The need for reallocation of certain premises and lack of permission to perform  
adaptations to diplomatic missions’ infrastructure disabled the fulfilment of these 
targets during the eligibility period (Objective 8). Moreover, additional staff that was 
intended for performing project management tasks could not be hired due to the 
complexity of the employment procedure and the government’s decision on limits for 
new employment in civil service.  
Even though the above mentioned cases influenced negatively the effectiveness of the 
Schengen Facility  implementation, they constitute a minor share of measures that were 
not achieved.  
 
41 Positive outcomes that contributed to the effectiveness of the Schengen Facility  
implementation include improved mobility and efficiency of border control, upgraded 
communication and information systems, improved working conditions for Border 
Police, and improved capacity and working conditions of staff at consular missions in 
third countries.  
Both internal (limited administrative capacity and insufficient guidance in the beginning 
of the implementation of the Schengen Facility ) and external factors (complex 
procurement procedures and time required to acquire permits) have influenced the 
implementation of the Schengen Facility . The negative effects are not judged to be 
significant, but should be considered in simil ar future operations.  
The Schengen Facility  for Croatia has been designed and contributed to the broad EU 
priorities on border and internal security. As expected considering the objectives of the 
Schengen Facility , its measures are aligned and contributed to all specific areas of the 
Schengen acquis, in particular external borders policy. The Schengen Facility  did not 
directly affect only issues related to police cooperation, but Objectives 5 (Increase of the 
qualification of the border police) and 7 (Impro vement of Schengen related knowledge 
and skills of the consular staff) contribute to the implementation of this part of Schengen 
acquis.  
 
Efficiency  
The results of the S chengen Facility  were achieved at a reasonable cost due to the 
conducting of competitive procurement procedures, which guaranteed fair prices for the 
goods and services procured. The eligible costs represent 95 ,2% of the programmed 
allocations, while the contracted projec ts amount to 97 ,3% of the programmed 
allocations, which suggests a reasonably high absorption rate.  
Most of the expected benefits of the Schengen Facility  were achieved at a cost below the 
allocated funds, while a comparison with similar Schengen Facility  investments in 
Bulgaria and Romania indicate that costs of acquisition were in line with prevailing 
market prices.  
Considering the achieved savings and future cost reductions (e.g. surveillance systems at 
the green border reduce the need for border patro ls) the outcomes of the Schengen 
Facility  for Croatia represented good value for money. The management costs were very 
low (representing about 0 ,2% of the total eligible cost of the Schengen Facility ) 
compared with management costs of other EU funds. While  certain areas benefited from 
improved productivity (communications, exchange of information, mobility in 
surveillance), other areas, such as border checks, management of BCPs or use of 
acquired equipment had to comply with additional operational and repor ting 
requirements which slowed down the work and created new administrative tasks.  
 
Coherence  
The implementation of the S chengen Facility  has been to a large extent complementary 
to the overall border control measures in Croatia. The Schengen Facility  has been 
complementary with national actions, when it comes to investments in police 
infrastructure (for example national budget was used for facilities of the regular and 
special police, while the Schengen Facility  was used for facilities for the border poli ce, 
 
42 within the same police station building), but also access roads and other communal 
infrastructure near the border crossing points. Since 2009, Croatia has had a  well 
elaborated Strategy and Action plan for Integrated Border Management (significantly 
revised and re -adopted in 2014), managed by an inter -ministerial steering group, which 
ensured complementarity and coherence of measures and sources of funding used to 
improve its border management.  
The implementation of the Schengen Facility  was to a large extent complementary and 
consistent with measures financed by other EU instruments. High coherence and 
complementarity has been identified in particular for investments starting from CARDS 
and PHARE programmes (e.g. in the field of institutional capacity b uilding, 
strengthening of the border police, NBMIS, moderni sation of surveillance system on blue 
and green border). Currently there is good complementarity with the ISF (on IT 
equipment and vehicles, vessels, trainings and operational costs) and with the A MIF (on 
migrants and asylum seekers).  
The measures/actions implemented under the Schengen Facility  were internally coherent 
(i.e. without overlapping) and very often had significant synergies. As mentioned in the 
analysis on Relevance, differences between the initial and final version of IP should be 
considered as fast adaptation to changing needs.  
 
Sustainability  
The overall effects achieved under the S chengen Facility  are likely to be sustainable in 
the long -run, but at the same time, the decreasing national funding could pose some 
problems to the ability of the Croatian Authorities to maintain and upgrade the acquired 
equipment and continue the necessary training (in particular on using BCP equipment). 
Thus, the EU funding, in particular ISF, remains the most important alternative for 
sustaining the Schengen Facility  achievements and further strengthening of the external 
borders control. Due to intensive use of some  equipment and vehicles, they already need 
to be replaced by new ones earlier than planned, which reduces the sustainability of the 
Schengen Facility  actions. The ISF is often used as a way of ensuring the sustainability 
of measures implemented under the Sche ngen Facility  (e.g. for purchase of vehicles, 
helicopter equipment, and trainings).  
The actions funded by the Schengen Facility  had a significant positive impact on 
strengthening the control at the external borders by providing the necessary equipment, 
information systems and skills to prepare Croatia for joining the Schengen area. There is 
a decreased number and share of detections of illegal crossings close to the border  as a 
consequence of using the thermal imaging cameras and ground surveillance systems . The 
maritime  surveillance systems have now the capacity to detect smaller vessels and 
therefore avoidance of border controls at the blue borders has been decreased.  
There is no available hard data on the actual waiting times at borders, which is why it i s 
not possible to verify whether waiting time increased, or decreased. Based on results of 
the survey with border police staff, it can be concluded that in some cases the Schengen 
Facility  contributed to decreasing waiting time at BCPs thanks to technologi cal 
improvements. However, in other cases the waiting time increased due to insufficient 
trainings on the operation of the equipment, as well as due to insufficient internet 
connection and staffing.  
 
43 Access to SIS II and the national information systems enh anced interoperability and 
increased the productivity of border officers performing border checks. The Schengen 
Facility  contributed to enhancing the skills and knowledge of the Croatian Border Police 
and employees at consular and diplomatic mission by fin ancing training courses on the 
Schengen acquis.  
 
EU added value  
In general, the evaluation of the Schengen Facility of Croatia showed that there was a 
very small likelihood that outcomes (in terms of both scope and speed) similar to the 
Schengen Facility  achievements would have occurred without the EU support.  
The Schengen Facility allowed for a wide scope of actions financed under a single 
programme (for example not only building of centres, but also buying furniture, clothes, 
salaries of border police,  etc.). This provided thus an extended scope of action to the 
Croatian Authorities.  
The strengthening and upgrading of the external border control achieved through the 
Schengen Facility  could not have been achieved to the same extent and the same timeline  
only with national financing. The national financing (excluding salaries) was rather small 
as compared to the Schengen Facility  financing - 23% of the Schengen Facility  financing 
in 2014 and just 3% in 2015. Furthermore, t he Schengen Facility  allocation i s 
significantly higher than any EU funds allocated to Croatia for the purpose of 
strengthening the management of external borders43. 
 
Overall conclusion  
The Schengen Facility had a significant positive impact on strengthening the control at 
the external bor ders by providing the necessary equipment, information systems, and 
trainings to prepare Croatia for joining the Schengen area. This strengthening and 
upgrading of the external border control could not have been achieved to the same extent 
and the same tim eline only with nati onal financing . Even though the S chengen Facility  
effects are likely to be sustainable in the long -run, the decreasing national funding may 
be challenging to maintain and upgrad e the acquired assets.  In this context, the Croatian 
authorities will continue to rely on the availability of EU funding, such as ISF , as an 
essential resource . The objectives of the Schengen Facility are relevant to the EU and 
Croatian needs and relevance was constantly reinforced via the flexible approach of the 
Schengen Facility . The targets of the Schengen Facility  have been largely met and the 
results were achieved at a reasonable cost through competitive procedures, although the 
monitoring posed some problems in the first years of the implement ation of the Schengen 
Facility .  
 
 
 
                                                           
43  IPA, ISF, FRONTEX etc.  
 
44 
 ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATIO N 
1. LEAD DG,  DeCIDE PLANNING /CWP  REFERENCES  
The Evaluation Roadmap for the initiative was published by DG Migration and Home 
Affairs (DG HOME) on the Commission’s ‘Have your say’ webpage on 6/4/2018. The 
Terms of Reference for engaging a contractor to carry out the external study as part of 
the evaluation were drawn up by DG HOME and validated by the inter -service steering 
group and a request for service was issued in July 2018, and a contractor selected by an 
evaluation committee consisting of staff from DG HOME in November 2018.  The study 
commenced in November 2018 and ended in July 2019. The agenda planning (Decide) 
refer ence assigned to the evaluation is PLAN/2018/2434.  
2. ORGANISATION AND TIMI NG 
As per the Better Regulation Guidelines, an inter -service steering group was set up in 
June 2018  within the Commission to oversee the evaluation. Several Directorates -
General (DGs) within the Commission  were invited to nominate representatives to the 
steering group.  
The steering group had 3 meetings, which were were chaired by DG HOME. The 
steering group was regularly consulted over the course of the evaluation, typically in 
conjunct ion with the submission of specific draft reports by the contractor responsible for 
carrying out the external study. These consultations took place both in the context of 
regular meetings, via email and telephone.  
Finally, the steering group was consulted  during the drafting of this staff working 
document.  
3. EXCEPTIONS TO THE BET TER REGULATION GUIDE LINES  
In conducting the evaluation, no exceptions from the usual procedural requirements 
described in the Better Regulation Guidelines were required.  
4. EVIDENCE , SOURCES AND QUALITY  
The evaluation drew on different types of documents which were examined through an 
extensive desk research. More information on sources is provided in Annex 3. 
 
Besides a review of the relevant documents, the evaluation also relied on extensive 
consultations with a wide range of stakeholders. These consultations served as 
opportunities to collect new data or to confirm the validity of already collected data. 
Addit ional information concerning the stakeholder consultations is provided in Annex 2. 
 
 
45 
 ANNEX 2: SYNOPSIS  REPORT  OF THE  STAKEHOLDER  CONSULTATION  
 
1. OVERVIEW  OF STAKEHOLDER  CONSULTATIONS  
A broad  range  of stakeholder  consultations  were  carried  out as part of the evaluation  of 
the Facility.  The aim of the consultations was  to gather different  views  that could  be 
useful  in answering the evaluation  questions concerning the  relevance,  coherence, 
effec tiveness, efficiency, EU added value and sustainability of the Facility. The  Synopsis  
Report  aims  to describe  and summarise  all formal  consultation  work,  any ad hoc 
contributions directly  linked to the preparation of the evaluation, as well as any  relevant  
input received through  the feedback  mechanism  for the Evaluation  Roadmap.  
2. METHODOLOGY  AND  CONSULTED  STAKEHOLDERS   
The evaluation of the Schengen Facility of Croatia included consultations with several 
stakeholders. The consultations were conducted by the Commission and by an  external  
consultancy specialised in evaluation in the framework of their contract with  the 
Commission  to provide  a study  on the ex post evaluation (‘the  external  evaluators’).  This 
annex  provides  an overview  of the consultation processes  and the type of stakeholders  
consulted.  Moreover, it presents the results of these consultations.  
The consultation activities were defined in cooperation between the European 
Commission (EC) and the Contractor (Ecorys). Stakeholders were mapped t o identify all 
relevant groups and to identify suitable consultation activities to reach out to these 
groups. The objective of the consultation was to collect factual information, data, 
knowledge and opinions. Information was collected on all evaluation cr iteria of the 
study: effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence, Sustainability and EU added value.  
 
The consultation activities took place between December 2018 and April 2019 and 
included the following activities, which are further presented in the next sections:  
 Online public consultation;  
 Interviews;  
 Survey with end recipients.  
 
The key stakeholder  groups  identified  in the Stakeholder  Consultation  Strategy  include: 
competent authorities at the Member State level; beneficiaries of the measures of t he 
Facility; end users  academia and think tanks; the  general  public;  and the relevant  
Directorates -General  within  the Commission.  
 
3. CONSULTATIONS  CONDUCTED  BY THE  COMMISSION  
CONSULTATIONS ON THE ROADMAP  
 
46 The Roadmap , published in April 2018, served to inform stakeholders and citizens about 
how the Commission intends to carry out the evaluation of the Directive.  
There wa s only 1 answer as feedback to the Roadmap.  
 
THE PUBLIC CONSULTATION CONDUCTED BY THE COMMISSION  
The public consultation ran for 12 weeks between the 4th of January 2019 and 29th of 
March 2019. EU Survey was used to manage the OPC. The questionnaire targe ted the 
following stakeholder groups:  
• the general public;  
• all non -government/private organi sations/entities with an interest in the 
implementation of the Schengen Facility for Croatia;  
 
The questionnaire for the public consultation consisted of mainly closed questions along 
with a limited number of open questions to allow for clarifying remarks and/or remarks 
of a more general nature. While the questionnaire itself was only available in E nglish, 
French, German and Croatian, respondents were free to complete the ‘open’ elements of 
the questionnaire using any recognised EU language.  
Only two responses were received to the OPC – from EU citizens, one from Germany 
and one from France.  
 
Due to the small number of responses, it is not possible to include results of the closed -
end questions.  
 
4. TARGETED  CONSULTATIONS  CONDUCTED  BY THE  EXTERNAL  
EVALUATORS   
ONLINE SURVEY  
The online survey was set up to gather additional information from end users bene fiting 
from the Schengen Facility  funding and it was live in the period January -February 2019. 
The survey was translated to Croatian and distribution was done online via beneficiaries 
as it became clear after the first couple of field visits that all emplo yees have official 
email addresses. The distribution of the survey on the ground, in parallel with the field 
visits, was seen as an effective way in reaching the stakeholders.  
 
The total number of responses was 232. The majority of respondents indicated t hey are 
contributing as border police officers, followed by border surveillance officers (such as 
for instance employees of the National Coordination Centre).  
 
 
47 Figure 6  Distribution of respondents   
 
 
The results of the on -line survey were integrated in the main report of the consultant.  
INTERVIEWS  
Semi -structured interviews were conducted with respondents from different instances, 
including senior public officers able to respond to general issues and strategic level 
questions as well as those responsible for implementation, and beneficiaries. Interviews 
carried out during site visits enabled reaching respondents who were directly benefiting 
from the implementation of Schengen Facility, such as users of  equipment and 
infrastructure. On -site visits enabled the assessment of the usage and management of 
equipment/infrastructure implemented through Schengen Facility  measures.  
 
In total, five interviews with Croatian stakeholders at central level have been c onducted:  
 the Responsible Authority [Ministry of Interior (MoI) - Independent Sector for 
Schengen coordination and EU funds];  
 MoI - Border police Directorate;  
 MoI - Sector for Real Estate Management of Directorate for Material and Financial 
Affairs;  
 MoI - Development, Equipment and Support Directorate, ICT Sector;  
 Ministry of Foreign and European affairs (MFEA) - Directorate for IT security and 
Consular Affairs Sector.  
 
Two NGOs (Centre for Peace Studies - CSD and Croatian Law Centre) were interviewed 
in order to complete the triangulation process. CSD was chosen based on their work on 
migration and asylum issues and their experience with EU funding schemes, but also due 
to the fact that they provided feedback on the evaluation roadmap44. Based on the 
recommendation of CSD and their collaboration with the Ministry of Interior on projects 
related to protection of migrants and asylum seekers, the Croatian Law Centre was 
chosen as the second NGO.  
                                                           
44  Available here: https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better -regulatio n/initiatives/ares -2018 -
1850784/feedback/F11415_en?p_id=222299   39 
165 3 
10 8 I am giving my contribution as  
Border surveillance
officer
Border police officer
Police officers
Vehicle operator or
tehnician
 
48 The outcome of the interviews is the following:  
 
 The stakeh olders judged the Schengen Facility as extremely relevant.  Without the 
Schengen Facility , it would not have been possible to finance all the measures 
and actions needed to prepare Croatia for entering the Schengen Area. The 
national budget would most proba bly have not allowed for the scope that 
Schengen Facility  had. However, due to the specificities of the external border in 
Croatia, outstanding needs remain and financial resources are still required and 
additional financial means would be beneficial. The NGO added needs related to 
trainings for border police in human rights protection and interactions with 
immigrants.  
 The stakeholders were of the opinion that the objectives of the Schengen Facility 
have fully achieved in an effective manner. It was pointe d out that modifications 
were made to certain measures and objectives, which did not however hamper the 
effectiveness of the Schengen Facility  implementation. With regards to 
unintended outcomes resulting from the Schengen Facility  implementation, no 
major  outcomes were reported. Stakeholders mentioned external factors that had 
an effect on the Schengen Facility  implementation. These relate to specific 
projects, particularly construction projects, where unexpected issues occurred 
during construction (e.g. f inding groundwater on site). Acquisition of 
construction permits was mentioned as another external factor influencing the 
implementation as it was in the hands of local authorities. Projects with more 
complex procurement procedures saw more unexpected even ts than others 
(procurement of thermo -vision system). Lack of administrative capacity in 
combination with lack of guidance on operational aspects of the implementation, 
were mentioned as internal factors that hampered the effectiveness of the 
Schengen Faci lity implementation. In addition to limited capacity, a high turnover 
at managerial level did not contribute to smooth implementation. Monitoring 
systems were judged as adequate and enabled prevention of potentially 
inappropriate use of funds.  
 Stakeholder s reported that the benefits of the Schengen Facility are palpable and 
were very visible during the 2015 migration crisis. The absorption rates were 
stagnant at the beginning of the implementation period due to limited experience 
with implementation of fin ancial instruments that were time bound (i.e. 
implementation period of two years). As concerns the procurement procedures, 
stakeholders stated that public procurement parameters were very strictly defined, 
and in the specific case of purchases made through  the Schengen Facility , the 
selected procurement is considered as executed in accordance with the ZOJN 
(Croatian public procurement legislation) if the product fulfils all technical 
specifications and has the lowest price. It was therefore difficult to com ment on 
whether it is possible in all cases to get the best value for money at all.  
 Stakeholders reported that there was complementarity between the Schengen 
Facility  and other funding programmes with similar objectives precisely due to 
the fact that the general objective is the strengthening of borders and accession to 
the Schengen area. All the projects that were implemented under the Schengen 
Facility  presented a logical continuation to those implemented with funds before 
the Schengen Facility . Stakehol ders stated that currently they observed 
complementarity with the ISF (IT equipment and vehicles, vessels, trainings and 
operational costs) and with the AMIF (on migrants and asylum seekers). The 
 
49 Schengen Facility  was complementary to national actions, as these were used to 
finance non -eligible costs (e.g. reconstruction of facilities used by both the 
regular and border police).  
 Stakeholders stressed that the varied geographical terrain and long border have a 
direct effect on the equipment used, the resourc es are used rather quickly. The 
turnover of employees at BCPS and police stations is not that high so 
sustainability is supported. Training at the Police Academy adapted to the needs 
of the new equipment and therefore newly trained police officers are taug ht how 
to use the new equipment. The stakeholders pointed out that the system is 
sustainable by design and sustainability will be ensured through maintenance.  
 One of the major advantages of the Schengen Facility  was that it allowed for a 
wide scope of actions that could be financed (e.g. salaries for Border Police 
officers). Without EU support, it is questionable when and at what level positive 
effects would be achieved.  
 
 
50 
 Annex 3: Methods and analytical models  
 
In this annex, the methods and sources that were drawn upon in carrying out the 
evaluation are described, as well as the limitations that were encountered.  
1. METHODS AND SOURCES  
1.1 DESK RESEARCH  
The desk research was carried out throughout the entire evaluation process and included 
the analysis and extraction of relevant information from secondary sources (IPs, CR, 
annual reports, audit and monitoring reports) necessary for the analysis o n evaluation 
questions. Furthermore, relevant legislation, national strategies and action plans were 
reviewed. Statistical and administrative data were gathered from public sources such as 
the Croatian MoI’s website, the EBCGA and Eurostat. Internal data r elated to allocation 
of funds and investment procurement was provided by the Responsible Authority.  
 
1.2 FIELD RESEARCH  
Interviews  
Semi -structured interviews were conducted with representatives of different institutions, 
including senior public officers a ble to respond to general issues and strategic level 
questions as well as those responsible for implementation, and beneficiaries. Interviews 
carried out during site visits enabled reaching respondents who were directly benefiting 
from the implementation o f Schengen Facility , such as users of equipment and 
infrastructure.  
Two NGOs were interviewed in order to receive an external perspective of the needs of 
the border police. They were chosen based on their work on migration and asylum issues 
and their expe rience with EU funding schemes.   
Case studies  
The evaluation was supported by eight case studies. The selected case studies covered 
75% of all expenses eligible under the Schengen Facility  for Croatia, 9 objectives and a 
variety of measures set out in the IP. The topics selected for the case studies included: 
acquisition of technical equipment (vehicles, helicopters and special equipment), 
development of national IT systems (SIS II, VIS), (re)construction of border 
infrastructure, trainings, costs for manag ement of the Schengen Facility  and salaries for 
additional border police officers. On site visits were performed at different locations, as 
part of the 8 case studies.  
 
2. LIMITATIONS  
 
51 Although the overall assessment of the availability and robustness of da ta is that they 
provide sufficient basis to answer the evaluation questions, the data collection and 
analysis faced some limitations.  
The desk research was based on the analysis of various documents in Croatian and 
English. Differences in presented measur es were identified in the various versions of the 
IP. The changes in planned measures were justified by the Responsible Authority,  
however they hampered a clear comparison between planned and achieved 
measures/allocations. This had an impact on determining the effectiveness of the 
Schengen Facility  potentially anchoring conclusions towards a more positive outcome. 
However, such flexi bility allowed for taking into account evolving needs of the country 
with regard to objectives. The review of a large number of strategic documents provided 
sufficient grounds for the analysis of Relevance and Coherence. The existing data 
allowed the estab lishment of a baseline (2013) and for the following of main trends along 
similar indicators: e.g. number of passengers and illegal crossings. Nevertheless, there is 
no hard data available on the waiting time at BCPs for example and the data on the place 
of occurrence of illegal crossings is inconsistent. As pointed out in Table 5, these issues 
affect the robustness of the findings on Sustainability (impact).   
The semi -structured interviews were informative, even though as expected (considering 
the limitations of interviews as a data gathering technique) often presented anecdotal data 
rather than hard numbers (e.g. reliance on IT systems in border management an d 
comparisons with other EU Member States). The lack of hard data gathered during 
interviews was filled in via government reports (e.g. on the number of illegal crossings). 
Overall interviewees were very positive concerning the Schengen Facility . The scope  of 
information received through interviews was negatively affected due to a high turnover 
within the Responsible Authority.  This inevitably led to loss of information, particularly 
information related to management issues (e.g. on the preparation of imple mentation 
guidelines). Follow -up interviews were arranged so that the Responsible Authority would 
have enough time to ask for information that was needed for the evaluation. In spite of 
the limitations, the overall quality of the information from the inter views is satisfactory 
and provided valuable input for all evaluation questions.  
The sample of respondents provided a good geographical coverage of the beneficiaries of 
the Schengen Facility  interventions. Even though the outreach amounts to more than 200 
responses, the majority of respondents are border police officers or staff otherwise 
involved in border control, which indicates limited outreach to different types of end 
users. However, the respondents were in most cases affected by more than one objecti ve, 
which ensured a broader coverage of issues that were explored within the scope of the 
evaluation. The feedback received through the online survey provided valuable input on 
issues like EU added value.  
While the field visits within the scope of the case  studies have been conducted 
successfully and provided insight into good practices and lessons learned, beneficiaries 
did not always have sufficient knowledge to provide all the information that was 
requested such as data on waiting time at BCPs, life -cycle costs and requirements for 
maintenance of acquired infrastructure, equipment, information systems etc.  
The Public Consultation provided only two responses, which does not allow for a 
comprehensive analysis and input of the closed questions. Still, the op en-ended responses 
were included in the analysis of the consultant.  
 
52 Considering the above limitations of the data collection process, the consultant provided 
an assessment of their effects on the robustness of the findings, presented below  (Table 
5). 
 
 
Table 5  Assessment of the robustness of the findings per evaluation 
criterion  
Evaluation 
criterion  Assessment of the robustness of the findings  
Relevance   No issues have been identified with the availability of information 
as the analysis of this criterion  relies mostly on strategic 
documents.  
 Participants in the interviews, field visits, and online survey 
respondents provided coherent answers that confirmed the 
findings on relevance  
Effectiveness   Given that the IP has been changed throughout the 
implementation period, the planned outcomes have continuously 
been updated, which did not allow for a classical analysis on 
effectiveness – in terms of comparing targets to achievements.  
 The lack of a stru ctured indicator system also hampered the 
analysis of effectiveness . 
 In spite of the above difficulties, the CR provided sufficient 
grounds for analysing effectiveness (at the level of procurement 
targets in EQ2.1)  
 Case studies provided useful insight into  practical elements of the 
implementation of the Schengen Facility  (EQ2.2)  
 The review of EU priorities and their juxtaposition with the 
Schengen Facility  actions/measures contributed the most for 
EQ2.3  
 The review of monitoring arrangements and feedback gathered 
through interviews were a good basis for answering EQ2.4  
Efficiency   No issues were identified with the financial data on the 
implementation of the Schengen Facility  (EQ3.1 and EQ3.2)  
 Although not very detailed, the available information on 
procur ement procedures was enough for the conclusion on the 
performance and achievements of competitive bids, while the 
comparison with the efficiency of the BG/RO Schengen Facility  
was useful in answering EQ3.1  
 The available data on the management costs gives e nough 
grounds for the findings on their efficiency  
 The most useful input for EQ3.3 was provided by the respondents 
to the online questionnaire and case studies (8 in particular)  
Coherence   Similarly to the findings on Relevance, no issues were identified 
with regards to the availability of strategic documents at EU and 
national level (EQ4.1 and EQ4.2)  
 Case studies were also useful in responding to the evaluation 
questions (in particular EQ4.2 and EQ4.3)  
Sustainability   Considering that the Sustainability evaluation criterion relies 
mostly on information acquired through field work and the fact 
 
53 Evaluation 
criterion  Assessment of the robustness of the findings  
that it also included the impact dimension of the Schengen 
Facility , answering questions 5.1 and 5.2 proved the most 
challenging  
 The variety of sources (desk research, case studies, interviews, 
and online questionnaire) used for the assessment on whether 
Schengen Facility  effects can be expected to be long -lasting 
(EQ5.1) provided consistent information, which was sufficient for 
robust findings on sustainability  
 For EQ5.2 the findings can be considered robust in terms of 
qualitative assessment of the impact of Schengen Facility  
actions/measures. However, quantifying the impact of these  
actions/measures proved very difficult due to th e interplay of 
external factors (e.g. the introduction of systematic checks, the 
changes in passenger and migration flows) and data that is not 
specific enough (e.g. on BCP waiting times and the place of 
occurrence of illegal crossings). This is why, the e valuation of the 
impact relies mostly on qualitative information gathered via 
different sources.  
EU added value   No additional issues were identified with the assessment of EU 
added value, considering that it relies mostly on the assessment 
along the above  criteria and includes data on the planned 
financing for the management of state borders per year, which 
was readily available .