The Commission has developed a number of legislative and non-legislative policy options based on all stakeholders’ recommendations and on the five-year review of the implementation of the current Regulation. Following a pre-selection where some options were discarded, the following policy options were assessed in full detail, as an alternative to the baseline scenario: ·Option 1 - This option consists of operational changes that adjust the scope of the evaluations but keep current policy-field fragmentation (to address problem 1 and achieve specific objective 1), accelerate the evaluation process while maintaining the current decision-making and follow-up procedures (problem 2 and 3, and objective 2), better involve Member State experts and EU bodies / agencies (problems 1 and 2, and objective 4), and strengthen the evaluation of fundamental rights (problem 2 and objective 3). ·Option 2 - Building on the operational changes (as per Option 1), this option proposes targeted legislative changes to increase legal certainty. It creases flexibility regarding the evaluated fields and actors, and the programming (problem 1 and objective 1). It simplifies procedures and obligations, and creates a clear timeline for all actors involved, while keeping the same institutional balance (problems 2 and 3, and objective 2). It introduces flexibility in the evaluation team size and improves coordination with EU bodies and agencies (problems 1 and 2, and objective 4). In addition, it increases legal certainty on the elements relevant for fundamental rights’ evaluation and highlights their prominence and political importance (problem 2 and objective 3). ·Option 3 - This option presents ambitious legislative changes to incorporate the measures proposed under Options 1 and 2 and combines them with additional changes to SCH-EVAL’s design and functioning. It expands the scope of the Mechanism to targeted areas beyond the Schengen acquis, it establishes comprehensive evaluations not articulated per policy fields but per Member State based on risk assessment and situational awareness, extends the evaluation cycle’s length to seven years and creates additional fit-for-purpose evaluation and monitoring tools (problems 1 and 2, and objective 1). It proposes changes to the institutional balance in the decision-making process (combined adoption of evaluation reports and recommendations by the Commission with the Council focuses the adoption of recommendations in political relevant cases, namely ‘serious deficiencies’, ‘first time evaluations’ and ‘thematic evaluations’) and in the follow-up procedures, and introduces a fast-track procedure for serious deficiencies (problem 3 and objective 2). It modifies the process to designate Member State experts, also by creating a pool of experts, as well as maximises the coordination with EU bodies and agencies and other quality control mechanisms (problems 1 and 2, and objective 4); and introduces a specific fundamental rights evaluations (problem 2 and objective 3). ·Option 4 - This option proposes a combined approach of the measures proposed under the other options (which are cumulative rather than alternatives), depending on the area of intervention and level of ambition. Option 4 proposes keeping the current scope covering all aspects of the Schengen acquis, while adapting the priorities (policy fields) to the new realities and actors with a more flexible programming (as per Option 2; addressing problem 1 and achieving objective 1) and extending the evaluation cycle to seven years (as per Option 3; problem 1 and objective 1). It broadens the range of tools available and clarifies the criteria and conditions for their use (as per Option 3; problem 1 and 2 and objective 1). It includes measures to accelerate simplify procedures (as per Option 2; problem 3 and objective 2) and changes the decision-making process and creates a fast-track procedure for serious deficiencies (as per Option 3; problems 2 and 3, objective 2). It combines all measure proposed under the other options to optimise the participation of Member States experts and improve EU bodies and agencies’ involvement (problems 1 and 2, and objective 4). Option 4 introduces changes to increase legal certainty on elements relevant for fundamental rights (as per Option 2; problem 2 and objective 3). Following a detailed assessment and comparison of the impact of all policy options and taking into consideration the recommendations of consulted stakeholders, the Preferred Policy Option is Option 4. The factors leading to the choice of Option 4 are the following: the effectiveness and efficiency of the measures; potential for simplification and for reducing the administrative burden; realistic assessment of positions of different stakeholders’ group, taking into account the practical and legal feasibility of proposed measures. The other policy options are excluded as they address the problems only to a certain degree and/or are difficult to adopt / implement.