EN    EN  
 EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
Brussels, 15.11.2011 
SEC(2011) 1359 final 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 
 
Accompanying the documents 
 
Communication 'Building an open and secu re Europe: the home affairs budget for 2014-
2020' 
 
Proposal for a Regulation establishing the Asylum and Migration Fund 
 
Proposal for a Regulation establishing, as part of the Internal Security Fund, the 
instrument for financial support for police cooperation, preventing and combating 
crime, and crisis management 
 
Proposal for a Regulation establishing, as part of the Internal Security Fund, the 
instrument for financial support for external borders and visa 
 
Proposal for a Regulation laying down gen eral provisions on the Asylum and Migration 
Fund and on the instrument for financial support for police cooperation, preventin g and 
combating crime, and crisis management 
{COM(2011) 749 final} 
{COM(2011) 750 final} {COM(2011) 751 final} {COM(2011) 752 final} 
{COM(2011) 753 final} 
{SEC(2011) 1358 final} 
 
 
EN 2   EN 1. INTRODUCTION  
Home affairs policies have steadily been grow ing in importance over the last years. These 
policies aim to create an area w ithout internal borders where EU citizens and third-country 
nationals may enter, circulate, live and wo rk, bringing new ideas, capital, knowledge and 
innovation or filling gaps in th e national labour markets, confid ent that their rights are fully 
respected and their security assured. Cooperation with non-EU  countries and international 
organisations is crucial to achieving this goal. 
2. PROBLEM DEFINITION  
2.1. Policy challenges 
During the next Multiannual Financial Fr amework (2014-2020), the EU will be facing 
important challenges in the home affairs area. In the area of asylum, the factors that drive 
persons to seek asylum and international prot ection in the EU, such as wars, repressive 
regimes and political instability are expected to  continue. Flows of people seeking asylum or 
some form of international pr otection can fluctuate considerab ly and be composed of many 
different groups with different needs and mo tivations. Dealing with these flows requires 
substantial resources and capabilities fr om Member States with some receiving 
disproportionate numbers of asylum s eekers due to their geographic location. 
The integration of legally residi ng third-country nationals is a key challenge for the EU. Lack 
of integration can lead to social difficulties, th e cost of which is ultimately borne by society as 
a whole. Better integration allows legal migrants  to take an active part in their receiving 
society and help the EU's economy meet the de mographic challenge it is currently facing. The 
inflow of legal migrants is expected to increase gradually, especially labour migration. The 
need for the integration of third-country nati onals is therefore also expected to grow. 
Due to their geographic situation or attractive economic profile, some Member States receive 
disproportionate numbers of irregular migrants . Irregular immigration is costly not only for 
the target Member States but also for the migr ants themselves. The numbers of new irregular 
migrants is likely to decrease although the stock of irregular migrants in  the EU is unlikely to 
reduce markedly even if there were marked improvements in the detection and removal of 
irregular migrants. Consequentl y, return management is expect ed to remain a challenge. 
Effective, efficient and secure border control is essential for the fr ee movement of persons 
within the EU, as well as to maintain internal  security. The length of the external border and 
the number and nature of border crossing points vary widely between Member States. As a 
result, some Member States bear a disproportio nate share of the associated costs. Because 
persons with a valid visa or residence perm it can move freely within the Schengen area, 
Member States have an interest in appl ying common standards. The number of border 
crossings is expected to increase, and with  it the challenge of managing the EU borders. 
Organised crime in its various forms, terrorism  and other security-rela ted risks (including 
their assessment and management) pose major problems for the EU. Aggregate levels of 
crime are anticipated to continue to remain stable but the nature of crime is expected to change with criminals using new technologies to commit crimes. Cro ss-border and organised 
crime can be expected to increase and become mo re sophisticated and international in nature. 
 
EN 3   EN Some types of crime such as fraud, money la undering and cybercrime, are expected to grow. 
Although the continued efforts of Member Stat es and EU legislative action are likely to 
reduce terrorist activities, the transnational char acter of the terrorist threat remains acute and 
there is little prospect of the threat reducing substantially  in the foreseeable future. 
Recent events at the Greek/Turkish border and in the Southern Mediterranean also 
demonstrate how important it is for the EU to have a comprehensive approach to migration, 
covering various aspects such as strengthene d border management and Schengen governance, 
better targeted legal migration, enhanced disse mination of best practices on integration, a 
reinforced Common European Asylum System, a nd a more strategic approach to relations 
with third countries on migration. 
2.2. The current home affairs financial instruments do not adequately address 
future needs and priorities 
Although the current home affairs financial instru ments are generally co nsidered to achieve 
their objectives and function e ffectively, they do not fully address the above challenges. 
General Programme Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows (shared management) 
The European Refugee Fund has insufficient res ources to adequately support a comprehensive 
EU resettlement policy and to incentivise Memb er States to take part in resettlement 
operations through a pledging exercise. It also  does not foresee any additional financial 
incentive for the intra-EU transfer of benefici aries of international pr otection ("relocation"). 
The European Fund for the Integration of Th ird-Country Nationals addresses integration 
challenges through support for national strategies . However, the need for capacity building at 
national level is expected to decrease because some integration challenges are addressed more 
effectively at the regional and local level, i.e.  at a level closer to the individual. Specific 
measures or groups of migrants who are not ea sily reached by mainstream instruments also 
need to be targeted more effectively. 
The European Return Fund does not curren tly support pre-removal reception/detention 
conditions or more general measur es to reduce irregular migration. 
The External Borders Fund cannot provide sup port for measures regarding controls on the 
freedom of movement (in land) and flanking m easures regarding the pr evention of irregular 
immigration, document management (databases on residence permits) and false documents. It is also does not support inter-agency co-opera tion and the building of connections across the 
different law enforcement authorities, includi ng those working insi de the EU territory. 
General Programme Security and Safeguarding Li berties (centralised direct management) 
The Specific Programmes ISEC (Prevention of  and the fight against Crime) and CIPS 
(Prevention, Preparedness and consequence ma nagement of Terrorism and other Security-
related risks) do not support the testing and va lidating of law enforcement equipment to close 
the gap between research and development and operational implementation/serial application 
or structural capacity building for law enfo rcement authorities th rough the purchase of 
equipment such as detection devices and IT  systems. Some activities such as joint 
investigation teams or newer policies which require more flexibility, such as crisis 
management, are difficult to finance. 
 
EN 4   EN 2.3. The external dimension of home affairs policies is not supported adequately 
The existing external aid programmes are not designed to support the external dimension of 
home affairs policies but rather to cater mainly for other objectives, in particular enlargement, 
development and neighbourhood policy, aimed pr imarily at addressing the needs of the 
recipient country. While such assi stance should be maintained, ther e is a manifest lack of EU 
leverage to allow the EU to pursue and achieve  its own policy priorities and cater for direct 
EU interests, such as the manageme nt of migratory flows and security. 
This problem is compounded by the fact that th e current generation of home affairs financial 
programmes also do not cover the external di mension. Although it is possible at present to 
financially support some activities in third coun tries notably in order to ensure territorial 
continuity of financing, starting in the EU and continuing in th ird countries, these activities 
are very limited. As suc h, there is inadequate funding for the negotiation and implementation 
of readmission agreements, Mobility Partners hips and Regional Protection Programmes, to 
provide assistance to third coun tries to improve their border mana gement or to cooperate with 
third countries in areas such as trafficking of human beings, drugs and weapons, dismantling international criminal networks and preventi ng terrorism and other se curity-related risks. 
2.4. Operational limitations of the home affairs delivery mechanisms 
The four shared management Funds each have their own legal basis and implementing rules. 
This leads to a duplication of efforts and a mu ltiplication of rules which, in turn, results in 
additional workload, the risk of different interp retations and an increased risk of errors. The 
Funds combine a multiannual framework with annual programming which is complex, time-
consuming and difficult to manage. In terms of financial management and management and 
control systems, they are similar yet different  from other Funds under shared management, in 
particular the Structural F unds, which leads to confusion. 
The grants provided under direct management  (ISEC and CIPS) are generally small, 
preventing their strategic use, and there is a problem of underspending. Because the eligibility 
rules are complex, the overall error rate is re latively high in the cost claims submitted by the 
final beneficiaries, requiring reinforced ex-ante and ex-post controls, resulting in a high administrative workload. The grant applicati on process is also t oo long, preventing law 
enforcement authorities from mounting operation s quickly in response to emerging threats. 
Recent events in the Southern Mediterranean have  shown how important it is for the EU to be 
able to respond quickly and effectively to crisis situati ons. The current emergency response 
mechanism covers only asylum-related crises an d fails to respond quickly and effectively to 
crisis situations. The availabl e funding is also too limited. 
3. A
NALYSIS OF SUBSIDIARITY  
3.1. The EU's right to act 
The EU's right to act in the area of home affa irs derives primarily from Title V of the Treaty 
on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) , in particular Articl es 77(2), 78(2), 79(2) 
and(4), 82(1), 84 and 87(2) TFEU. Cooperation with third countries and international 
organisations is covered by Article 212(3) TFEU.  
 
EN 5   EN 3.2. Subsidiarity 
The challenges facing the EU in the area of home affairs cannot be tackled by the Member 
States acting alone. Dealing with  migration flows, the manage ment of the EU's external 
borders and the security of the EU requires su bstantial resources and capabilities from the 
Member States. EU funding is the mechanism whic h gives effect to the financial implications 
of the principle of solidarity and the fair sharing of responsibilities between Member States 
and without which some would have to shoulder the disproportionate burden of long borders 
or surges in migration. Impr oved operational co-operation invol ving the pooling of resources 
creates economies of scale and s ynergies thereby ensuring a more efficient use of public funds 
and reinforcing solidarity and mutual trust be tween Member States. EU funding can also 
create the leverage necessary to convince third countries to engage with the EU on issues 
which are mostly of relevance to  the EU and the Member States. 
4. OBJECTIVES  
The Communication "A Budget for Europe 2020"1 announced the creation of two Funds: 
Fund Objective Budget in 2011 
prices (€ million) 
Migration and Asylum Fund Support actions in relation to asylum and migration, the 
integration of third-country nationals and return € 3,433 m 
Internal Security Fund  Provide financial assistance for initiatives in the areas of 
external borders and internal security € 4,113 m 
The general and specific objectiv es of these Funds are to: 
General objectives Specific objectives 
Facilitate legal migration to the EU in line with the economic and 
social needs of the Member States  and support the integration of 
legally residing third-country nationals 
Support implementation of the Common European Asylum System 
Reduce irregular migration and promote voluntary return Enhance the effective management of 
migration flows to the EU in areas 
where the EU adds maximum value, in particular through solidarity, 
responsibility-sharing and cooperation 
with third countries 
Support the external aspects of the EU's migration policy 
Strengthen EU external borders 
Facilitate mobility across EU external borders 
Reduce the risk of and increase de tection and successful prosecution 
of organised crime, terrorism and other security-related threats Enhance the EU's internal security through management of the external 
borders and law enforcement, 
including by strengthening the preparedness and response activities 
that are best supported by EU financial 
resources, in particular through transnational cooperation, economies 
of scale, public-private partnerships 
and cooperation with third countries Support the external aspects of the EU's internal security policy  
                                                 
1 COM(2011)500 final – Parts I and II of 29 June 2011 
 
EN 6   EN In achieving these specific policy objectives, du e regard should also be  given to the overall 
horizontal objective of simplifica tion, and in particular the flexib ility of the future Funds, the 
speedy release of funding in the event of crises and the reduction of administrative workload. 
5. POLICY OPTIONS  
Issue A – Funding priorities 
Option A.1 – Continuation of the 2013 distribu tion of funding (status quo).  
Option A.2 – Average 2007-2013 distribution of funding.  
Option A.3 – Introduction of an external dimension co mponent within the two Funds to fund 
actions in or in rela tion to third countries which cate r primarily for EU interests and 
objectives, have a direct impact in the EU and its Member States and ensure continuity with 
activities implemented in the territory of the EU. This f unding is not intended to support 
actions which are development-oriented and will  complement, when appropriate, the financial 
assistance provided through EU external aid instruments. Reduction of funding across all 
policy areas but with more marked cuts in  areas where the added value and impact of 
supporting external dimension activiti es is expected to be higher. 
Issue B – Shared management 
Option B.1 – A common multiannual framework in line with broadly defined political 
priorities set in EU strate gic guidelines with national annual progr ammes (status quo).  
Option B.2 – Multiannual programming only, as  under the Structural Funds.  
Option B.3 – A senior level, home affairs policy dial ogue focused on home affairs objectives 
and funding with individual Member States to support the development and monitoring of their national multiannual programmes in line with EU priorities.  
Issue C – Centralised manage ment (direct and indirect) 
Option C.1 – Implementation of a mixture of grants and procurement to provide financial 
support to transnational project s and non-state actors,  promote policy-driven activities and 
procure services (status quo).  
Option C.2 – Use of  centralised management procurement only and discontinuation of grants.  
Option C.3 – Improved  and diversified centralised ma nagement through contribution 
agreements with international organisations, fram ework partnerships with civil society and the 
delegation of specific tasks to existing agencies  (indirect management). A limited number of 
grants would still be awarded through calls fo r proposals. Procurement would be maintained.  
Issue D – Emergency response mechanism 
Option D.1 –  Current emergency response mechanism under shared management in the area 
of asylum without covering ot her migration-related or s ecurity crises (status quo). 
 
EN 7   EN Option D.2 – Improvement of current emergency re sponse mechanism by bringing it under 
centralised management and extending it to othe r migration-related and security crises. The 
duration of emergency measures would be exte nded from the current 6 to 18 months and the 
responsible Commissioner would be empowered to approve spending on emergency measures 
within days of an emergency occurring.  
Option D.3 – Mechanism under  Option D.2 extended to the area of migration but not to 
internal security. The latter would be included in the scope  of the EU Solidarity Fund.  
6. ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS  
Issue A – Funding priorities 
Option A.1 – 2013 distribution (status quo): It will be more difficult for Member States' 
asylum systems to cope adequately with co mplex and fluctuating migration flows. Some 
Member States would have to bear dispropor tionate costs for hosting refugees and asylum 
seekers. There would be insufficient resources for resettlement operations or for additional 
support to Member States who have to cope with particular pressures on their asylum systems. 
Member States would continue  setting-up national/regional integration strategies or 
strengthening the strategies already in place.  This will improve the integration of third-
country nationals and therefore have posit ive impacts on social cohesion and the EU 
economy, but the added value of funding for capacity  building is likely to diminish over time. 
Return management capacity would continue to be built but support would be added for 
detention / reception capacity. Although Member St ates would be better equipped to return 
numbers of irregular migrants, the added value of further / continued capacity building is 
likely to diminish over time. The efforts of t hose Member States who carry out border control 
tasks on behalf of and in the in terest of the EU as a whole wo uld be supported systematically 
from the EU budget thereby giving concrete expr ession to the principles of solidarity and 
responsibility-sharing. The use of  new technologies will improve border security and generate 
positive economic impacts as it would promote innovation, facilitate travel of bona fide 
travellers to and from the EU. A more consistent use of EU  funding for consular co-operation 
on visa and support for local bo rder traffic arrangements in particular border areas would 
allow for efficiency gains thereby having a pos itive impact on the EU economy. The creation 
of Eurosur would also lead to  reductions in irregular migr ation, cross-border crime and the 
loss of migrants' lives at sea. The main prioriti es in the area of intern al security would be 
catered for financially. This is expected to lead  to an improvement of EU security in the long-
term, although it would remain di fficult to fund the activities of joint investigation teams or 
newer policies such as emerge ncy support and crisis management where flexibility is 
essential. The external dimension of home affairs policies would remain unaddressed, with 
the consequences explained above. 
Option A.2 – Average 2007-2013 distribution: There would be improvements to asylum 
standards and Member States would be able to address complex and fluctuating migration 
flows and deal with disproportionate pressure s on their asylum systems. However, there 
would be insufficient support for setting-up an EU resettlement scheme or to incentivise 
Member States to participate in the intra-EU  transfer of beneficiaries of international 
protection. Impacts regarding the integration of legally residi ng third-country nationals are 
expected to be similar to t hose under Option A.1. Reduced EU  support for th e return of 
irregular migrants is likely to decrease the numbe r of returns and lead to an increased number 
of irregular migrants remaining in the EU. Me mber States may cooperate bilaterally with 
 
EN 8   EN countries encountering similar challenges or w ith third countries directly, to have some 
leverage over future migrant numbers and this may divert and increase flows to other Member 
States. The situation of irregu lar immigrants, who are often employed in the illicit economy, 
is expected to worsen. Reduced funding for th e management of the external borders will 
necessitate a shift away from overall capacity building efforts towards specific projects such 
as the implementation of EUROSUR and/or the development of new IT systems. This would 
allow maintaining current levels of border secu rity but would be insu fficient to support the 
notion of border control as a "public service". Through increas ed financial support for the 
strengthening of practical c ooperation between law enforcement authorities, Member States 
would be able to more effectively combat seri ous and organised crime in its many forms. The 
external dimension of home affairs woul d remain largely unaddressed. The EU would 
therefore not be able to increase its leverage wi th third countries to en courage them to engage 
with the EU on issues of relevance to the EU and the Member States and which might not be 
priority issues for the third countries themselves (readmissi on, fighting irregular migration, 
reinforcing border management etc.). 
Option A.3 – Re-distribution with  external dimension component: Asylum standards 
would be improved and the EU and the Member St ates would be able to address complex and 
fluctuating migration flows, deal with dispropo rtionate pressures on national asylum systems, 
set-up an EU resettlement scheme and provide additional financial incentives for the intra-EU transfer of beneficiaries of international protection. Regional Prot ection Programmes would 
alleviate the burden on these countries and crea ting an equitable sharing between the EU and 
Member States in finding durable solutions with in the international re fugee protection system. 
The shift to support for more targ eted strategies designed to pr omote the integration of third-
country nationals at local level, implemented mainly by local or regi onal authorities and non-
state actors, is expected to have beneficial impacts on social cohesion and the EU economy in 
general and third-country nationals' empl oyment opportunities in particular. More 
comprehensive support for the implementation of Mobility Partners hips, coupled with 
strengthened collaboration and cooperation of the EU with inte rnational organisations, would 
help maximise the operational synergies and lead  to greater effectiveness. The refocusing of 
return operations on assisted voluntary return, reintegratio n measures and improving the 
detention capacity of Member States will substantially improve the quality of case 
management by Member States, enable Member States to offer the means to provide a meaningful incentive for repatriation to all potential returnees and to ensure full compliance with the twin principles of the primacy of voluntary return under EU standards and the 
humane and dignified treatment of all potential  returnees. Support for the implementation of 
readmission agreements would contribute signi ficantly to fighting irregular migration. The 
cumulative impacts of the EU resettlement  scheme, Regional Protection Programmes, 
Mobility Partnerships and readmission agreem ents could reduce the need for emergency 
funding for sudden migratory pressures, the need for international protec tion in the countries 
of origin and in Member States, the incidence of  irregular entry into the EU and the need for 
funding return operations. The impacts on external  borders are expected to be the same as 
those described under Option 1 but through the ex ternal dimension component, more efficient 
cooperation between Frontex and third countries on border management is likely to increase 
the detection rates of irregular migrants or prev ent their entry into the EU. The main priorities 
in the area of internal security would be achie ved, thereby improving EU security in the long-
term. Support for the external dimension of internal security policies would increase 
understanding of the securi ty threats originating in third countries. C oupled with cooperation 
with these countries in other domains such as  migration management, this would increase the 
 
EN 9   EN effectiveness of interventions aimed at preventing and detecting potential terrorist and 
organised crime threats. 
Issue B – Shared management 
Option B.1 – Status quo: Maintaining annual programming w ithin a multiannual framework 
would allow to chose and implement actions which are aligned more with evolving EU 
priorities. Although reducing the number of annual programmes by about 50% to around 392 
constitutes an improvement, the system woul d remain complex, time-consuming and difficult 
to manage with a heavy administrative work load. The closure procedure would also be 
incompatible with the procedure foreseen in th e revised version of the Financial Regulation.  
Option B.2 – Multiannual programming: With a total of around 56 multiannual 
programmes to manage, the administrative workload for both the Commission and the 
Member States would be reduc ed significantly. Programming w ould be brought in line with 
other shared management instruments, increasi ng coherence and clarity for all stakeholders. 
Despite offering increased flexibility, multiannual programming does not adequately address the specificities of the home affairs area. 
Option B.3 – Multiannual programming with policy dialogue: With a total of around 56 
multiannual programmes to manage, the administrative workload for both the Commission 
and the Member States would be reduced si gnificantly. The senior  level policy dialogue 
would result in a more results-driven approac h. Because of the combination of simplification 
and results-oriented programming, it const itutes a major improveme nt on the status quo. 
Issue C – Centralised manage ment (direct and indirect) 
Option C.1 – Status quo: Significant amounts would be  spent under centralised 
management, in particular in th e area of internal se curity. Without efforts to simplify rules 
and streamline procedures, the administrative  workload for both the Commission and final 
beneficiaries will increase, which is expected to result in an increased risk of errors. 
Option C.2 – Procurement only: No resources would be needed to manage the 
implementation of grants. However, it will not be possible to suppor t policy-led, innovative 
actions, stimulate transnational co-operation or support and reinforce civil society. There 
would be no improvement in the EU's ability to r eact quickly and effectively in case of crises. 
Option C.3 – Improved and divers ified centralised management: Grants, implemented 
more effectively and efficiently by the most  appropriate actors in  the field, will support 
policy-driven actions. Although this may ini tially lead to a mode rate increase in 
administrative workload, in the long-term it will  improve relations with key stakeholders and 
reduce overall workload. Recourse to a limite d number of open calls for proposals will also 
decrease administrative workload. Delegating the implementation of specific tasks to home 
affairs agencies, including in th ird countries, is expected to imp rove synergies and coherence. 
Issue D – Emergency response mechanism 
Option D.1 – Status quo: The EU would not be able to react quickly and effectively to 
asylum-related crises or to react to othe r migration-related or security crises. 
Option D.2 – Improved mechanism and ex tension to other migration-related and 
security crises: The EU would be able to react quickly  and effectively to migration crises 
 
EN 10   EN (other than asylum) and security crises. Interven tions would be more efficient as it would be 
possible to choose the most appropriate im plementing partner for emergency funding, to 
release emergency funding more quickly and to extend the duration of em ergency measures in 
order to address more completely the continui ng needs arising from em ergency interventions. 
Option D.3 – Improved mechanism extended  to other migration-related crises and 
inclusion of security und er the EU Solidarity Fund: Impacts would be as described under 
Option D.2. The inclusion of man- made security crises in the scope of the EU Solidarity Fund 
is unlikely to lead to significant administrative workload savings and may lead to a loss in 
focus of the EU Solidarity Fund which is unlikely to be welcomed in Council. 
7. COMPARISON OF OPTIONS  
7.1. Comparative analysis of the options 
Issue A – Funding priorities 
Options A.1 and A.2 do not include a specific funding component for the external dimension 
of home affairs policies. Alt hough more funding is therefore available for the "internal" 
aspects of these policies, this f unding is not necessarily spent wh ere it has the greatest effect. 
By contrast, the inclusion of a sizeable ex ternal dimension component in both Funds under 
Option A.3 would have a signifi cant "preventive" impact on all home affairs policies and may 
therefore reduce the overal l level of funding needed for the in ternal aspects of  these policies. 
It will also ensure a better protection of EU  interests outside the EU, notably through support 
to actions starting in the EU and continuing in third countries. This will allow the EU not just 
to address the consequences of migration flow s and organised crime and terrorism but seeks 
also to take preventive action in third countries. The beneficial  consequences of such action 
could include a reduction in the number of pers ons in need of asylum or other forms of 
international protection and in the number of irregular migran ts crossing the EU external 
borders, and a reduction in cross-border crimes su ch as trafficking of human beings, drug and 
weapons trafficking. Increased cooperation wi th third countries would also allow better 
management of legal/labour immigration and th us better tackle labour shortages in the EU. 
Issue B – Shared management 
Option B.1 (status quo) would have a very ne gative impact on administrative workload and 
would not meet Member States' demands fo r simplification. The shift to multiannual 
programming proposed under Option B.2 would c onstitute a significant improvement on the 
status quo as it would reduce the number of programmes to be managed by the Commission 
and the Member States. Alignment with othe r EU instruments under shared management 
would also increase coherence and clarity fo r all stakeholders. Despite offering increased 
flexibility, Option B.2 would not address th e continuous need to respond to changing 
situations in the Member States and third countries, typical of the home affairs area. The policy dialogue proposed under Option B.3 would address this need and would allow for a 
more results-driven shared management. It is also  expected to result, after the first two years 
during which old and new instruments will ove rlap, in a more flexible approach to 
programming and a significantly redu ced workload for all stakeholders. 
Issue C – Centralised manage ment (direct and indirect) 
 
EN 11   EN Of the three options considered in relation to  the implementation of centralised management, 
Option C.1 (status quo) is the least attractive because it offers little or no prospect of 
simplification or reduction of administrativ e workload. In this respect, Option C.2 
(procurement only) would constitute a signi ficant improvement alt hough it would eliminate 
completely the possibility of promoting policy-driven actions, stimulating transnational co-operation and supporting civil society throu gh grants. Through recourse to framework 
partnerships, contribution agreem ents, indirect management and a limited use of open calls 
for proposals implemented by the most appropriate  actors, Option C.3 w ould lead to a more 
targeted, diversified and less resource -intensive centralised management. 
Issue D – Emergency response mechanism 
Option D.1 (status quo) clearly does not meet the need for the EU to respond more quickly 
and effectively to crises in the areas of  migration and security. Although Option D.3 
constitutes an improvement on Option D.1 because  it envisages a faster  release of funds under 
centralised management in the area of migr ation, the extension of the scope of the EU 
Solidarity Fund to crises in the area of security is likely to meet opposition from Member States because of the risk that it would reduce the focus of the instrument. Option D.2 would also constitute a marked improvement on the status quo because it would allow for a rapid 
release of funding in cas e of migration-related emergencies and in addition, it would include a 
dedicated response mechanism in  the Internal Security Fund.  
7.2. Preferred option and organisational aspects 
The preferred option is a combination of Opti ons A.3, B.3, C.3 and D.2. Shared management 
will be the main management method for delive ring home affairs funding although centralised 
management will be maintained and improved for transnational actions , innovative projects, 
support for civil society, IT systems, studies, ev ents, and actions with an external dimension 
and/or requiring the quick mobilisation of EU f unds. The agencies will be entrusted with the 
implementation of specific operational tasks in  the framework of their missions and in 
complementarity with their work programmes. 
The preferred option will be implemented in fu ll coherence with the decision to reduce the 
number of financial instruments to two, there by increasing the visibility of home affairs 
funding and making it easier to fund actions which at  present are on the nexus between Funds. 
Another key feature of the future home affairs funding architecture will be the creation of a 
horizontal instrument, common to both Funds, which will include all rules on programming, 
reporting, financial management and controls. This  presents two distinct advantages: first, it 
avoids duplication and reduces significantly th e number of (otherwise identical parallel) 
provisions in the two Funds and second, it achieves simplification and consistency because the same rules will apply to al l beneficiaries, regardless of  which instrument their funding 
comes from, thereby facilitating their understanding of and access to the Funds. 
8. M
ONITORING AND EVALUATION  
Provision will be made for a mid-term review and the ex-pos t evaluation of both Funds. The 
timing of the mid-term review will not be fi xed in advance to guara ntee maximum flexibility. 
In order to monitor progress and in order to measure the results and impacts achieved by EU 
spending on home affairs, a set of indicators will be developed to tr ack the performance of 
home affairs funding in terms of inputs , outputs and, where possible, outcomes.