EUROPEAN COMMISSION Strasbourg,12.6.2018 SWD(2018) 347 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT



IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Accompanying the document Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Asylum and Migration Fund



Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Internal Security Fund



Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing, as part of the Integrated Border Management Fund, the instrument for financial support for border management and visa



Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing, as part of the Integrated Border Management Fund, the instrument for financial support for customs control equipment



{COM(2018) 471}

{COM(2018) 472}

{COM(2018) 473}

{COM(2018) 474}

{SWD(2018) 348}

{SEC(2018) 315}



Table of contents 1Introduction: Political and legal context 1.1Scope and context 1.1.1 Scope of the Impact Assessment 1.1.2 Policy context in the areas of asylum and migration, borders and customs control equipment, and security 1.1.3 Policy response 1.2Lessons learned from previous programmes 1.2.1 Key findings from evaluations of previous programmes 1.2.2 Consultation activities 2THE CHALLENGES 2.1The main challenges to be addressed in the post-2020 MFF 2.2Enhancing flexibility within a stable framework 2.3Further simplifying the rules for implementing EU Funds 2.4Ensuring more coherence and synergies between actions supported by EU funding instruments 2.5Achieving the highest level of EU added value with a focus on performance 3Architecture of the Funds and objectives 3.1The EU’s right to act and the necessity for the EU to act 3.2Architecture of the Funds: the Asylum and Migration Fund, the Integrated Border Management Fund and the Internal Security Fund 3.2.1 Asylum and Migration Fund

3.2.2 Integrated Border Management Fund 3.2.3 Internal Security Fund 3.3Coherence and complementarities with other EU funding instruments 4Delivery mechanisms of the intended funding 4.1Enhancing flexibility within a stable framework 4.1.1 Implementation modalities 4.1.2 The thematic facility 4.1.3 Emergency assistance 4.1.4 A strengthened mid-term review of national programmes 4.1.5 Use of financial instruments 4.2Further simplifying the rules for implementing EU Funds 4.2.1 Common provisions for shared management 4.2.2 Simplification of the rules applicable to direct management 4.3The need for an adequate level of funding 5How will performance be monitored and evaluated? 5.1Practical arrangements of the evaluation: when and by whom 5.2Monitoring indicators 5.2.1 Core performance indicators for the Asylum and Migration Fund 5.2.2 Core performance indicators for Integrated Border Management Fund – Border Management and Visa Instrument 5.2.3 Core performance indicators for the Integrated Border Management Fund – Customs Control Equipment

5.2.4 Core performance indicators for the Internal Security Fund Annex 1: Procedural information 1Lead DG(s), Decide Planning/CWP references 2Organisation and timing 3Consultation of the RSB 4Evidence, sources and quality Annex 2: Stakeholder consultation Annex 3: Home Affairs Funds in the 2007-2013 and 2014-2020 Multiannual Financial Framework Annex 4: Delineation of interventions in the post-2020 Multiannual Financial Framework Annex 5: Objectives of the Funds ANNEX 6: Overall design of the new Customs Control Equipment component Annex 7: Performance indicators for the mid-term review Glossary Term or acronym Meaning or definition AFIS Automated Fingerprint Identification System AMF Asylum and Migration Fund (2021-2027 programming period) AMIF Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (2014-2020 programming period) ANPRS Automated Number Plate/container number Recognition System BCP Border Crossing Point BMVI Border Management and Visa Instrument C2020 Customs 2020 Programme, as established by Regulation (EU) No 1294/2013 CAP Common Agricultural Policy CBRN-E Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear and Explosive materials CCE Customs Control Equipment CELBET Customs Eastern and South-Eastern Land Border Expert Team, an expert team established under the C2020 programme and aimed at increasing collaboration at the Union’s external land frontier by pooling expertise from 11 MS for strengthening and improving operational cooperation between customs authorities and with border guards and in particular at mapping available and missing customs equipment for all BCPs. CF Cohesion Fund CIPS Programme "Prevention, Preparedness and Consequence Management of Terrorism and other Security related risks" CMEF Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework DCI Development Cooperation Instrument EAFRD European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development EASO European Asylum Support Office EBCGA European Border and Coast Guard Agency EBF External Borders Fund ECRIS European Criminal Records Information Exchange System EC3 European Cybercrime Centre EES Entry / Exit System EFCA European Fisheries Control Agency EIF European Fund for the Integration of third-country nationals EMFF European Maritime and Fisheries Fund EMPACT European Multidisciplinary Platform against Criminal Threats EMSA European Maritime Safety Agency EPPO European Public Prosecutor’s Office ERDF European Regional Development Fund ERF European Refugee Fund ESF European Social Fund ESI Emergency Support Instrument ESIF European Structural and Investment Funds ETIAS European Travel Information and Authorisation System EU European Union EUTF European Union Emergency Trust Fund EUROSUR European Border Surveillance system EUIPO European Union Intellectual Property Office Eurodac EU asylum fingerprint database Eurojust European Agency for judicial cooperation Europol European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation eu-LISA European Agency for the operational management of large-scale IT Systems in the area of freedom, security and justice Hercule The Hercule programmes protect the Union's financial interests by supporting action to combat irregularities, fraud and corruption affecting the Union budget. They are administered by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF). IBMF Integrated Border Management Fund ISEC Programme "Prevention of and fight against Crime" ISF Internal Security Fund IT Information Technology JIT Joint Investigation Team MFF Multiannual Financial Framework NGO Non-Governmental Organisation OCG Organised Crime Group OECD Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development PNR Passenger Name Records RAN Radicalisation Awareness Network RDPP Regional Development and Protection Programme RF European Return Fund Scheval Schengen Evaluation mechanism SIENA Secure Information Exchange Network Application SIS Schengen Information System SRSP The Structural Reform Support Programme (SRSP) is an EU programme that provides tailor-made support to all EU countries for their institutional, administrative and growth-enhancing reforms. The SRSP is coordinated by the European Commission's Structural Reform Support Service (SRSS). TFA World Trade Organisation (WTO) Trade Facilitation Agreement, WTO Agreement on Trade Facilitation WT/ MIN (13) / W/ 8, 6 December 2013, entered into force in 2017. SOLID General Programme “Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows” TFEU Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union UMF Universal Message Format VIS Visa Information System



1Introduction: Political and legal context 1.1Scope and context 1.1.1Scope of the Impact Assessment On 2 May 2018, the European Commission adopted its proposals for a new Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for 2021-2027. The Reflection paper on the future of EU finances states that the post-2020 MFF needs to budget migration management, internal and external security, external border control, the fight against terrorism and defence within a longer-term perspective. The size, structure and content of the future budget of the European Union (EU) will have to correspond to the political ambition that the Union sets itself for the future.

In the 2014-2020 programming period, the Union budget has underpinned the European response to the refugee crisis and to the threat of organised crime and terrorism. The funding initially earmarked for migration and security was increased to address the migration and security challenges. The two key EU Funds addressing migration and security are the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF) and the Internal Security Fund (ISF); other Funds, notably the external Funds and the European Structural and Investment Funds, have also supported Member States as well as partner organisations to deal with the comprehensive approach on migration that the Commission has put in place. This Impact Assessment report reflects the decisions of the MFF proposals and focuses on the changes and policy choices which are specific to the Commission proposals for the successors to these Funds in the post-2020 Multiannual Financial Framework. Current Funds are taken as the baseline and the options for the future are assessed against the outcomes of both the ex-post evaluation of the Home Affairs Funds in the 2007-2013 programming period and the interim evaluations of AMIF and ISF as well as the changed migratory and security context. Moreover, it is in line with the principles of reform for the post-2020 Union budget, as set out in the Reflection paper on the future of EU finances. The migration, borders and security cluster will be covered by four instruments under three Funds: the Asylum and Migration Fund, the Internal Security Fund and the Integrated Border Management Fund (with a Border Management and Visa component and a Customs Control Equipment component). Due to the Treaty provisions that apply to the home affairs area, regarding the Schengen acquis and the protocols on the positions of the United Kingdom, Ireland and Denmark, the creation of the Funds requires the adoption of four separate legislative instruments. The creation of a new instrument dedicated to customs control equipment will support the management of the external borders of the Union. Dealing with goods (as opposed to persons) and the protection of the financial interests of the Union and its Member States, Customs Union and customs cooperation are different areas of EU intervention than security and border management under the Treaties, subject to dedicated Union legislation and a specific EU action programme. Nevertheless, under a new Integrated Border Management, the strong operational connections between border control and customs control and the fact that both take place at the Union’s external borders, can be underpinned with enhanced funding linkages, especially as regards customs equipment. Whereas the current Customs programme, as the main or only means of customs financing at Union level, allows funding for cooperation, IT systems as well as administrative capacity building of the national customs administrations, it did not provide means to fund customs detection and control equipment. Other EU instruments (Hercule, the Structural Reform Support Programme and the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF)) only marginally support funding of such equipment. As a new instrument, the customs control equipment (CCE) component is subject to different considerations than AMIF and ISF, but it may also benefit from experience gained in these areas over the recent years and vice versa. The MFF proposals for the 2021-2027 programming period indicate that the Asylum and Migration Fund is proposed to have a budget of EUR 10.415 billion, the Integrated Border Management Fund a budget of EUR 9.318 billion (of which EUR 8.018 billion for its Border Management and Visa component and EUR 1.3 billion for its Customs Control Equipment component) and the Internal Security Fund a budget of EUR 2.5 billion. This Impact Assessment meets the requirements of the Financial Regulation in respect of preparing an ex-ante evaluation. 1.1.2Policy context in the areas of asylum and migration, borders and customs control equipment, and security Over the past three years, migratory challenges have increased. Flows in the EU have evolved greatly. The number of irregular arrivals to the Union in the wake of the migratory crisis has been unprecedented, posing a serious challenge to the systems of Member States in the area of reception, asylum and migration and the proper functioning of the Schengen area. The number of asylum applications was approximately 5.6 times higher in 2016 (1 260 910) than in 2008 (225 150, Eurostat). It decreased in 2017 (704 630) but remains at substantially higher level than the average of the pre-crisis years. Member States at the external borders of the Union, Greece and Italy in particular, have been mostly affected by the reception of migrants upon their immediate arrival, while Germany, Hungary, Italy, Sweden, France and Austria received the highest number of asylum applications in 2015 and 2016. Eurostat statistics on return and asylum show that with approximately 2.6 million asylum applications in 2015 and 2016 combined, and considering that the first instance recognition rate stands at 47% in 2017, over one million people may need to be returned once their asylum applications have been processed. On the other hand, return rates at Union level have not yet been improving to the extent necessary (46.3% in 2016). The number of non-EU nationals arriving to the EU via legal pathways is set to increase in the future. Statistics show that the EU is already facing significant labour and skills shortages in key sectors . The EU's working age population is also declining, making migration an increasingly important way to enhance the sustainability of social security systems and to support growth, but also requiring immediate and long-term integration support. Data related to the situation at the external border also illustrate the changing of paradigms relating to border management as the total number of irregular border crossings between Border-Crossing Points (BCPs) increased from 282 933 crossings in 2014 to 1 822 177 in 2015 and 511 371 in 2016. The number of visa applications processed by Member States has increased considerably. The number of visas processed in 2017 was 16.1 million, representing a 50% increase compared to 2009 (11 million). With 2 140 customs offices that need to be equipped to implement the common customs legislation, customs control equipment funding is a long-standing political issue within the Customs Union. Member States have repeatedly expressed the need for financial support and requested an in-depth analysis of the equipment needed. In its conclusions on customs funding on 23 March 2017, the Council invited the Commission to "evaluate the possibility of funding technical equipment needs from future Commission financial programmes and improve coordination and […] cooperation between Customs Authorities and other law enforcement authorities for funding purposes". Terrorism as well as the evolving threats linked to organised crime and cybercrime are critical challenges for the EU and its Member States, attacking its values as well as its social and economic model. In the period 2014-2016, a total of 554 failed, foiled or completed terrorist attacks were reported in the EU, and 294 people died. The scale and the flow of European citizens who have radicalised and/or joined terrorist groups in conflict zones, in particular in Syria, Iraq and Libya, as well as the networked nature of these conflicts, are unprecedented. Furthermore, serious and organised cross-border crime has been finding new avenues to operate in the EU and new ways to escape detection. More than 5 000 Organised Crime Groups (OCGs) would be operating in the EU in 2017, compared to 3 600 in 2013. Finally, cybercrime is an ever-growing threat. On average, globally more than 4 000 ransomware attacks have occurred daily since the beginning of 2016, representing a 300% increase compared to 2015. Studies suggest that the economic impact of cybercrime increased by 500% from 2013 to 2017, and is projected to rise significantly by 2019. Threats such as those posed by cyberterrorism and hybrid threats could also increase in the years to come. 1.1.3Policy response

Migration and security being at the top of the political agenda, the Union’s response has been swift and comprehensive, formulated in the Agendas for Migration and Security adopted in 2015. The Agenda on Migration, as confirmed by the regular reports on its delivery, has set out actions to reduce the incentives for irregular migration, efforts to save lives and secure the external borders of the Union, actions supporting a strong common asylum policy and supporting a new policy on legal migration. The continuous implementation of the EU-Turkey Statement, the Partnership Framework and the joint actions taken on the Central Mediterranean route have brought the number of arrivals down by almost 30% compared to 2014, before the crisis. The management of the external borders of the Union has taken a major step forward with the hotspot approach, where Union Agencies (most notably the reinforced European Border and Coast Guard Agency (EBCGA), the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) and the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol)) work together in a coordinated manner to manage exceptional migratory flows. More than two years on, the EU relocation scheme is successfully coming to an end. To date, more than 96% of all eligible applicants registered have been relocated from Italy and Greece with almost all Member States contributing. The EU resettlement scheme adopted in July 2015 was also successfully completed in 2017 (19 432 vulnerable persons resettled to Europe) and resettlements under the EU-Turkey Statement continue. A new resettlement scheme was launched in September 2017 for at least 50 000 refugees, with a particular focus on refugees on the Central Mediterranean route and those displaced by the conflict in Syria. At the same time, progress is being made in improving cooperation on return with countries of origin, while the Commission also proposed stricter conditions for processing visas when a partner country does not cooperate sufficiently on readmission. In order to consolidate these positive trends, the Commission has launched a reform of the Common European Asylum System, with a solidarity component in the Dublin system and a proposal to establish a permanent Union resettlement framework, under negotiation. The Action plan on the integration of third-country nationals and the Renewed Action plan promoting an effective return policy in the European Union were launched in 2016 and 2017 respectively. The Commission has also made proposals on legal migration, with the revision of the Blue Card Directive under negotiation, and is carrying out an evaluation of the legal migration framework to identify weaknesses as well as possible ways of simplifying and streamlining it. The interim evaluation of the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF) showed that EU funding, being part of the policy response, contributed to policy results and provided added value. Despite their relatively small size in comparison with the challenges raised by the crisis, EU Funds have had an added value by supporting actions with a transnational dimension, boosting national capacities and optimising procedures related to migration management, and enhancing solidarity and responsibility sharing between Member States, in particular through emergency assistance and the relocation mechanism. EU added value of the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund By the beginning of 2017, AMIF supported the creation of almost 7 500 additional places in reception centres, and provided assistance to 814 000 asylum applicants and beneficiaries of international protection. With the help of emergency assistance, shelter has been provided to 35 000 people in Greece, including more than 400 safe places for unaccompanied minors. More than 32 000 persons were resettled and more than 34 000 persons have been relocated from Italy and Greece. Integration assistance was also provided to more than 1 400 000 third-country nationals . The added value of support through AMIF relied also on the synergies and complementarities achieved with the European Structural and Investment Funds (including the European Social Fund (ESF) and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD)), as regards integration and with the external instruments in the areas of migrant protection, asylum and return. Examples were, in the area of asylum, the implementation of the Regional Development and Protection Programmes (RDPPs) in North Africa and in the Horn of Africa and, in the area of return, the AMIF contribution to the readmission agreements and mobility partnerships with third countries and the creation of the conditions for sustainable return and reintegration in the countries of origin (126 000 persons have been returned at the end of 2017) . Border management Facilitating legitimate travel, while preventing irregular migration and security risks, is also a key objective of the Agenda on Migration. On 14 March 2018, the Commission presented its ideas on how to adapt the common visa policy to new challenges, including through a revision of the legal framework of the Visa Information System (VIS). The Commission also presented a legal proposal that addresses the existing divergent practices among Member States and ensures that visa-issuing rules can play a part in the Union's readmission policy. To preserve and strengthen the Schengen area, Member States are obliged, since 6 April 2017, to carry out systematic checks against relevant databases on EU citizens who are crossing the Union's external borders. Furthermore, the Commission issued a Recommendation to Member States to make better use of police checks and cross-border cooperation. The European Integrated Border Management Strategy is being implemented by the European Border and Coast Guard, a close cooperation between its constituent parts, namely the European Border and Coast Guard Agency and the Member States' border guards. All of this will enable the Union to achieve its main goal of reinforcing the functioning of the Schengen area without internal border control. EU added value of the Internal Security Fund – Borders and Visa ISF Borders and Visa is playing a crucial role in supporting the management of the external borders, providing EU support to the most affected Member States as a sign of shared responsibility for managing the common Union border. For example, Member States are supported for the implementation of the European Border Surveillance system EUROSUR and the acquisition of border management equipment that is put at the disposal of the EBCGA. ISF Borders and Visa is also a main source of financial support for the development and maintenance of the Schengen and the Visa Information Systems and, more generally, supporting the common visa policy, including by strengthening national capacity and increasing consular coverage, thereby combatting irregular migration and facilitating legitimate travel. Through the Fund, deficiencies found in the application of the relevant legislation by the Member States through the Schengen Evaluation mechanism (Scheval) have also been addressed in order to ensure that Union law is applied in a uniform way on the ground and contributes to the EU’s integrated border management. Furthermore, emergency assistance (over EUR 300 million) has enabled to strengthen the Union’s external border, notably in Greece, Italy and Bulgaria in face of a significant migratory pressure. EU added value of Funds working in synergy – the hotspot approach A key element in the EU's support to Member States is the hotspot approach. AMIF, ISF Borders and Visa and ISF Police have made a tangible difference by supporting the setting up of hotspot areas . Their capacity reached more than 7 000 places in Greece and more than 1 500 places in Italy. In 2015, before the establishment of the hotspots, only 58% of migrants were fingerprinted upon arrival in Italy, currently almost 100% of migrants are. Customs Control Equipment

Improving the performance of customs controls throughout the Customs Union and avoiding diverting flows of goods towards the weakest points has been another key policy objective. In the absence of a dedicated programme or Fund, the Commission supported Member States by redirecting them to the other EU funding options: the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) and support investment in transport and other EU networks; the EU Neighbourhood Instrument, Hercule III and the External Borders Fund (EBF). However, these solutions have proven to be not satisfactory as it did not allow for Customs needs to be sufficiently addressed among the overall structural needs nor did it allow for a minimum level of homogeneous or streamlined customs control and detection equipment at the border, thus creating opportunities to identify the weakest BCP for malpractices. The Commission launched several initiatives to better scope the issue of equipment under the Customs 2020 programme but the absence of dedicated Union intervention prevented addressing in a systematic and comprehensive manner imbalances that exist between Member States, due to differences in the capacities and resources available. Their ability to react to challenges generated by the constantly evolving global business models, threats and supply chains depend not only on the IT and human components – adequately supported by the existing customs legislation and programme – but also on the availability of state-of-the-art and reliable control equipment – an issue with strong connections with border management. Against this background, it is thus proposed to reinforce the Customs Union, the related customs policy and its programme by establishing a new Instrument for customs control equipment, closely linked to support for border management through the Integrated Border Management Fund in view of the particular, deep and operational connection of the equipment file with border management. EU added value of the future Customs Control Equipment Fund The Customs Union has a key function, not only in view of its traditional role of protection of the financial interests of the Union and its contribution to the Union budget as well as of trade facilitation, but also because customs authorities play a decisive role in the safety, security and border-management. Currently, Customs services of several EU Member States suffer from the severe shortage of customs control equipment : 53% of the EU Customs BCPs at the EU Eastern and South-Eastern Land Borders lack automated number plate/container number recognition systems (ANPRS) that would be needed for risk management; 46% of them lack scanners for cargo and vehicle inspection of trucks and wagons; and 51% lack personal hand control equipment. This lack of fundamental control equipment puts at risk the EU Internal Market and EU security and financial interests through: 1.Insufficient protection of the financial interests of the Union and its Member States via the better collection of customs duties ; 2.Ineffective fight against illegal trade and reduced facilitation of legal trade processing; 3.Decreased security and safety of the EU internal market, the Union and its citizens and the protection of the environment. Supporting the creation of an adequate and equivalent level of protection of the Union's external borders for goods – as a complement to existing instruments under ISF as regards persons – would thus contribute to a better functioning of the Customs Union. In view of the challenges facing the world, the EU and its Customs Union and in particular the continued need to ensure the security and safety, while securing revenues and easing the flow of legitimate trade, the availability of state-of-the-art and reliable customs control equipment at the external borders is a must. The Agenda on Security has provided a clear framework for the Union and its Member States to address better together security concerns and was the basis for the European Council's endorsement of a renewed Internal Security Strategy, adopted on 16 June 2015. Its priorities focus on combatting terrorism, organised crime and cybercrime, and progress towards an effective and genuine Security Union. To combat terrorism, actions have been implemented or proposed which include preventing and combatting radicalisation and terrorist financing, protecting public spaces and restricting the use of Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear and Explosive (CBRN-E) materials, improving the controls on explosives precursors. To combat cybercrime, operational measures are complemented by proposals to build EU resilience to cyber-attacks, creating effective EU cyber deterrence and strengthening international cooperation on cybersecurity, as well as improving the capacity to identify perpetrators of cybercrime and cyber-attacks. The EU Policy Cycle for serious and organised crime is delivering a more coordinated strategic direction and implementation of joint operations of authorities in Member States. EU added value of the Internal Security Fund – Police ISF Police has been part of the Union response, providing Member States with the opportunity to work together to effectively tackle cross-border crimes and risks, enhancing cooperation and the exchange of information between law enforcement authorities in different Member States, and supporting the development of the necessary capabilities. These include the Secure Information Exchange Network Application (SIENA) used by Europol, Member States and third parties, the exchange of DNA, fingerprinting and vehicle registration numbers via the Prüm Decision , the continued development of the Universal Message Format (UMF), which offers important benefits such as shorter response times and improved data quality, or the creation of dedicated Passenger Information Units in the context of the Passenger Name Record Directive (PNR), while also supporting the interoperability of different security systems in order to combat cross-border crime. ISF Police also co-funded successful actions to prevent and counter radicalisation, such as the Radicalisation Awareness Network (RAN) and the EU Internet Forum. In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks in Paris in 2015, emergency assistance funding has helped to put in place a digital solution to process large amounts of surveillance data, increasing the preparedness of the Union to possible new threats. Information systems for security, border and migration management Legislative acts have been adopted or proposed towards stronger and smarter information systems for security, border and migration management, making the data architecture of EU information systems more effective and efficient. These include the Entry / Exit System (EES), the European Travel Information and Authorisation System (ETIAS), the Schengen Information System (SIS), the Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS), Eurodac, the European Criminal Records Information Exchange System (ECRIS) and Passenger Name Records (PNR). In order to improve the management of data in the area of security, border and migration management there is an increased need for the interoperability of these IT systems.

1.2Lessons learned from previous programmes 1.2.1Key findings from evaluations of previous programmes The interim evaluations of the Funds of the 2014-2020 programming period, as well as the ex-post evaluations of Funds under the 2007-2013 programming period (instruments under the "Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows" (SOLID) Programme, "Prevention of and fight against Crime" (ISEC), and "Prevention, Preparedness and Consequence Management of Terrorism and other Security related risks" (CIPS)) allowed to identify the findings indicated below. The added value of the Funds having been outlined in the previous section, the following analysis will focus on the other key evaluation criteria of relevance, effectiveness, efficiency (including simplification and reduction of administrative burden) and coherence (including complementarity). 1.2.1.1Relevance, scope and size of the Instruments The broad scope of AMIF, ISF Borders and Visa and ISF Police ensured they could support the implementation of the necessary actions needed at EU level in the home affairs area. Other EU Funds contribute to migration, border management and security objectives within their scope of intervention. Due to the migratory and security crises significant budget reinforcements were needed, raising the available budget from EUR 6.9 billion for the 2014-2020 programming period to EUR 10.8 billion. Please find an overview of the Funds in the 2007-2013 and 2014-2020 programming periods in Annex 3. The possibility to provide emergency assistance (through direct management) has contributed to ensuring the relevance of the Funds by increasing their flexibility but it was used at a significantly higher scale than originally intended, to respond adequately to the unprecedented large-scale migratory movements and security challenges. In certain cases emergency assistance was also used to support actions that contribute to long-term capacity building. The interim evaluations also showed that even if the scope of the Fund was sufficiently broad to enable the implementation of the necessary actions in the areas of external border management and common visa policy, as regards ISF Police, stakeholders expressed a need to further promote the external dimension, in order to better address global security threats. Furthermore, allocations being fixed at the beginning of the programming period, on the basis of statistical data, do not reflect changes in the needs of Member States during the implementation period. For example, the United Kingdom was the largest beneficiary of AMIF based on pre-crisis data, while in fact other Member States (such as Germany) were most affected by the crisis. When providing additional financial support during the programming period, the distribution key established at the beginning of the programming period does not allow for flexibility, potentially affecting the effectiveness and efficiency of the Funds. For example, when allocating funding to implement the PNR Directive under ISF Police, France received double the funding needed while other Member States received much less funding than needed. More flexibility would be needed as far as the implementation of national programmes is concerned and a distribution system should be adaptable in order to ensure an appropriate response to changing needs. 1.2.1.2Effectiveness The interim evaluations show that AMIF and ISF are considered as effective, contributing to their objectives although the migration and security crisis impacted their effectiveness, since the challenges they needed to address increased. The possibility to use emergency assistance was generally highlighted as crucial to ensure the responsiveness of the Funds in changing circumstances. Both the ex-post evaluations of the 2007-2013 Funds and the interim evaluations of the current Funds show that a mix of delivery modes in the areas of migration, border management and security allowed for an effective way to achieve the objectives of the Funds. The holistic design of the delivery mechanisms should be maintained. On the other hand, the evaluations point to the lack of flexibility, to be balanced with predictability as Responsible Authorities and beneficiaries need financial and legal certainty to plan the implementation of the Fund throughout the programming period, as a limitation to their effectiveness. Although the ISF Borders and Visa Regulation includes a financial envelope to be distributed across the national programmes in the framework of the mid-term review, this was not foreseen in the AMIF and ISF Police Regulations, limiting the possibility to provide additional funding to the national programmes. Another limitation relates to the fact that the mid-term review can only be used at a pre-defined time during the implementation period. The migration and security crises have shown that flexibility was needed from the beginning of the programming period onwards to be able to react to changes on the ground. The interim evaluations also note the need for a clear intervention logic, and that more focused national programmes would increase the effectiveness by allowing to prioritise some objectives, and the importance of a full monitoring and evaluation system. Designed at an early stage, it ensures a consistent and uniform monitoring of progress and effectiveness from the outset. The shortcomings of the SOLID Funds in this respect (absence of mechanisms common to all Member States, with baselines and targets) have been largely addressed in AMIF and ISF. Common indicators for shared management are used and a common monitoring and evaluation framework (CMEF) has been designed. However, the interim evaluations also show that it was established late and needed to be improved, also as regards baseline values and the clarity of the indicators. This would allow for better tracking of the intended results and informing any future revisions of policy interventions, both under shared and direct management. 1.2.1.3Efficiency (including simplification and reduction of administrative burden) The interim evaluations emphasise that stakeholders have noted progress in the simplification of the procedures, especially as regards the programming phase (ISF Borders and Visa), less though as regards AMIF and ISF Police. Innovative measures (simplified cost options, multiannual programming) are considered beneficial. Although the late adoption of the legal bases and the need to complete the programming exercise of the national programmes as well as the designation of authorities, as set out in those legal bases, have delayed the implementation of the Funds, overall implementation seems on track. Establishing common rules on the implementation of AMIF and ISF (through the Horizontal Regulation), has supported the management of the three funding instruments, leading to close cooperation between – and in some cases the unification of – the entities responsible for the management of the two Funds. Furthermore, a number of changes compared to the previous programming period were introduced and have simplified the management of the programmes: multiannual programming (the ex-post evaluations of the SOLID programmes had shown that annual programming provided insufficient predictability for Member States and resulted in a high administrative burden, both for the managing authorities and for the Commission), a simplified Management and Control System (the involvement of a separate Certifying Authority is no longer required), increased alignment with rules applicable to other EU shared management Funds; Simplified Cost Options were introduced, and more flexibility granted to Member States to set up the rules on the eligibility of expenditure. However, the administrative burden is still perceived to be too high by both managing authorities and beneficiaries, undermining the efficiency of the Funds. For example, even though the use of national eligibility rules has the potential to reduce administrative burden, eligibility rules that are applied at times remain too heavy. Simplified Cost Options are not applied to the full extent. Several stakeholders indicated that the introduction of national eligibility rules did not simplify the implementation of the Funds. There is also a relatively high administrative burden for both Member States and the Commission in the provision of emergency assistance through direct management. This entails setting up a detailed grant agreement in a short period of time and more detailed reporting requirements towards the Commission for the beneficiaries (compared to shared management). The interim evaluations also show the need for a sufficient level of technical assistance to facilitate the successful management of the Funds and for further efforts to simplify access to the Funds for potential beneficiaries by providing information regarding actions and funding opportunities.

Furthermore, the current reporting system would not allow for adequately tracking investments in the Union's policy priorities and there is no mechanism aiming at improving performance, such as, for example, a system of incentives which would further improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the Funds. In the absence of such mechanism, Member States that perform well in the implementation of the Funds could not be rewarded. This could have increased the effectiveness of the Funds to achieve their objectives. 1.2.1.4Coherence (including complementarity) The ex-post evaluations of SOLID indicate that some Member States reported that complementarities could be improved with the European Social Fund as regards integration measures, and with the external instruments as regards reintegration activities. The implementation of the current Funds shows that steps undertaken during the design, planning and programming stages have facilitated their coherence and complementarity with other EU funding instruments. The format of the Funds (national programmes aiming at long term capacities, emergency assistance aiming at alleviating immediate pressure and Union Actions designed to support transnational cooperation) was considered as positive. Nevertheless, ensuring coherence and synergies remains challenging in three main areas: supporting asylum and integration objectives through ESIF, supporting border management, return and reintegration measures as well as developing protection systems in third countries and, finally, ensuring coherence between the interventions of EU Funds in the area of security. The interim evaluations emphasise the importance to ensure complementarity of emergency assistance with the respective national programmes and other EU programmes from the start, and during implementation. In the case of ISF Borders and Visa for example, complementarity should be increased at implementation stage. Overall, further efforts are needed to improve cooperation, coordination and strategic steering in the implementation of AMIF and ISF with other EU level initiatives. 1.2.2Consultation activities In the context of this Impact Assessment the Commission has undertaken a broad range of consultation activities in order to assess how well the existing programmes meet the needs in the areas of migration and security and how they could be improved to address future challenges and adequately support the Union's objectives in these areas. Two dedicated open public consultations ran from 10 January 2018 to 9 March 2018 on EU funds in the area of migration and on EU funds in the area of security. Overall, respondents strongly supported the need for simplification in the delivery of home affairs Funds, greater flexibility (specifically in relation to the ability to respond to migration and security related crises), and for increased funding and support in areas with strong responsibility-sharing (asylum and border management) and/or high level of cooperation between Member States, as well as cooperation with Home Affairs Agencies. Responses demonstrate that through these measures the effectiveness and efficiency of instruments can be improved and the EU added value enhanced. The need for greater home affairs policy leverage in third countries was also indicated by stakeholders. A summary of the consultation results is provided in Annex 2. Consultations with Member States and Schengen Associated Countries took place in the framework of the AMIF-ISF Committee. Member States provided inputs on the main funding priorities, problems, the architecture of the Funds and delivery modes. Other key stakeholders, including beneficiaries of AMIF and ISF through direct and indirect management, such as international organisations and civil society organisations were also consulted, as well as Home Affairs Agencies. Stakeholders concurred that in order to maximise EU added value, EU spending should reflect Union level priorities and policy commitments and should support the implementation of the Union home affairs acquis. Stakeholders called for sufficient funding to be made available to face current and newly emerging challenges. Sufficient funding should also be made available for the Home Affairs Agencies, in line with their increasing activities. Stakeholders agreed on the need for more flexibility embedded within the structure of the Funds. They found that, in order to retain sufficient flexibility to be able to react to changing circumstances, the multiannual national programme should be maintained. Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) were of the view that direct management should also be continued. These consultations confirmed an overall consensus among key stakeholders on the need for a wider scope of action for EU funding, including as regards its external dimension, enhancing the impact of home affairs policies, more simplification in the delivery mechanisms and greater flexibility, notably to respond to emergencies. Specific consultations as regards the new CCE fund As a new component under the Integrated Border Management Fund, CCE cannot benefit directly from lessons learned from evaluations of past experience. However, in the context of the study on the post-2020 customs programme the needs and challenges as regards customs control equipment were examined. In particular, a dedicated survey and specific interviews and case studies were performed. An overall open public consultation also took place from 10 January 2018 to 9 March 2018 on EU funds in the area of investment, research & innovation, SMEs and single market, which addressed the customs aspects as well and inter alia. A summary of all these contributions is provided in Annex 2. All these activities confirmed the diagnostic, need for Union action and expected strong EU added value. Indeed, the ever growing volumes of goods together with the increasing need for efficient and swift border control are underpinned not only by the traditional function of customs to collect revenue but also by the necessity to extensively reinforce the control of goods entering and exiting EU external borders to ensure safety and security. At the same time, these controls governing the movement of goods across the external borders should not impair but rather facilitate legitimate trade. Customs control equipment is an essential element for fulfilling these objectives and there is accordingly an urgent need to foresee a dedicated EU instrument aimed at addressing current imbalances and thereby ensuring a uniform application of customs rules at EU borders. 2THE CHALLENGES 2.1The main challenges to be addressed in the post-2020 MFF From the evaluation and consultation activities outlined in section 1.2, the main challenges to be addressed in the post-2020 MFF are identified in this section. The interim evaluations plead for continuity in the objectives and structure of the Funds. The main challenges are the cross-cutting challenges for the MFF, relating to flexibility, simplification, coherence and complementarity, and achieving the highest EU added value. Changes in the objectives and structure of the Funds are presented in section 3. 2.2Enhancing flexibility within a stable framework The constantly evolving challenges in the areas of migration, border management and security require increasing the flexibility in the management of the Funds when compared to AMIF and ISF. New mechanisms for the allocation of funding for shared, direct and indirect management will be needed to address new challenges and priorities. Currently, the largest share of AMIF and ISF is implemented through shared management, where a national programme is approved by the Commission for the 2014-2020 programming period. Basic allocations to the participating States are calculated on the basis of 2008 to 2012 statistics. While the ISF Borders and Visa Regulation provides for an additional envelope to be distributed across the national programmes as a result of the mid-term review, the AMIF and ISF Police Regulations do not have such a provision. For an overview of the current allocations under AMIF and ISF, please refer to Annex 3.

To provide additional funding under shared management, funding must be distributed across all national programmes in accordance with the original distribution key, or be based on Specific Actions or lump sum payments. A new mechanism should address the lack of flexibility related to the static distribution key and be available throughout the programming period. It should also allow for an adequate level of predictability, since the Responsible Authorities and beneficiaries need financial and legal certainty to plan the implementation of the Fund throughout the programming period. Mechanisms will also be needed to allocate funding in such a way that enables further incentivising Member States to implement Union policy priorities. Shared management has proven to be an effective delivery mechanism to Member States in maintaining and improving migration management and the response to security challenges on national level, in line with the specific needs of Member States. However, programmes implemented by Member States under shared management have not always allowed the Commission to ensure that funding was steered towards Union priorities to the extent necessary. Finally, the possibility to provide emergency assistance under AMIF and ISF has increased the capacity of the Funds to react to unforeseen circumstances. Emergency assistance is implemented through direct management only. Future mechanisms should retain the possibility to provide emergency assistance while reducing the administrative burden of managing such assistance and facilitating the coordination with actions supported through the national programmes. 2.3Further simplifying the rules for implementing EU Funds The architecture of AMIF and ISF addressed findings from the ex-post evaluations of the SOLID Funds. Establishing common rules, the Horizontal Regulation has facilitated the implementation of the three instruments and simplified the management of the Funds. Nevertheless, the evaluations also find that there is further room for improvement for simplifying the implementation of the Funds, notably by ensuring a coherent approach with rules applicable to the management of other EU Funds and by ensuring the eligibility rules under shared management make full use of simplified cost options. 2.4Ensuring more coherence and synergies between actions supported by EU funding instruments Findings from the ex-post evaluations and the interim evaluations of AMIF and ISF show that there is still potential for improving the coherence between actions in a number of areas. In the field of asylum and integration, establishing the necessary shifting of resources in the programmes of Member States under ESIF to include new priorities relating to asylum and integration has proven challenging (through shared management). As regards the external dimension, certain areas of support with regard to border protection, pre-integration, return and reintegration measures as well as developing protection systems in third countries could not be fully covered by the different funding instruments. Accompanying measures in third countries which support the Union’s efforts to protect its borders and enhance sustainable returns could not be fully covered. While the available resources in AMIF and ISF for actions with an external dimension have been limited, the Union’s external financing instruments were in some cases not fully optimal for different reasons. Available allocations for migration could not, at least initially, meet the increased needs in partner countries and fragmentation exists among the available external action instruments. This was to a certain extent mitigated by pooling resources into EU Trust Funds and using an integrated and holistic approach. Given the limited allocations available to migration, priority was given to capacity building support over large scale investment in equipment and infrastructure. In addition, according to the Financial Regulation, entities that subsequently implement EU Funds must undergo a prior assessment to ensure they fulfil a number of criteria such as International Organisations, third countries, development agencies of Member States or civil society organisations. While the possibility to access such funding is open for all agencies of EU Member States, mainly development agencies have opted for this possibility and it is therefore more difficult to provide funding to others, for example to assist services of Member States needing support to return irregular migrants. As a consequence, the implementation modalities of the external financing instruments did not always allow for an adequate response to the Union’s increased needs in third countries as regards migration and security. Since 2015, allocations for migration management have increased in programmes under the external financing instruments, for instance under the Development Cooperation Instrument (DCI) in Asia and with the creation of the EU Emergency Trust Fund (EUTF) for Africa, which has improved the situation by increasing the available financial support and streamlining implementation. However, the EUTF for Africa has a limited geographical coverage and while its use has significantly speeded up the delivery times compared to standard external action funding, a certain period of time is still required for the coordination with beneficiary partner countries, implementing partners, including EU Member State agencies and the signature of contracts. Key security priorities, such as security infrastructure, the prevention of and fight against radicalisation, cybercrime or the protection of public spaces are also partially covered by other EU Funds than ISF Police. As the evaluations show, coverage by other EU Funds within their scope of intervention, clear dividing lines and coordination mechanisms leave room for improving the efficiency of allocating resources and targeting interventions in these areas. Finally, there will also be a need to ensure better coherence and complementarity of the new customs control equipment funding programme with other EU Programmes and Funds, in particular with the Customs programme and the new Single Anti-Fraud Programme that also address challenges related to customs policy and the protection of the Union’s financial interests. 2.5Achieving the highest level of EU added value with a focus on performance Evaluations show that the scope of the Funds is adequate to support activities that maximise the EU added value in their areas of intervention. However, ensuring that the Funds support the implementation of the policy priorities of the Union will require improving the monitoring and evaluation framework in a way which also supports a strengthened performance based management. To do so, the monitoring and evaluation framework needs to be established at the beginning of the programming period in order to facilitate a swift start and indicators should allow for better measuring the performance of national programmes, with a view to monitor EU added value. There is a need to better enable tracking of whether the Funds deliver the intended results and informing any future revisions of policy interventions, both under direct and shared management. In addition, a new monitoring and evaluation framework will need to be established for the new customs control equipment component of the IBMF. 3Architecture of the Funds and objectives 3.1The EU’s right to act and the necessity for the EU to act The EU’s right to act in the area of home affairs derives primarily from Title V ‘Area of Freedom, Security and Justice’ of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU): -External borders and common policy on visa (in particular Article 77(2) TFEU);

-Common policy on asylum, subsidiary protection and temporary protection, including the partnership and cooperation with third countries (Article 78 TFEU); -Common immigration policy and return policy, including the conclusion of readmission agreements with third countries (in particular Article 79(2), (3) and (4) TFEU); -Judicial cooperation in criminal matters (in particular Article 82(1) TFEU); -Crime prevention (Article 84 TFEU); -Measures regarding police cooperation (in particular Article 87(2) TFEU); -Cooperation with third countries and the competent international organisations (Article 212(3) TFEU). In addition, the EU’s right to act as regards customs control equipment derives from: -Customs cooperation (in particular Article 33 TFEU); -Internal Market (in particular Article 114 TFEU); and -Commercial Policy (in particular Article 207 TFEU). The challenges in the areas of asylum, migration, the management of the external borders, the prevention of and fight against serious and organised crime, terrorism and other security-related risks are by their nature interlinked, transnational phenomena and cannot be adequately addressed by the Member States acting alone. The abolition of internal border controls must be accompanied by common measures for the effective control and surveillance of the Union’s external borders as well as a common asylum and migration policy. This is necessary in order to preserve the Schengen area as an area without internal border controls, preventing and addressing any secondary movements. Article 80 TFEU states that the common policies on asylum, migration and external borders are based on the principle of solidarity and fair sharing of responsibilities between Member States. EU funding is the mechanism which gives effect to the financial implications of this principle. In addition, the integrated management of the Union’s external borders and the completion of a Common European Asylum System are the most effective ways to fairly share these responsibilities and their financial implications between Member States. Finally, EU funding in the area of integration of third-country nationals is indispensable to increase the quality of support to newcomers in the early stages after their arrival, which is a crucial component of the strategy to ensure their full inclusion in the European societies in the long run. The EU is designed to create an area of freedom, security and justice, without internal borders for its citizens. In an era where terrorism and other serious crime operate across borders, both the EU and its Member States have a responsibility towards their citizens to deliver an area of security where individuals are protected, in full compliance with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. In this regard, the Treaties envisage the need to ensure a high level of security, including through preventive measures, and through coordination and cooperation between police, judicial and other competent authorities. Member States have the frontline responsibility for security, but cannot address transnational threats effectively acting on their own. The tools need to be built at European level through which national authorities and, where relevant, International Organisations can effectively work together to tackle shared challenges; an effective and genuine Security Union in which the rights and freedoms of citizens are well protected. Finally, the current imbalances at EU external borders as regards customs controls – as identified through consultations – cannot be addressed individually by each Member State. The EU Customs Union is only as strong as its weakest point. And this is all the more important when it comes to controls. Disparity in available control equipment allows customs "shopping", i.e. creates opportunities for ill-intentioned citizens or economic operators to identify the weakest BCPs for their malpractices. A coordinated approach among Member States per category of BCP (land, sea, air, postal hubs) is therefore necessary. Such a high degree of cooperation and coordination can only be achieved with a centralised approach, ideally at Union level. 3.2Architecture of the Funds: the Asylum and Migration Fund, the Integrated Border Management Fund and the Internal Security Fund The future Funds are the Asylum and Migration Fund (AMF), the Internal Security Fund (ISF) and the Integrated Border Management Fund (IBMF), consisting of two components; the Border Management and Visa (BMVI) component and the Customs Control Equipment (CCE) component. Due to the Treaty provisions that apply to the home affairs area, in particular different voting rules in the Council stemming from variable geometry pursuant to Protocols 19 (on the Schengen acquis), 21 (on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of Freedom, Security and Justice) and 22 (on the position of Denmark, including in relation to Title V, part three of the Treaty), the creation of the Funds requires the adoption of four separate legislative instruments. Implementing rules for shared management, currently set-out in the Horizontal Regulation, will be included in the future Common Provisions Regulation (CPR). 3.2.1Asylum and Migration Fund The interim evaluation of the current AMIF indicates that the scope of the Fund is sufficiently broad to support the implementation of Union policy priorities, providing EU added value. The objectives of the Asylum and Migration Fund are based on this scope of intervention. It enables support for actions in the external dimension, complementary to support provided by the external Funds, and caters to specific needs of vulnerable groups, such as victims of trafficking in human beings and children in migration. The general objective of the Asylum and Migration Fund will be to contribute to an efficient management of migration flows, in line with the Union acquis on asylum and migration and in compliance with the Union’s commitments on fundamental rights. The Regulation establishing the Asylum and Migration Fund is based on Articles 78(2) and 79(2) and (4) TFEU. The specific objectives of the Fund will be the following:

-Strengthen and develop all aspects of the Common European Asylum System, including its external dimension; -Support legal migration to the Member States and contribute to the integration of third-country nationals. Integration measures will be focused on promoting early integration measures for the social and economic inclusion of third-country nationals, preparing their active participation to the receiving society, their acceptance by the receiving society and their social and economic inclusion, in particular with the involvement of local or regional actors and civil-society organisations; -Contribute to countering irregular migration and ensure sustainability of return and effective readmission in third countries. The scope of intervention of the current Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund will remain similar in the new instrument. However, in order to better reflect policy priorities set out in the European Agenda on Migration, the future AMF will have three specific objectives: asylum, legal migration and integration, and return. The separate specific objective of the current AMIF on solidarity and responsibility sharing between Member States would be integrated under specific objective 1 of the future AMF (asylum), incorporating resettlement and relocation to reflect policy and legislative initiatives, namely the Union Resettlement Framework and the Dublin reform. New Union competences following the reform of the Common European Asylum System would be supported through the Fund. There are minor adaptations to the priorities and actions supported to reflect policy developments and synergies and complementarities with other EU Funds. These are: 1)Resettlement: the possibility for financing national resettlement schemes under the national programmes to reflect the results of the negotiations on the Union Resettlement Framework; 2)Integration of third-country nationals: AMF would prioritise early integration measures whereas the future ESF+ would cater for their long-term integration (please refer to section 3.3 for more information); 3)External dimension – legal migration and pre-departure measures: possibility to support the development of migration mobility schemes to the EU (i.e. circular and temporary migration schemes) through national programmes; 4)External dimension – return: possibility to support actions in third countries including on infrastructure, equipment and other measures provided these contribute to effective cooperation between third countries and the EU and its Member States on return and readmission. AMF would introduce a higher EU co-financing rate (up to 90%) as a way to incentivise Member States to take action for some strategic priorities such as alternatives to detention, protection of children and measures targeting vulnerable persons as well as integration measures implemented by local and regional authorities as well as civil society organisations. The arrival of migrants, particularly when high numbers are concerned, has an immediate effect on the local infrastructure, provision of services, housing, education, healthcare, family benefits, job search, or transport, and budget of regional and local authorities. The arrival of asylum seekers in recent years has added further pressure on local authorities to cater for their reception and integration. In addition, migrants are usually concentrated in urban areas. Providing the possibility of a higher EU co-financing rate for integration measures implemented by local and regional authorities as well as civil society organisations would increase the effectiveness of the Fund, as the development of national integration policies would be complemented by sufficient support for integration measures at regional and local level. 3.2.2Integrated Border Management Fund The Integrated Border Management Fund will consist of two components. The component for Border Management and Visa supports measures related to external border management and the common policy on visa. The component for Customs Control Equipment supports enhancing customs controls through the financing of the purchase, maintenance and evolution of customs control equipment. These components are established through: -A Regulation establishing, as part of the Integrated Border Management Fund, the instrument for financial support for border management, based on Article 77(2) and 79(2)(d) TFEU; -A Regulation establishing, as part of the Integrated Border Management Fund, the instrument for financial support for customs control equipment, based on Articles 33, 114 and 207 TFEU. The general objective of the Integrated Border Management Fund – Border Management and Visa, will be to contribute to guaranteeing a high level of security in the Union by ensuring strong and effective integrated border management while safeguarding the free movement of persons within it, in full compliance with the Union's commitments on fundamental rights. The specific objectives of the Fund will be the following: -Supporting effective European integrated border management implemented by the European Border and Coast Guard (consisting of the Member States and the EU Agency) to facilitate legitimate border crossings, to prevent and detect illegal immigration and cross-border crime and to effectively manage migratory flows; -Supporting the common visa policy to facilitate legitimate travel and prevent migratory and security risks. The objectives of the BMVI are based on the scope of ISF Borders and Visa, which is considered sufficiently broad to support the implementation of Union policy priorities, providing EU added value. There are minor adaptations to the priorities and actions supported to reflect policy developments and synergies and complementarities with other EU Funds:

1)The scope of the Fund takes into account recent policy developments, such as the modernisation and digitalisation of the common policy on visas and the setting up of new interoperable large-scale IT systems; 2)A bigger emphasis is foreseen for EU added value projects, including through financial incentives, such as higher co-financing rates for projects under the national programmes which support strategic Union priorities, or top-up funding for Member States that initiate transnational projects of benefit to the Union as a whole; 3)There is a strong focus on supporting capacity building and functioning of the newly created European Border and Coast Guard as well as moving towards the uniform application of the relevant Schengen acquis as regards borders and visa. This includes conditionalities ensuring that: -Equipment purchased with the support of the Fund is put at the disposal of the Agency for an adequate amount of time; -Trainings supported by the Fund are implemented in line with the relevant uniform European standards; -Recommendations or deficiencies stemming from quality control mechanisms (such as the Scheval mechanism and the European Border and Coast Guard Agency's vulnerability assessment) are addressed with the support of the Fund. In view of the specific legal basis under the Treaties, a second legislative instrument will be necessary for establishing the new Customs Control Equipment component of the IBMF. The general objective of the Integrated Border Management Fund – Customs Control Equipment will be to support the customs union and customs authorities to protect the financial and economic interests of the Union and its Member States, to ensure security and safety within the Union and to protect the Union from unfair and illegal trade while facilitating legitimate business activity. The specific objective of the Fund will be to contribute to adequate and equivalent customs controls through the purchase, maintenance and upgrade of relevant, state-of-the-art and reliable customs control equipment. The creation of two instruments under one Fund will ensure strong synergies between the two Funds and will support Member States' capacities at the external borders as regards strengthening the control on persons and goods. 3.2.3Internal Security Fund The Internal Security Fund will support measures ensuring a high level of security in the Union especially by tackling and preventing serious crime with a cross-border dimension, such as terrorism and radicalisation, organised crime, corruption and cybercrime, and by assisting and protecting victims of crime. The Regulation establishing the Internal Security Fund is based on Articles 81(2), 82(1), 84 and 87(2) TFEU. The general objective of the Internal Security Fund will be to contribute to ensuring a high level of security in the Union, in particular by tackling terrorism and radicalisation, serious and organised crime and cybercrime, and by assisting and protecting victims of crime. The specific objectives of the Fund will be the following: -Increase the exchange of information among and within the EU law enforcement and other competent authorities and other relevant Union bodies, as well as with third countries and international organisations; -Intensify cross-border joint operations among and within the EU law enforcement and other competent authorities in relation to serious and organised crime with a cross-border dimension; -Support effort at strengthening the capabilities to combat and prevent crime including terrorism, in particular through increased cooperation.

The objectives of the Internal Security Fund are based on the scope of ISF Police, which is considered sufficiently broad. Its scope will be enlarged as it will also include the non-health related demand side of drugs, taking over a part of the drugs component of the Justice Programme. This change in scope enables further synergies between actions supported through ISF Police and actions supported through the current anti-drugs component. It brings together support for the reduction of drug supply in one Instrument. Actions that support the reduction of drug demand, in its health related aspects, fall under the scope of interest of the Health component of the Single Market Programme. Such change also brings more clarity for potential applicants. Close coordination is needed to reach synergies with regard to actions that aim to reduce drug demand, but are not directly health-related, such as information campaigns and preventive measures. Currently, ISF Police has one general objective with two security specific objectives. As the interim evaluation confirms that these are considered overlapping and unclear, the future ISF structure will contain a single general objective reflecting the Security Agenda's policy priorities and the following three horizontal specific objectives: 1)Better information exchange; 2)Increased operational cooperation; and 3)Increased national and collective capacities including training and non-standard equipment. Implementation measures reflect the concrete measures to be implemented in order to reach the specific objectives (e.g. set up and maintain national and EU security relevant IT-systems, measures to improve and facilitate the use of Joint Intervention Teams (JITs), creation of specialised Union networks and cooperation structures etc.). The Fund will continue to place emphasis on fighting serious and organised crime with a cross-border dimension and, in particular, on ensuring a collective Union response to security threats as well as on improving the Union's preparedness and resilience. The role of EU Agencies The role of the Home Affairs Agencies as key operational arms in the implementation of the EU migration and security policies is expected to increase. The Union launched new policy and legislative initiatives. It has also reviewed and substantially expanded the mandate of some Agencies, notably EASO and the EBCGA and has expanded the tasks of Europol and eu-LISA. Following the interim evaluation processes of the Agencies and recent Commission initiatives, the Agencies may receive further tasks. The expanded mandate of the Agencies would not have as purpose to substitute the current tasks performed by Member States but rather to enhance and upgrade actions of the EU and its Member States in the area of migration, border management and security. For example, Europol will further develop the capacity of systematically bringing together intelligence of Member States to improve the overall EU capacity to fight and prevent terrorism. This does not imply that Member States will have to do less in this area, but more. Member States in the future will not only have to continue collecting evidence and data but also share it in a uniform format with Europol and other Member States, which is not the case to date. Similarly, the expanded function of the EBCGA will not in the medium term replace the action of customs and border guards in Member States but will enhance border surveillance capacities that are not performed up to the right standards today and that will necessitate more effective action by both Member States and the Agencies. As presented in the Communication A new, modern Multiannual Financial Framework for a European Union that delivers efficiently on its priorities post-2020, the future development of the European Border and Coast Guard will depend on the decisions taken on the future Financial Framework. With the increased capacities of the Agency, the need for financial support and training for the increase of the national border guard component in vulnerable Member States, the creation of bigger and more operational expert pools and reinforced own equipment would increase. The Agencies would have an important role during the programming of the national programmes. Furthermore, the (new) monitoring roles, such as the assessments performed by the EBCGA and the future EU Asylum Agency would feed into mid-term review processes and may be cause for a revision of relevant national programmes. The role of IT systems in the areas of migration, border management and security The central components of the EU IT systems will be established and be interoperable in 2020, while the national components will be rolled out in 2020 and 2021. Adequate financial support is needed for a full deployment of the new systems beyond 2020. Additional funding will be needed for further development and maintenance of new and existing systems. Furthermore, achieving full interoperability between these systems will require significant investments. The success of information exchange depends on the quality of data entered into the systems as well as the regularity of input and use. Therefore, investment will continue to be needed in training and capacity building. The systems would also need to be adapted to new requirements and innovations such as facial recognition, encryption and decryption and development of capabilities to analyse big data. Impact of an insufficient level of funding on priorities Overall, both evaluations and consultations carried out in the context of this Impact Assessment show that the scale of the challenges to be addressed under the next MFF will increase. Current levels of support would therefore not be sufficient to address the needs nor enable to meet the political ambitions expressed in the areas of migration, border management and security and to support the objectives outlined above. Furthermore, if funding levels were reduced, dependent on its extent, current operations would be impacted as choices would need to be made. For example, in the field of migration, in order to maintain funding for asylum, integration and return, funding incentives for the resettlement of beneficiaries of international protection might need to be cut. In external border management, funding for consular cooperation would have to be significantly cut, as well as incentives to Member States to invest in EBCGA equipment. As regards security, less funding for developing the Member States' technical and human capacities would certainly hamper the effective cooperation among law enforcement authorities (both nationally and transnationally) in areas where collective intelligence and action will be necessary, such as in the area of anti-terrorism (including the fight against radicalisation), trafficking in human beings and crisis preparedness and response, including the protection of critical infrastructure and soft targets. 3.3Coherence and complementarities with other EU funding instruments Preferred option: The objectives of the Union in the areas of migration, border management and security will be supported through a fully coordinated set of funding instruments, including both their internal and external aspects. Alternative option:

All aspects of migration, border management or security would be supported through a single Instrument respectively, namely AMF, BMVI and ISF. Preferred option: Priorities in the areas of migration, border management and security need to be supported through a fully coordinated and coherent set of funding instruments, including both their internal and external aspects. It is important to avoid overlaps with funding provided through other EU instruments, by establishing dividing lines and effective coordination mechanisms. AMF, BMVI and ISF will act as the Union's dedicated instruments in the areas of migration, border management and security, in addition to other relevant funding instruments which, from their own perspectives and areas of support, reinforce the migration and security policy objectives. This is the best option to ensure effective implementation of the objective within legal constraints, since it will allow that the different Funds integrate fully the parts of migration and security which are closer to their scope of action in their objectives and implementation structures. It will also mobilise the Member States’ administrations and stakeholders’ expertise from different angles to address the migration, borders and security challenges. Furthermore, this option takes into account the variable geometry that applies to the home affairs area and the different Treaty bases determining the scope of intervention of the various EU Funds. However, under this option beneficiaries would still potentially need to access funding from different sources, requiring coordination efforts to ensure consistency of action. Furthermore, the design of AMF, BMVI and ISF will have to duly take into account the reinforced mandates of the relevant Union Agencies, most notably the EBCGA, EASO and Europol as well as the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) and the European Fisheries Control Agency (EFCA) and ensure coherence and complementarities with actions carried out by these Agencies in the areas of migration and asylum, border management and security. In this context, overlaps need to be avoided with funding provided through other EU instruments, by establishing dividing lines and effective coordination and governance mechanisms within the Commission and managing authorities. Information and support towards (potential) beneficiaries would be facilitated through establishing a single entry or information point at national level. Alternative option: An alternative option would be to support all aspects of either migration under AMF, border management under BMVI or security under ISF. The advantage of such a funding architecture would be that would ensure full coherence of action and consistency of measures inside the migration, border management and security areas. However, such option would have several disadvantages; the connection with other Funds and interconnections with other support measures in other policy fields would be weakened. In the sections below the advantages and disadvantages of the options above are applied to some areas of particular importance. 1.Support for migration and security through the successors of the European Structural and Investment Funds. Preferred option: The successors of the European Structural and Investment Funds support objectives related to migration and security within their scope of intervention through a menu of policy objectives. In the area of integration, long-term needs are covered with dedicated budget, including earmarking. Alternative option: Support for all aspects of either migration, border management or security within the Union will be implemented through AMF, BMVI and ISF. Preferred option: The interventions through the successors to the European Structural and Investment Funds are structured by a menu of policy objectives. These Funds will include migration and security in its menu of policy objectives, to be supported from their respective scopes of intervention. Please refer to Annex 4 for the delineation of interventions in the post-2020 MFF. The advantage of this option is that migration and security would become a prominent focus area of Funds with larger volumes of resources and synergies with other policy areas would be maximised. This option would ensure a strong and consistent support to Member States for the development and implementation of their policies to face the migration, border management and security challenges. For example, the future European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) is better placed than ISF to incorporate the security considerations in the construction of a bridge, a community centre or a railway station. For instance, when the population of a small rural area is doubled in a matter of days due to the high influx of refugees and there is a need to transform a public or private building into a reception centre, the EAFRD, or the future European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) in coastal areas, might be a suitable alternative funding source to AMF and closer to the local decision making authority. The particular case of integration Integration is a particular case since it would involve large volumes of investments as opposed to, for instance, reception capacity, where capacities are in place to a large extent. Integration support for third-country nationals is currently funded by a variety of EU Funds, among which AMIF is the only Fund targeting third-county nationals specifically. Other Funds, in particular ESIF, but also Erasmus+, are intervening in their respective domains (employment, education, infrastructure, etc.) but without having the integration of third-country nationals as a specific or priority objective. The large influx of third-country nationals to the EU since 2014 has triggered additional needs for integration support in Member States. As integration is a long-term process, the need for investing in this area will continue or even increase in the 2021-2027 period.

The groups that are the most in need of integration support are asylum applicants likely to be in need of international protection, as well as beneficiaries of international protection and migrants arriving in the EU through family reunification procedures. These groups of persons have specific needs. Dedicated funding to benefit this target group continues to be necessary, in particular in the early stages of the integration process. Therefore, AMF should provide dedicated funding for actions specifically targeting third-country nationals, in particular in the early integration phase for the social and economic inclusion of third-country nationals, including by providing support for education to children, as well as for horizontal measures supporting integration policies and strategies of Member States. For asylum applicants covered by the reformed Dublin scheme, which may include in certain cases also through its corrective allocation mechanism, AMF would cover first reception measures, basic assistance and training and will also provide support for those that would need to be returned. Interventions in different thematic areas for longer term measures, such as integration into the labour market and social inclusion support for the integration of third-country nationals are proposed to be supported through the successors to ESIF and other EU Funds (see Annex 4). Furthermore, for asylum seekers covered by the corrective allocation mechanism of the Dublin scheme, the successors to ESIF would provide support covering longer term basic assistance. Alternative option: Supporting migration management, border management and security through the respective internal Instruments would mean that all needs in the areas of security, migration including integration, and border management would be covered under AMF, BMVI and ISF. This option would guarantee full consistency of all interventions under the objectives of migration, border management and security. However, it would be less effective in terms of policy purposes. For example, should all actions supporting the integration of third-country nationals be supported through AMF, while no other instruments would provide support within their scope of intervention, it would result in integration processes that are supported in isolation from social inclusion measures that are applied to the rest of society. This has proven to be less effective for successful integration outcomes. Similarly, anti-radicalisation efforts directed at the target groups of the Instrument would be delinked from broader efforts on social inclusion and anti-radicalisation. In a similar vein, support for the security of critical infrastructures and the protection of public spaces would be delinked from investments through other Instruments in the development of such infrastructures. Therefore, there is a need for various EU Funds to support the migration and security objectives of the Union within their scope of intervention. 2.The external dimension of the Asylum and Migration Fund, the Integrated Border Management Fund and the Internal Security Fund Preferred option: The main investments in the external aspects of migration, border management and security will be the single external Instrument and AMF, BMVI and ISF will have a sizeable external component to support the internal objectives of the Union within their scope of intervention but complementary to the external Instrument. Alternative option: Supporting migration, border management and/or security will be implemented exclusively through a single external Instrument. Preferred option: The drafting of new internal Instruments should include policy objectives that enable the external projection of internal Union policies through these Instruments. As a consequence, there is a need for AMF, BMVI and ISF to have a sizeable external component to support the internal objectives of the Union within their scope of intervention. Such interventions will be designed and implemented in coherence with Union external action and foreign policy, in particular with the Union’s external Instrument. Migration and security would be covered in the different components (geographical, thematic, and non-programmable) of the external financial instruments. More specifically, this Instrument would contain an unallocated share for emerging challenges. The unallocated share would contain a programmable thematic component with a strong focus on migration. Actions supported through this component need to contribute to the attainment of the Sustainable Development Goals. Through AMF it is not intended to support actions which are development oriented but to complement, when appropriate, the financial assistance provided through the external Instruments. The use of an EU Trust Fund for actions in the external dimension is a potentially useful tool through which part of the support from AMF, BMVI and ISF may be channelled, in coordination with other funding sources. The future Funds would not contain a separate Trust Fund. However, future Trust Funds should have the capacity of reacting with more agility and speed and have a large geographical scope. Support through the future AMF, BMVI and ISF would cover the following actions, complementary to support through the external Instrument: 1)AMF would continue to support resettlement, capacity building of third-countries to manage migration flows and ensure migrant protection and pre-departure measures by Member States, aimed at facilitating the integration of third-country nationals in the EU. In the area of return, it would continue to support the implementation of readmission agreements with third countries and the reintegration of returnees, as well as actions preventing irregular migration (i.e. information campaigns, data collection and tracking of flows and routes, etc.). An example where support of the Fund may be needed is in case of large numbers of forced returns, including returns with specific medical needs. As a novelty, the Instrument would provide the possibility to support the development of mobility schemes to the EU in the area of legal migration and a possibility to provide incentives and support to (and in) third countries to accept and reintegrate returnees from the EU in the area of return. 2)BMVI would continue to support sharing of information and best practices with third countries, improve operational cooperation, including through joint operations, support capacity building of third countries to protect their borders through training and purchase of equipment as well as other operational necessities. 3)ISF would continue supporting cooperation with third countries on anti-terrorism and anti-radicalisation activities, cooperation of law enforcement authorities in the fight against terrorism as well as trafficking in human beings and migrant smuggling, including through joint investigation teams. Alternative option: Supporting migration, border management and security through a single external Instrument would have as an advantage that migration and security objectives would become a more prominent component of the external Instrument of the Union. However, it will also leave some areas uncovered and will decrease the degree of autonomy of the EU to act rapidly when needed in the migration, border management and security areas.

Furthermore, these external interventions would be decoupled from interventions in the internal dimension, while the implementation of the current Funds has shown the need for immediate links in areas such as pre-integration, legal migration, return and reintegration as well as border management and security. This would increase the need for coordination between interventions under the various Instruments. 3.Support for customs control equipment Preferred option: Establishing the new Customs Control Equipment component will allow a coordinated and operational approach between customs authorities and with related policy areas for integrated border management. Alternative option: Customs control equipment will be implemented exclusively through a single Instrument. Preferred option: Funding of customs control equipment presents a clear EU added value, considering that the functioning of an efficient and secure Customs Union constitutes a European public good. Since the establishment of the Customs Union 50 years ago, the role of customs authorities in the management of the external border has now extended well beyond their traditional role of collecting EU own resources and in supervising and facilitating EU trade. Customs are nowadays active in the field of safety and security, controlling the cross-border movement of restricted and prohibited goods and (narcotic) substances, including activities potentially supporting terrorists and organised crime. State-of-the-art customs control equipment is crucial for customs to perform in a more secure, faster and more cost-effective way. All these objectives are actively supported by the Customs programme, which provides a comprehensive framework for cooperation as well as IT and human capacity building – with the exception thus of customs control equipment. As the Customs programme will be extended beyond 2020, a proper coordination will need to be established between, on the one hand, that programme and its horizontal wide-reaching objectives and, on the other hand, the new customs control equipment component and its specialised area of intervention. By extension, coordination shall also be foreseen with the future Single Anti-Fraud Programme, which will also include funding of equipment as regards specifically the protection of the Union's financial interests. Creating a support for customs control equipment however does not impact only customs authorities but reaches out as well to other departments or agencies such as police, border guards, health and consumer protection authorities; the economic impact of cigarette smuggling represents a budgetary loss of around 10 billion Euros per year. In addition, counterfeit and pirated products represent up to 5% of all EU imports, worth up to EUR 85 billion. Brands that suffer the most from Intellectual Property infringements are primarily registered in the EU. Therefore, when establishing the new CCE component, there is a need to ensure a coordinated approach between customs and related policy areas such as security, fight against fraud, integrated border management. This applies all the more as control equipment usually allows for dual or multiple use. A more integrated and coordinated border and customs management as well as, as far as possible, co-sharing of control equipment between all concerned stakeholders, whether customs authorities, border guards, EBCGA, will also be aimed for. Exploring compatibility and inter-operability of customs control equipment would not only address respective issues more effectively, efficiently and consistently but also create shared expertise in view of better mobilising EU and national funds. Such a coordinated approach shall however respect the different legal bases for the Customs Union and the Schengen area. Alternative option: Implementing the Customs control equipment exclusively through a single Instrument – such as the future Customs programme – would present the advantage of ensuring coherence among all customs activities. However, if customs equipment is contemplated into the sole future Customs programme, operational cooperation and coordination with the related policy areas for border management will not further develop. It will thus not favour a sound integrated border management approach. 4.Other areas of coherence and complementarities Preferred option: AMF, BMVI and ISF ensure full coherence and complementarity with other EU Funds in the areas of migration, border management and security. Alternative option: AMF, BMVI and ISF do not ensure full coherence and complementarity with other EU Funds in the areas of migration, border management and security. Preferred option:

AMF, BMVI and ISF ensure full coherence and complementarity with relevant EU Funds, such as in the area of education for migrants, maritime security and surveillance, cybersecurity and judicial cooperation. The Funds will be complementary to the future Emergency Support Instrument (ESI). The post-2020 MFF should support a coherent EU policy for maritime security and surveillance. Such coherence is needed given the wide array of coastguard functions and the involvement of more than 300 responsible entities at national level. The BMVI and the future EMFF should continue supporting improved interoperability and information exchange across borders and sectors, as well as between civil and military actors. Such support needs to be implemented with strong involvement of the EBCGA, EMSA and EFCA. The primary objectives of those activities would determine which Fund would support them. Legal provisions in the respective Funds should support joint, multipurpose operations and also the dual or multi-use of equipment. For example, surveillance aircrafts which can detect and off-shore patrol vessels which can address a multitude of challenges, such as oil spills, fisheries control, search and rescue of life at sea, and border control. By promoting such investments for multipurpose assets, deploying more costly and labour intensive assets (such as Navy vessels), which are often not fit for purpose to carry out civilian duties, could be avoided. In addition, cooperation between bodies operating on the maritime security dimension would be promoted. With regard to cybersecurity, synergies will be established between ISF and a future Digital Europe Programme, the next Research and Innovation Framework Programme (Horizon Europe) and the Defence Fund. Synergies may cover the inclusion of civilian, law enforcement and military cyber defence research entities becoming part of an EU network to jointly carry out research, solving law enforcement challenges and possibly creating a cluster of expertise involving law enforcement actors. Given the close connections between security and justice, synergies will be ensured with future Funds, such as the future Justice Programme and the Rights and Values programme, supporting adequate protection to victims of crime, JITs and judicial training, ensuring interoperability with ECRIS and improving detention conditions. Police-justice cooperation activities, including via Justice-related Agencies, such as Eurojust and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO), both at Union and nati