EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels,12.6.2018 SWD(2018) 336 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT on the Ex Post Evaluation of the External Borders Fund 2011-2013 Accompanying the document Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions Ex post evaluation reports for the period 2011 to 2013 of actions co-financed by the four Funds under the framework programme 'Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows' {COM(2018) 456 final}



{SWD(2018) 333 final}



{SWD(2018) 334 final}



{SWD(2018) 335 final}



Contents 1 Introduction 2 Background to the initiative 3 The EBF as funding instrument (objectives and priorities) 4 Evaluation questions 5 Method 6 Limitations 11 7 Management mode of the EBF 13 7.1 Shared management through the implementation of national annual programmes 13 7.2 Direct management through the adoption by the Commission of Annual Work programmes (Community Actions including Emergency Assistance and Specific Actions) 15 8. Implementation Status of the Two Management Modes 16 8.1 Implementation through shared management 16 8.2 Implementation through direct management 19 9. Answers to the evaluation questions 20 9.1 Relevance – Utility 20 9.1.1 Relevance 20 9.1.2 Utility 23 9.2 Effectiveness 23 Objective 1 25

Objective 2 29 Objective 3 31 Objective 4 32 Effectiveness of the principle of solidarity 36 9.3 Efficiency 40 9.4 Sustainability 44 9.5 Complementarity and Coherence 45 9.6 EU added value 48 10. Conclusions 50 ANNEX 1 - Procedural information 56 ANNEX 2 - Stakeholders' consultation 62 ANNEX 3 - Methodology 72 ANNEX 4 - List of evaluation questions 75 ANNEX 5 - Detailed overview of the budget allocated to Community, Emergency and Specific Actions under EBF 2010-2013Annual Work programmes 77 ANNEX 6 - List of abbreviations and country codes 78



1Introduction The External Borders Fund (EBF) was established in 2007 for the period 2007 to 2013. It is one of four Funds (SOLID Funds) set up under the General Programme ‘Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows’. The aim of this General Programme was to address the issue of a fair share of responsibilities between Member States concerning the financial burden arising from the introduction of an integrated management of the Union’s external borders and from the implementation of common policies on asylum and immigration. The Decision establishing the EBF requires the Commission to submit to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions three evaluations reports: -by 31 December 2010, an intermediate report on the results achieved and on qualitative and quantitative aspects of implementation of the Fund, based on evaluation reports provided by the Member States by 30 June 2010; -by 31 December 2012, an ex post evaluation for the period 2007 to 2010 based on national evaluation reports on the results and impact of actions co-financed by the Fund. This ex post evaluation report covered the implementation of the 2007 to 2010 annual programmes implemented by the Member States. -by 31 December 2015, an ex post evaluation for the period 2011 to 2013 based on national evaluation reports on the results and impact of actions co-financed by the Fund. The present staff working document reports on this ex post evaluation covering the evaluation of the 2011 to 2013 annual programmes implemented by 28 Participating States (25 Member States (including the Special Transit Scheme for Lithuania) and 3 Schengen Associated States), from 1 January 2011 to 30 June 2015. The implementation of the 2007 to 2010 EBF annual programmes are not within the scope of this evaluation but are considered where relevant, specifically as part of the analysis of complementarity and coherence. The present document also covers the evaluation of the Community Actions (including Emergency Actions) implemented under the 2010 to 2013 annual work programmes and the Specific Actions implemented under the 2010 to 2012 annual work programmes Specific actions. The present evaluation builds upon the results of the ex post evaluation of the actions implemented under the EBF 2007-2010 annual programmes and the intermediate report mentioned above. The ex post evaluation study was carried out by a consulting firm specialised in evaluation. The study's methodology combined desk research, on-site visits, qualitative and quantitative analysis, more precisely: - systemic synthesis of the evidence regarding the implementation of the Fund that is derived mainly from the 26 national evaluation reports (NERs) and the Annual Work Programmes of the Member States (AWPs); and - interviews with 140 stakeholders, 12 case studies and a public consultation. Despite this thorough evaluation process, the assessment of the impact of investments under EBF during the relevant period is constrained by lack of robust data in some national evaluation reports, by data quality such as the absence of harmonised official statistics on border management resources and investments, and lack of objectives and indicators set beforehand. The ex post evaluation assessed EBF in the light of its relevance (whether its objectives matched with societal needs), utility (whether the intervention satisfies stakeholders' needs), effectiveness (to what extent objectives have been achieved), efficiency (to what extent costs were proportionate to the achieved benefits), sustainability of effects after the intervention ended, coherence between the actions financed by the instrument and complementarity to other interventions as well as the added value of intervening at EU level. The results of this evaluation will complement the interim evaluation of the Internal Security Fund (ISF), the successor of the External Borders Fund for the period 2014-2020. The interim evaluation of the ISF is due in 2018. The Commission will submit an interim evaluation report of the Fund by 30 June 2018 to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. This interim evaluation report will be based on the interim evaluation reports provided by the Member States on the implementation of the actions and progress towards achieving the objectives of their national programmes to be submitted to the Commission by 31 December 2017. The interim evaluation report which the Commission will submit will also include an assessment of the mid-term review carried out by the Member States and of the implementation of the emergency assistance grants and Union actions. The results of the interim evaluation together with the results of the present evaluation will contribute to the shaping of the future policies in the migration and security areas, especially to the preparation of the new funding instruments in the framework of the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) post 2020. 2Background to the initiative The Schengen Area is one of the greatest achievements of the EU. It is an area without internal borders and where free movement of persons is ensured without being subjected to border checks. While having abolished their internal borders, Schengen States have improved and tightened controls at their common external borders on the basis of common rules to ensure the security of those living or travelling in the Schengen Area and prevent illegal entry, while facilitating legitimate travel.

The Schengen acquis provides for common rules and procedures to be applied by signatory States with regard to short-term visas and border controls. All signatory States therefore needed to contribute to ensure a high and uniform level of control on individuals and surveillance of the EU external borders. However, the burden borne to implement the common standards for control of the EU's external borders varied significantly from country to country. These variations were explained through the differences between Member States in terms of the geography of their external borders, the number of border crossing points (BCPs), the level of migratory pressure, the risks and threats encountered and the number of Schengen visa applications received. The consolidation and the functioning of the Schengen area requires an overall borders policy architecture at the Union's level supporting all the components of the common Integrated Border Management System (IBMS). As indicated in the Council Conclusions of 4-5 December 2006, the IBMS concept encompasses three dimensions: ·A common corpus of legislation, in particular the Schengen Borders Code as well as the Regulation on local border traffic; ·Operational cooperation between Member States, including cooperation as coordinated by Frontex; ·Solidarity between Member States and the Union through the establishment of an External Borders Fund. The Council then identified the following components of the IBMS: ·Border control (checks and surveillance) as defined in the Schengen Borders Code, including relevant risk analysis and crime intelligence; ·Detection and investigation of cross border crime in coordination with all competent law enforcement authorities; ·The four-tier access control model (measures in third countries, cooperation with neighbouring countries, border control, control measures within the area of free movement, including return); ·Inter-agency cooperation for border management (border guards, customs, police, national security and other relevant authorities) and international cooperation; ·Coordination and coherence of the activities of Member States and Institutions and other bodies of the Union. The Council thus identified the External Borders Fund as one of three dimensions of the IBMS. However not all components of the concept were covered by the Fund (e.g. return).

The consolidation and the functioning of the Schengen area requires the MSs to acquire and develop the skills and obtain the equipment and technology necessary to be operational within an integrated border management system at EU level. The work towards achieving the IBMS is a long-term and complex process, which benefitted from the support of the EBF and continues to be supported under ISF Borders and Visa. In this political context, the EBF 2007-2013 is one of the four EU funding instruments established in 2007 as part of the Framework Programme on Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows and of a wider policy package which also included the Frontex Agency, the Schengen Borders Code and the Schengen Evaluation Mechanism. The EBF was designed to support the process towards the IBMS, through a solidarity mechanism between the Member States. The States participating in the EBF are the ones taking part in the Schengen area, i.e. the EU Member States except United Kingdom and Ireland and four Schengen Associated States (Norway, Switzerland, Liechtenstein and Iceland). It was the first funding instrument dealing with borders. The EBF had a slow start due to the inclination of Member States to protect their national sovereignty on border management. However, during its implementation, these States gradually realised the crucial role of an integrated border management system for the security of the whole territory of the Union. One of the main developments during the period under assessment was the sudden and unexpected increase in migratory pressure on the EU southern and south-eastern external borders. The total number of detections of illegal border-crossing increased from 104 000 in 2010 to 141 000 in 2011 (+35%). The 2011 uprisings in North Africa contributed to a rise in migratory pressure, especially for the Mediterranean countries. High numbers of undocumented migrants were apprehended in Greece, Italy, Spain and Portugal, with Greece accounting for 227 420 apprehensions per year on average, or about a third of the EU total. Detections of illegal border-crossings along the EU’s external borders sharply dropped in 2012 to 72 437 detections, a 49% decrease compared to 2011 due mainly to the combined effects of enhanced surveillance at the land border between Greece and Turkey. The year 2013 saw a second peak of detection of illegal crossings along the EU external borders (107.000) which represents an annual increase of 48% in comparison to 2012. The year 2013 was characterised by three phenomena: a large increase in illegal border-crossings by Syrians on the Eastern Mediterranean route and in the Central Mediterranean, subsequently applying for asylum; a steady flow of migrants departing from North Africa (Libya and Egypt) and a sharp increase, mostly in January-June, in detections reported by Hungary at its land border with Serbia. In 2014, detections of illegal border-crossing reached a new record, with more than 280 000 detections. This was twice as many as the previous record of 140 000 detections in 2011, the year of the Arab Spring. This unprecedented number of migrants crossing illegally the external border has roots in the fighting in Syria that have created the worst refugee crisis since the Second World War. Indeed, most of the detections at the borders concern migrants from Syria, who later applied for asylum within the EU. The year 2015 marked the explosion of the refugee crisis due to the conflict in Syria, with more than 1.8 million detections of illegal border crossing over the year, with Greece receiving thousands of migrants and refugees every day. This unprecedented crisis was addressed by the Internal Security Fund, the successor of the External Borders Fund, notably through emergency assistance grants to support Greece. On the other hand, several IT tools supporting the management of EU external borders were enhanced and deployed during the period under assessment in order to facilitate legal migration to the EU while ensuring a high level of protection at the external borders. The Commission announced in December 2015 that the Visa Information System (VIS) had been rolled out and was fully operational. As for the Schengen Information System (SIS), whose main purpose is to help preserve internal security in the Schengen States in the absence of internal border checks, SIS II was launched in 2013 after significant delays. Through the EBF Emergency actions, in 2011, the Commission made significant efforts to mitigate the risk of further delays of SIS II implementation due to Member States lacking financing. As for the European Border Surveillance System (EUROSUR), it became operational on 2 December 2013. Between 2010 and 2014, the total number of Schengen visas issued by the Schengen States increased by 42 % (from 11.018.936 in 2011 to 15.684.796 in 2014). The evaluation period saw also the further development and use of new technologies to facilitate legitimate travel, such as Automated Border Control systems (ABC gates or e-gates), thus giving Member States tools to manage their passenger flows more efficiently whilst releasing human resources which were needed at the external border for checking higher risk travellers or serving other travellers. In that regard, the total number of arrivals at Schengen airports from third countries increased by 53% between 2009 and 2013 (from 71 413 602 in 2009 to 109 375 635 in 2013). 3The EBF as funding instrument (objectives and priorities) As mentioned above, the EBF was set up to support the progress towards the IBMS through a solidarity mechanism among Member States. To achieve its overarching objective, the EBF was designed to contribute to the achievement of four general objectives: Each one of these general objectives was further detailed in several specific objectives (between 9 and 5 specific objectives per general objective). In addition, in accordance with the Decision establishing the EBF, the Commission adopted in 2007 Strategic Guidelines which identified five funding priorities and twelve specific priorities (2 to 3 specific priorities per priority). The specific priorities were defined to target particular actions for which the Member States could request an EU co-financing rate of 75% (See Section 7.1). Each action planned in the annual programme had to be programmed under one of the priorities set in the Strategic Guidelines. As the Strategic Guidelines did not set any threshold per priorities, Member States could distribute their annual allocation as they wished provided that Member States address at least three of the five priorities. The priorities set in the Strategic Guidelines were aimed at making the Fund more operational and more closely linked to the new policy and legislative initiatives and related IT-systems (e.g EUROSUR, SIS, VIS, etc.). The priorities are the following:

While those priorities helped to better target EU funding to policy priorities, it also resulted in a complex architecture, with the general and specific objectives and the priorities and specific priorities not always matching perfectly. This is because they often focused on rather different aspects of EU border control. For example, Priority 4 focuses on the support for the establishment of IT systems for the Community legal instruments in the field of external borders and visa (namely VIS and SIS) while the development of these two IT systems is covered by only one of the five specific objectives under general objective 2. Another example is that the two specific objectives listed under general objective 3 (namely upgrading of the security at the premises of BCPs and building and upgrading of areas and centres for persons whose entry is refused) were not reflected in Priority 5, which focused on dissemination of information and training related to legal instruments in the field of external borders and visa. As priorities, being more concrete and more operational, were used to guide implementation of the national programmes by MSs, the latter were requested to programme their actions and report on their implementation per priority. However, the evaluation methodology, as defined by the Better Regulation Guidelines, required analysing the extent to which the EBF had achieved the general objectives as set in the legal base. The complexity of the global architecture of the Fund, combined with the limitations imposed by the reporting format, made the evaluation exercise more difficult. This being said, since the general objectives and priorities of EBF were explicitly drawn from the Schengen acquis, they are naturally strongly linked and reinforce each other. As a result, the EBF has been assessed through the priorities, which, given the interlinkage with general objectives, enabled the Commission to draw valid conclusions about the overall performance of the EBF. The weaknesses in the architecture of the Fund have been addressed when preparing the subsequent funding instrument: the ISF Borders and Visa includes one general objective and two specific objectives supported by seven operational objectives, and Member States are requested to report on the implementation of their national programmes in light of the objectives set out in the legal base. 4Evaluation questions The evaluation was planned and tendered before the Better Regulation Guidelines were adopted on 19 May 2015, but still covered all the five key evaluation criteria required by the Guidelines i.e. effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence and EU added value. In addition to these criteria, the Fund was also evaluated for its utility, sustainability and complementarity. To assess these eight criteria, the evaluation reviewed the 16 questions that are included in Annex 4. 5Method The Commission's evaluation relies on an external study carried out between June 2015 and November 2016 by a consulting firm specialised in evaluation. The study's methodology combined desk research, on-site visits and both qualitative and quantitative analysis. It required a systemic synthesis of the evidence regarding the implementation of the EBF. Information was derived mainly from the 26 national evaluation reports (NERs) and the Annual Programmes of the Member States (APs). The APs set out the operational objectives for each year whilst the NERs provided information on outputs, results and the impacts of the actions. Further information was obtained from interviews with 140 stakeholders (responsible authorities (RAs), beneficiaries, EU officials and case study respondents, twelve case studies covering 12 Member States (each involving a site visit) and a public consultation. The case studies illustrate practical examples of projects carried out by MSs with EBF support. They correspond to 12 projects, i.e. a project per selected Member State. The total number of projects funded by EBF in 2011-2013 in the selected 12 MSs is equal to 606. As a result, the 12 selected projects represent only 1.98%. For this reason, the sample cannot be considered as representative and therefore it does not allow for conclusions to be drawn or projected to the entire population. An internet-based public consultation was also carried out (a detailed analysis of its outcome may be found in Annex 2). Information was triangulated to ensure validity and robustness. Findings from the study are presented in this report together with the financial data extracted from SFC and ABAC in December 2016.

6Limitations The evaluation process encountered a number of difficulties that induced methodological limitations (see Annex 3 for more details). The assessment of effectiveness, efficiency and utility was hindered, to a certain extent, by the absence of comparable quantitative data. For the annual programmes, this is due to the fact that the reporting requirements in the Fund's legal base did not stipulate that RAs should collect the data that would be required to conduct an assessment of effectiveness and efficiency. To mitigate this, the assessment of these criteria had to rely on the qualitative data collected through the stakeholder consultations and the NERs. This, combined with the absence of a baseline, proved to be a limitation in terms of methodology. Due to these limitations, it has not been possible to establish causal links between the EBF's intervention or identified needs on the one hand and observed impacts or results on the other hand; therefore, effectiveness has been evaluated in terms of outputs – which were more easily measured and compared across MSs – rather than impacts or results. Furthermore, it has been difficult to measure efficiency (the relationship between the inputs utilised such as time, human and financial resources and the results achieved) because the evaluation concluded that it was not possible to compare different types of projects. Hence, no clear trends could be established. In addition, results could not be measured due to the lack of ex ante targets. It was not feasible to compare the "cost of actions'" under EBF to other similar actions due to the absence of comparable projects. As a result, the evaluation looked into the procurement procedures as these tend to determine the cost of the actions, under the assumption that if fair tendering took place, then this was the reasonable cost that the market could offer. Finally, given these limitations, the evaluation study cannot draw conclusions on the degree of correspondence of the results and/or impacts to the needs (utility). Furthermore, indicators and quantitative targets were set by Member States through their Annual Programmes when selecting the actions supported by the programme for each year. For each action proposed, Member States defined independently the expected quantified results. As a result, there was a multitude of indicators across Member States with no harmonisation and a limited assessment on the side of the Commission representing a limitation for the evaluation. Moreover, the absence of convened definitions for benchmarks or units, particularly for EBF purchases, stems from different understandings among Member States of what to record in the NERs. Despite the fact that guidance on the interpretation of the indicators was provided to RAs on an ad hoc basis, upon their request, and answers were made accessible to all RAs, the information recorded in the NERs still proved to be diverse and hardly comparable. In order to improve transparency and accountability in the future, the Commission and the Member States have developed a specific common monitoring and evaluation framework as well as a document to guide RAs in the evaluation exercise of the ISF. In order to ensure that comparable quantitative data are collected for the evaluation of the ISF, the following was adopted: -Common indicators for the measurement of the Specific objectives of the ISF have been developed and added to the legal basis of the Fund; -Common result and impact indicators - indicators by specific objectives were adopted. In addition, Article 2.2 of the Common monitoring and evaluation framework provides that the Commission shall set out the definition, source and baseline for these the indicators; -Common indicators on efficiency, added value and sustainability; -Evaluation questions were set at the beginning of the implementation period of the Fund. To mitigate to the extent possible the limitations mentioned, different mitigation strategies were taken by the evaluator. For effectiveness and efficiency, the analysis was restricted to being based primarily on stakeholders’ assessments, gathered through interviews with beneficiaries and RAs. In addition, the potentially positive stakeholder bias was corrected by looking at past achievements of predecessor programmes and the judgment of the evaluators. Overall, the availability, robustness and reliability of the data were sufficient to generate findings.

7 Management mode of the EBF The actions co-financed under EBF were implemented through two different management modes: 7.1Shared management through the implementation of national annual programmes Programming: Under the shared management mode, Member States hold the primary responsibility for the implementation and management and control of the interventions of the Fund. Under this management mode, the Fund is implemented on the basis of strategic multiannual programmes adopted for each Member State covering the 2007-2013 programming period. In addition annual programmes were negotiated each year with each Member State within the framework set by the multiannual programme to implement the annual financial allocation granted to each Member State. Calculation of the annual financial allocation for each Member State: To express solidarity with the Member States who bear, for the benefit of the EU, a lasting and heavy financial burden, the Fund Basic Act lays down objective criteria broken down according to the type of border, taking into account the flow and the levels of threat at the external borders of the Member States. Article 14 provides that the total amount available for the Fund has to be broken down each year between the Member States as follows: (1) 30% for external land borders (2) 35% for external maritime borders (3) 20% for airports (4) 15% for consular offices. Regarding land and maritime borders ((1) and (2)), 70% is allocated with respect to the length of the external border coupled with weighing factors determined by Frontex (see below). The remaining 30% is allocated on the basis of the work-load in managing the border (defined by the average figures over the previous two years of the number of persons crossing the borders at authorised border crossing points, the number of third country nationals refused at the external border and the number of persons apprehended after having crossed the external, border illegally). Article 15 sets out the framework for the calculation of the weighting factors for external land and maritime borders. The Frontex Agency has been entrusted with the task of identifying the levels of threat at each external border section (high, medium, normal risk for land borders and high, medium, normal, minimum risk for maritime borders). With regard to airports, the allocation is calculated according to the work-load at the air borders (defined by the average figures over the previous two years of the number of persons crossing the borders at authorised border crossing points and the number of third country nationals refused at the external border). As for consular offices the allocation is calculated according to the number of consular offices and the number of visa applications (work-load). The provisional allocations were communicated to the Member States the year before (by 1st July each year) the adoption of the annual programme in question and were based on average figures over the previous two years (e.g. allocation for the 2013 AP were based on average data of 2010 and 2011). In 2011, an assessment on the annual distribution of resources in the Member States for the SOLID Funds was carried out. The report concluded that the interpretation and measurement of the data to be provided for the implementation of the EBF proved difficult and burdensome at times for the Member States. This is due to the fact that for the EBF the Member States were the main data suppliers for the purpose of the calculation of the annual allocation and, in this sense, the situation under the EBF differs fundamentally from the other three SOLID Funds for which the bulk, if not all of the data, are compiled as EU statistics. As the application of the criteria have converged the bulk of the EU available resources around those Member States most affected by migratory pressure, this 2011 report also concluded that this confirms the purpose of the Fund as an instrument of financial solidarity on integrated border management in the EU. Content of the Annual Programme: The annual programme sets out the actions to be implemented in the Member State and indicates their purpose, scope, beneficiaries (public authorities in charge of border management and visa issuance), expected results and financial allocation (EU and national co-financing). Each action is then implemented by one or more project(s) on the ground. In the shared management context, the projects are selected by competent national authorities. Member States are therefore independent and only ex post assessment is carried out by the Commission at the time of submission of the closure report of the annual programme in question.

During the eligibility period of each annual programme, Member States were entitled to request a revision of their annual programme to adjust the actions to the changing migration flows and/or emergency situations. Member States could not however request additional funding for the implementation of a specific annual programme. The EU co-financing rate is set at 50%. This rate may be increased to 75 % for projects addressing specific priorities identified in the Strategic Guidelines as well as for projects implemented by the Member States covered by the Cohesion Fund . Technical assistance: Member States were entitled to use the funds allocated to the AP to cover the management costs of the Fund. For the AP 2011 to 2013, the technical assistance was set at 4% of the total annual amount of funding allocated plus EUR 30 000. Closure of the Annual Programme: The eligibility period of each annual programme was set at two years and a half (e.g. 2013 annual programme ran from 1 January 2013 until 30 June 2015). After the end of eligibility period, the Member States submitted a final report, which included an audit report. The part of the annual allocation not spent – if any – after the end of the eligibility period was lost for the Member States and de-committed for the Commission. 7.2Direct management through the adoption by the Commission of Annual Work programmes (Community Actions including Emergency Assistance and Specific Actions) Annual Work programmes: Up to 6% of the EBF's resources were available to finance transnational actions or actions of interest to the EU as a whole (Community actions), at the Commission's initiative. Political priorities and objectives for projects are defined in the Commission’s annual work programmes (AWPs) adopted each year and calls for proposals launched following the approval of each AWP. The maximum duration of the awarded projects was 24 months. In addition, to top up the allocation to Member State's Annual Programmes, the 2010 to 2013 AWPs provided for the possibility for the Commission to grant emergency assistance – without a call for proposal - to Member States in duly substantiated emergency situations requiring urgent action. Over the period, the Commission awarded 25 emergency actions grants under EBF Community actions for a total of EUR 39.96 million. These actions were implemented by public bodies of the Member States and/or International Organisations. The duration of the projects supported by the Fund under emergency assistance ranged from 6 months to 12 months. Annual Work programmes – Specific Actions: Between 2010 and 2012, the Commission adopted AWPs dedicated to Specific Actions to be implemented by the Member States and which contributed to the development of the Integrated Borders Management System (IBMS) by addressing weaknesses at strategic border crossing points identified in the risk analysis carried out every year by Frontex (see Section 7.1). The available resources for these actions were capped at EUR 10 million per year. The financial assistance from the Fund for specific actions was limited to a period of six months and complemented the activities carried out under the national annual programmes. Over the period, the Commission awarded 23 Specific Action grants for a total of EUR 22.26 million. 8. Implementation Status of the Two Management Modes The EBF was launched in 2007 with a total allocation of EUR 1 820 million. The allocation for the period 2011-2013 was equal to EUR 1 118 million, out of which EUR 1 032 million for shared management (including the Special Transit Scheme for Lithuania) and EUR 86 million for direct management (Community actions including Emergency and Specific Actions implemented under the AWPs 2010 to 2013). The table below shows the EU distribution of financing to the different management modes during the period under assessment. Table 1: Total programmed EU contribution for EBF in 2011-2013 (in EUR) 2010 2011 2012 2013 Total Shared management (via annual programmes) Out of the scope of the evaluation 253 762 001 337 910 920 440 706 601 1 032 379 522 Direct management (via AWPs) 21 650 000 21 000 000 31 607 080 11 848 562 86 105 642 Total EBF EU budget 21 650 000 274 762 001 369 518 000 452 555 163 1 118 485 164 8.1 Implementation through shared management Finding 1: Absorption rates are good and remain stable at 87% As illustrated by Figure 1, the programmed EU contribution rose progressively from 2007 to 2010. The total allocation to the 2013 annual programmes saw an increase of 74% in comparison to the 2011 allocation (from EUR 254 million to EUR 441 million). The average absorption rate for EBF 2011-2013 annual programmes ranges between 85% and 89% and is 87.1% overall for the evaluated period. The average implementation rate for the previous evaluation period (2007 to 2010 APs) was 86.7% .

Figure 1: Programmed and final EU contributions and absorption rates by year, EBF shared management, 2011-2013 Source: European Commission's data as of 31/12/2016 (ABAC/SFC) Obstacles to 100% absorption rates put forward by stakeholders through the NERs and case studies were: •Secondary impacts of the financial crisis affecting the conditions for borrowing; •Member States with relatively young border management systems having to build capacity; •Administrative delays which had an impact on the capacity to stick to the agreed deadlines. Despite the obstacles listed above, the absorption rate of the Fund in shared management remains high throughout the evaluation period and is the highest out of the four SOLID Funds. This is due to the fact that projects of a more significant financial value are implemented under EBF and that EBF beneficiaries are state institutions, which means that the implementation processes are quite straightforward. Finding 2: Due to the calculation method of the annual allocations to Member States, the distribution of EBF funding mostly focused on support to the Europe's southern Member States As highlighted in Figure 2 below, programmed and final EU financing were the highest in the Member States' located on Europe's southern maritime borders (IT, ES, EL). All in all, these three Member States accounted for 44% of the total programmed EU contribution. Figure 2: Programmed and final EU contributions and absorption rates by Member State, EBF shared management, 2011-2013 Source: European Commission's data as of 31/12/2016 (ABAC/SFC) Finding 3: EU funding was concentrated on Priorities 1 and 2 (General Objective 1)

Under the 2011-2013 annual programmes, funds were allocated to the five priorities unequally. Figure 3 below shows that 72% of the Fund under the 2011-2013 APs was absorbed to support Priority 1 and Priority 2 of the Fund, namely support to the IBMS (checks and controls) and the support for the development and implementation of EUROSUR and the EPN (European Surveillance System and Patrol Network). Priority 2 in particular is the most commonly financed priority by programmed (EUR 379 million) and by final EU contributions (EUR 334 million). Priority 4 supporting the establishment of large-scale IT systems such as SIS and VIS received 147 million. Priority 3 supporting the issuance of visa and the tackling of illegal immigration by the consular services in third countries was the least popular in terms of allocation of funding (42.4 million). For Priority 5, the overall programmed EU contribution for the period was EUR 47.34 million. However, this figure is misleading as over EUR 40 million of the programmes funds for Priority 5 benefited the Special Transit Scheme for Lithuania. Figure 3: Programmed and final EU contribution by Priority 2011-2013 Source: European Commission's data as of 11/05/2016 (SFC2007) 8.2Implementation through direct management Community Actions (including Specific Actions and Emergency Actions) were implemented through direct management. The total programmed EU contribution in the Annual Work Programmes was EUR 86 million, of which only EUR 69 million were awarded. At the end of 2016, the global amount of EU funds already paid accounted for EUR 51 million, showing an absorption rate of 74%. Of 79 projects selected under the 2010 and 2013 AWPs, 69 closed projects were mostly concentrated in 2011 and 2012. Absorption rates were 67% in 2010, 75% in 2011, 71% in 2012 and 91% in 2013. Although the average absorption rate per project (74%) is lower than for shared management, absorption rates increased over time for projects conducted under this mode, suggesting an increase in expertise among stakeholders as the Fund progressed through the cycle. The mechanism that was best able to use its programmed funding was Emergency Actions, with an absorption rate of 80%. The Specific Actions were more complicated to implement as they had to be completed within a 6-month time frame, which caused difficulties with procurement and resulted in a rather low absorption rate (67%). Community Actions (other than emergency actions and specific actions) have been slow to draw to a close and absorption is rather low (63%). 9. Answers to the evaluation questions 9.1 Relevance – Utility 9.1.1 Relevance EQ1a: To what extent did the objectives of the EBF correspond to the needs related to the management of the EU external borders and the processing of the Schengen visas?

Main conclusion: Overall, the evaluation showed that Member States considered the EBF objectives relevant as they were satisfied with the degree of correspondence of EBF general objectives to their needs related to the management of the EU external borders (land, maritime and air external borders) and the processing of the Schengen visas. The allocation of funding to each Member State was based on historic inflows (previous two years) and took into account risk factors on external borders and the workload to manage each external border section. Consequently, a significant part of the Fund was allocated to Member States experiencing high migration pressure at the southern and south-eastern external borders and to the Member States with significant influx of bona fide travellers. Member States located at southern and south-eastern external borders of the EU invested heavily in surveillance systems and in ad hoc reinforcement of capacity to check and control their borders, with less emphasis on actions related to Schengen visas and IT systems while Member States where irregular migration was relatively low and/or with no or limited land and maritime external borders, invested in actions targeting the efficient management of the legal flows of persons at the external borders or in Schengen visa-related actions and actions in third countries. A weakness identified by the evaluation refers to the eligibility conditions which sometimes prevented certain needs from being fully addressed such as insufficient staffing at BCPs and equipment or infrastructure used by both border guards and custom officers (mixed use). As regards funds implemented under direct management, the priorities of Community Actions were configured to change on an annual basis and, hence, responded to short-term needs. Overall, the objectives of the EBF had, in the period under evaluation, a high degree of correspondence to the need related to the management of the EU external borders (land, maritime and air external borders) and the processing of the Schengen visas. The evaluation showed that, in terms of prioritisation of needs at national level, the major criterion with regard to investments at the external borders under shared management was the migration pressure (irregular flows). Investments were also needed at external borders which did not experience immediate migratory pressure in order to ensure a smooth and fast crossing of bona fide travellers. As indicated in section 7.1, a significant part of the Fund was allocated to Member States facing significant migration pressure at the southern and south-eastern external borders. The major challenge of the period was a sudden and unforeseen increase in migratory pressure on these parts of EU external borders. This situation has been taken into consideration in the allocation of EU financing, as it was highest in the Member States facing those challenges. Italy, Spain, and Greece together accounted for 44% of the total programmed EU contributions under the 2011 to 2013 APs. These Member States invested heavily in surveillance systems and (in the case of EL) in ad hoc reinforcement of capacity to check and control their borders, with less emphasis on actions related to Schengen visas and IT systems. Member States where migration pressure deriving from irregular migration flows was relatively low and/or with no or limited land and maritime external borders invested in actions targeting the efficient management of the legal flows of persons at the external borders (e.g. ABC or upgrades of BCPs) or in Schengen visa-related actions and actions in third countries (e.g. VIS upgrades or the deployment of document advisors in third countries). For instance France received the fourth highest allocation under the 2011 to 2013 APs, behind Italy, Spain and Greece. This is mainly due to the fact that the allocation key (See Section 7.1) also takes into account the workload at airports (number of persons crossing the external border at authorised border crossing points and number of third country nationals refused entry at the external border) and the number of consular offices and their workload (number of visa applications). For these two criteria (airports and consular offices) that form part of the allocation key alongside the criteria of land and maritime borders, France ranked first for the 2011 to 2013 EBF allocations. For bigger Member States accustomed to larger migration flows, the EBF played a complementary role to national budgets, while for smaller countries with limited means the EBF financed investment that according to Member States would not have been possible otherwise. Furthermore, the new EU Member States had to invest heavily in order to catch up with the other Member States and implement as early as possible the IBMS. The relevance of the EBF has been ensured by the way national annual programmes (APs) were developed and revised. Recognising the ever-changing risks and priorities with regard to the management of external borders, the 2007-2013 MAPs defined national needs and priorities in very broad terms and the APs provided an updated and more detailed analysis of needs and respective solutions. As explained in Section 7.1, the annual exercise to allocate funding to the APs, which was based on a methodology foreseen in the legal basis and which took into account risk factors on external borders and changes in migratory pressure inter alia, represented a regular check on the rising or changing needs of each Member State. This ensures that the funds went to the Member States in the appropriate proportion. An assessment of the annual distribution of resources in the Member States for the SOLID Funds made in 2011 concluded that the application of the criteria was generally perceived as satisfactory and therefore it was not deemed necessary to amend the criteria. In the period implementation of the 2011 to 13 APs, most of the MS revised their APs at least twice. Revisions included additional projects and modification of actions and their respective budgets. For instance, in Italy whose needs changed unpredictably as it faced increasing pressure on its borders over the period, 35 new actions were introduced via the Annual Programmes through revisions. Consequently the budget allocated to less urgent actions decreased. In fact, in many cases the revisions were prompted by changing needs and priorities of the Member States. The evaluation concluded that while the EBF was sufficiently broad to cater for most scenarios, the EBF still had eligibility limitations that prevented the implementation of some actions that could have addressed the identified needs such as insufficient staffing at border crossing points (BCPs). This shortcoming has been addressed under ISF with the introduction of the operating support which gives the possibility to Member States to use up to 40% of the amount allocated under the instrument to their national programmes to finance operating support to the public authorities responsible for accomplishing the tasks and services which constitute a public service for the Union, including staff costs. Another example of eligibility limitation quoted by some Member States was that upgrades of BCPs where border guards and customs officers work together in the same facilities (mixed use) were only partially eligible under the EBF, i.e. such actions were only partially financed to the extent that they were linked to the objectives of the Fund. This however was kept in the ISF as the control of goods is not part of the objective of the Fund. As regards funds implemented under direct management, the priorities of Community Actions were configured to change on an annual basis and, hence, responded to short-term needs. They have been of high relevance for supporting the needs of broader and strategic EU-level initiatives such as EUROSUR by funding the interlinking and exchange of information between MS National Coordination Centres and deployment of Immigration Liaison Officers in third countries (ILOs). Consular co-operation, which was a high priority, enabled MSs to work together by rationalising visa processing and pooling resources such as staff and rentals. The flexibility of Community actions enabled to direct a large proportion of funding to Emergency Actions as the needs arose. For example, Bulgaria was granted 2.4 Million EUR to implement an action as of 1st December 2013 aimed at addressing the migratory pressure at the Bulgarian-Turkish border (reinforcing first reception services, additional deployment of border guards and covering essential needs for migrant reception as well as multidisciplinary teams). Bulgaria was granted emergency assistance once during the period under evaluation. This reflects the migratory movement and pressure this land border was experiencing at the time, mostly due to the ongoing conflict in Syria. Following a set of Greek operations in August 2012 as well as the continued implementation of Frontex coordinated Joint Operations the Greek-Turkish land border saw a significant drop in detections. Consequently, migration flows rerouted partly to the Bulgarian-Turkish land border. The detections of illegal crossings at this land border started to increase slowly and then sharply as of August 2013. At the time of this crisis, the 2013 allocation to the AP of Bulgaria had already been approved and it had been calculated on the basis of 2010 and 2011 data and the Frontex analysis carried out in the first semester of 2012. Even though emergency assistance under the EBF and under ISF are overall similar tools, additional elements of flexibility were added to the emergency actions supported under the ISF, such as the possibility to adopt a separate financing decision without comitology, the possibility to finance projects whose implementation started before the submission of the request for emergency assistance, the possibility to finance projects up to 100%, the possibility to grant emergency assistance to agencies and the possibility to finance actions linked to third countries. On the other hand, Specific Actions were not sufficiently well focused. Specific Actions deemed to be administratively heavy to implement and resulted in an overlap with Emergency Actions and projects implemented under the national programmes. To address this problem, it was decided to abolish Specific Actions under direct management in the subsequent funding instrument and include such actions in the ISF national programmes to allow Member States to have more ownership and flexibility. 9.1.2 Utility

While the evaluation criteria 'relevance' assesses the extent to which the Fund objectives are pertinent to needs that are to be addressed, the criteria 'utility' is a measure of whether results and impacts achieved do correspond to the needs identified. It has already been mentioned that the RAs didn't have the obligation to monitor to what extent results were achieved. Therefore, due to the lack of available information on wider results and impacts of actions supported by the Fund and given the absence of an initial baseline against which any results and impacts could be evaluated (see section 6 for more on methodological limitations), the evaluation study cannot draw conclusions on the degree of correspondence of the results and/or impacts to the needs. 9.2 Effectiveness To report on effectiveness of the Fund, the analysis presented below is structured around the overarching objective and the 4 general objectives set out in the legal basis. The assessment is based on 10 evaluation questions (EQs2-11) which address the overarching objective, the general objectives and priorities. General Objective 1- Interoperable checks and surveillance systems: EQs 2, 4 and 5; General Objective 2 - Efficient management of flows of persons at the external borders: EQs 3 and 6 General Objective 3 - Uniform application by border guards of the provision of EU Law on the crossing of the external borders: EQs 7 and 11; General Objective 4 - Management of consular, ITech and co-operation activities: EQs 9, 10 and 11. Overarching objective - Support the process towards the IBMS through a solidarity mechanism among Member States As indicated in section 6, some methodological limitations have made the assessment of the overall effectiveness of the EBF particularly challenging. Due to the lack of a baseline and of comparable indicators, it has not been possible to establish causal links between the EBF's intervention and observed impacts or results. Effectiveness has been evaluated only in terms of outputs, as these were more easily measured and compared across Member States than impacts or results. Furthermore, the measuring of outputs has relied on largely qualitative rather than quantitative reporting from the Member States. However, where possible, potential causal links have been highlighted. The second difficulty in assessing whether the Fund has been effective relates to its general objectives according to the legal basis. These general objectives were not expected to be achieved by the end of the EBF but were rather longer-term goals. Therefore, the overall effectiveness of the EBF 2011-2013 (i) has been assessed where possible against priorities and other elements related to the Union's overall borders policy architecture (such as EUROSUR, VIS or SIS II) and (ii) should be seen as a series of building blocks progressively building towards the achievement of the overarching policy objectives. In this context, globally, the evaluation concluded that the EBF effectively contributed to the achievement of the objectives laid down in the legal basis. The evaluation reviewed the extent to which the EBF 2011-2013 actions contributed to the gradual establishment of the common Integrated Border Management System (IBMS) through a solidarity mechanism between Member States. This required the development of capacities, procedures and infrastructure that allow for a high, uniform, effective and efficient level of control on persons and surveillance at the external borders of the Member States of the Union. The deployment and functioning of EU-wide integrated systems which constitute the backbone of an integrated management of the external borders of the EU Member States suggests that the Fund achieved its objectives to a large extent. The concerned systems are the Schengen Information System (SIS II), the Visa Information System (VIS), the European Surveillance System (EUROSUR), the European Patrols Network (EPN), as well as joint missions coordinated by Frontex, to which an increasing number of MSs can contribute thanks to the availability of duly trained staff, upgraded surveillance systems and integrated information systems. In addition to the above factual results, Member State public authorities referred to another significant result achieved with EBF support: the smooth flows of persons at Europe's external borders thanks to the application of the Schengen code in practice. This required an increase in staff capacity, the set-up of common operations and the use of interoperable equipment. This being said, it is important to note that this is only a qualitative assessment based on interviews with the national authorities. The EBF legal base did not require Member States to report on this. Objective 1 – Efficient organisation of control, covering both checks and surveillance tasks relating to external borders

EQ2: To what extent did the EBF 2011-2013 actions contribute to the efficient organisation of control, covering both checks and surveillance tasks relating to the external borders? EQ4 to assess priority 1: To what extent did the EBF 2011-2013 actions contribute to the gradual establishment of the common integrated border management system as regards the checks on persons at and the surveillance of the external borders? EQ5 to assess priority 2: To what extent did the EBF 2011-2013 actions contribute to the development and implementation of the national components of a European Surveillance System for the external borders and of a permanent European Patrol Network at the southern maritime borders of the EU Member States? Main conclusions: Overall, the EBF was evaluated as having been effective at national level. In particular, Member State qualitative assessments suggest that automatic checks for regular migrants have contributed to the reduction of border crossing times in most Member States. They also suggest that the infrastructure at BCPs as well as the systems and processes to deal with the flow of persons at BCPs have been improved. In fact, Member States reported that the investments made in equipment and systems aimed at increasing the surveillance capacity of MSs at the external borders contributed to greater efficiency in detecting irregular migrants. However, some difficulties emerged when it came to assessing the overall effectiveness of the EBF at EU level, given the lack of an initial baseline and the fact that the EBF monitoring and evaluation system did not allow for detailed monitoring and assessment of the performance of the Fund. Set indicators were rather weak and monitoring data were not fully reliable. With this limitation in mind, the evaluation found that at EU level the EBF 2011-2013 actions made a positive contribution to the establishment of the common integrated border management system (priority 1) by promoting the harmonisation of checks on persons at border crossing points (BCPs) through training programmes; the construction and upgrading of BCPs; acquisition of vehicles, vessels and aircraft used for border patrols; acquisition of equipment and ITech to undertake checks on persons and the authenticity of documents; purchase of ITech and the establishment/development of surveillance systems, allowing for closer and more extensive monitoring of the external borders and exchange of information; construction of first reception and detention facilities for irregular migrants as well as the purchase and installation of ABC gates (e-gates). The EBF made a positive contribution to the development of a European Surveillance System for the external borders and an EPN at the Southern maritime borders of EU Member States (priority 2), as the actions funded contributed to an increased surveillance capacity of Member States which resulted in a more efficient detection of irregular border crossings. With regards to priority 1, related to the checks on persons at the external borders and the surveillance of the external borders, the evaluation showed that the underlying aims have been achieved and were perceived by stakeholders to be effective. On land, 193 BCPs and infrastructures at BCPs were constructed, renovated and/or upgraded with the support of the Fund. In addition, EBF supported the improvement of facilities related to BCPs i.e. reception centres, screening and first detention centres, and vehicle parking lots. Different types of equipment, and software and hardware were purchased for border control at land BCPs. MSs considered that the equipment significantly reduced the time needed for border checks, hence making the checks more efficient and effective. Overall, most MSs reported positively on the purchase of vehicles, commenting on the increased efficiency of patrolling and checks on persons at harder-to-reach parts of the Schengen external border. Under the EBF 2011-2013 APs, more than 200 e-gates were installed with MSs reporting that this installation contributed to positive effects, such as an increase in efficiency of border checks of travellers (BE, FI, IT, NL), the reduction of processing time per passenger (BE), a more effective use of human resources (BE, EE, NO) and improving the quality/security of border checks through facial recognition and document checks). In addition, according to qualitative assessments made by MSs, the e-gates contributed to smooth border crossings (FI, NL), reduced queuing (FI, NL), and improved customer satisfaction (FI, NO). However, Bulgaria and Norway noted that the time spent at border controls was not necessarily reduced for passengers using the e-gates; they also reported a lower than expected usage rate of the e-gates by passengers (BG NER and NO case study). For maritime border and surveillance, some MSs purchased planes, helicopters and vessels, such as coastal patrol vessels and rigid inflatable boats. In fact, MSs reported positively on the purchase of sea vessels, stating that they optimised surveillance of the external maritime borders, in terms of the area covered and conditions in which they can be deployed (i.e. in bad weather conditions and at night). The combined use of systems and equipment described above allowed the achievement of the following outputs: •Interoperability of national communication systems – a number of projects were successfully implemented (e.g. FR: setting up of the SIAM system; ES: maintenance and improvement of the SEAHORSE communications network). •Improved capacity for border controls at the land and maritime borders and airports. Overall, 1,410 out of 1,700 BCPs were equipped with equipment acquired or upgraded under the 2011-2013 APs. •Interoperability of the control of external borders which takes into account the results of the common integrated risk analysis (e.g. AT, BE, ES, NO installed or further developed e-gates). •An increased capacity for Member States to take part in and/or contribute to operational cooperation between Member States as coordinated by the Frontex Agency (e.g. BE: purchase of a video platform to equip a helicopter which enabled the Federal Police to do around 300 hours of surveillance per year at its maritime border; ES: SIRDEE communications terminals for the border control units at the Mediterranean Basin, Balearic Islands and Canary Islands. This contributed to operational cooperation such as the SIRDEE network, which with the new handheld radios allowed Spanish law enforcement agencies and border control units to perform secure voice and data communications throughout the national territory). With regards to priority 2, which supports the development of a European Surveillance System for the external borders and EPN at the Southern maritime borders of the EU, the evaluation concluded that actions funded in this area had a positive effect in terms of increasing the surveillance capacity of MSs at the external borders. This is mainly due to the combination of:

•Purchase and/or upgrading of equipment such as aircraft, vessels, vehicles, radios, camera, radars and sensors for detection, identification and intervention at the borders ; •Implementation of systems to facilitate coordination and national improvements to improve patrol capacity, including equipment in patrol vehicles/vessels and, •Dissemination and sharing of information 24/7 between all authorities involved in external border control. Overall, it can be concluded that the actions funded under Priority 2 contributed to the development and implementation of the national components of a European Surveillance System for the external borders. Several Member States have established sophisticated surveillance systems with EBF funding, in particular Spain (SIVE) and France (SPATIONAV) in terms of maritime surveillance systems. Bulgaria also established an Integrated System for Surveillance (ISS) along the border with Turkey as a result of the increased migration pressure on the Bulgarian-Turkish border. Other important investments under priority 2 in this regard include the establishment of National Coordination Centres (NCCs) that supported these surveillance systems and functioned as the backbone of EUROSUR, fostering operational cooperation within Member States in the field of border control. The EBF also contributed to the integration of Member State civil-guards maritime coastal and border surveillance systems into EUROSUR. The EBF also supported the development of the national components of a European Patrol Network (EPN), the platforms for the joint surveillance of Europe's southern and south-eastern maritime borders. Spain, France and Italy have all used EBF funding to acquire different types of equipment such as aircraft, helicopters and vessels equipped with modern technology to increase and improve the capacity of their patrolling of the Mediterranean Sea. Surveillance and patrolling of the Baltic Sea was also enhanced, thereby contributing to increased surveillance of EU external borders. As can be seen in table 2 below, the fact that there was an increase in land, air and maritime surveillance patrols over the period of implementation of the Fund suggests that EBF investments under priority 2 were effective to some extent. Table 2: Land, air and maritime surveillance patrols in 2010-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Increase 2010-14 Number of border surveillance flights performed 14 559 15 886 15 067 15 254 16 314 12% Number of border surveillance patrols using vehicles 647 518 717 455 787 713 822 006 781 455 21% Number of border surveillance patrols using vessels 60 438 66 192 62 071 67 513 69 801 15% Source: Data compiled by Optimity Advisors from Member State NERs. Objective 2 – Efficient management of flows of persons at the external borders in order to ensure, on the one hand, a high level of protection at the external borders and, on the other hand, the smooth crossing of the external borders EQ3: To what extent did the EBF 2011-2013 actions contribute to the efficient management by the Member States of the flows of persons at the external borders in order to ensure, on the one hand, a high level of protection at the external borders and, on the other, the smooth crossing of the external borders in conformity with the Schengen acquis and the principles of respectful treatment and dignity? EQ6 to assess priority 4: To what extent did the EBF 2011-2013 actions contribute to the establishment of IT systems required for implementation of the EU legal instruments in the field of external borders and Schengen visas? Main conclusion: Overall, the actions undertaken under Objective 2 of the EBF appear to have fulfilled their purposes, in particular the full implementation of the VIS and SIS II. The implementation of the VIS in turn contributed to the real-time identification of forged and falsified documents at BCPs, strengthening visa security. The efficient management of flows of persons requires equipment and IT systems to enable the checking of persons at BCPs, human resources capable of undertaking the border check tasks using equipment and IT systems (mainly through training), co-operation/information exchange on forged or false travel documents between all BCPs along the external borders in real time. This is achieved through (i) first-line collection of information at the point of visa application and (ii) second-line identification of false or forged documents at BCPs. With regards to IT systems, given the need to launch the Schengen Information System (SIS II) in 2013 and the rolling out of the VIS between 2011 and 2015, the Commission identified investments linked to the SIS II and the VIS as a main priority – priority 4.

Some actions funded under the EBF 2011-2013 APs aimed to improve co-operation and information exchange between BCPs through the use of VIS and SIS II. Indeed, all Member States implemented actions relating to VIS or SIS II. It has been noted that some countries (such as Iceland) have only participated in the EBF to get specific funding relating to these actions. SIS II was launched in April 2013 and the EBF contributed to the Schengen information management and coordination by: •Development, testing and implementation of national SIS II systems. •Upgrading or modernisation of the SIRENE bureaux. SIRENE bureaux are responsible for any supplementary information exchange and coordination of activities connected to SIS alerts; as such, they are a key link in the successful implementation of the SIS. For the purpose of the implementation of the VIS, consular posts and external border crossing points of the Schengen States should be connected to the central VIS database. The integration of Member States' information systems into the VIS enhances consistency in visa security and applications and consequently reduces 'visa shopping'. This has been achieved, at least partly, through EBF-funded actions. According to 2015 data, there were 1 628 consulates of EBF Member States in non-Schengen countries . The EBF made a positive contribution in this area by supporting the connection of 63.3% of all consulates between 2011 and 2013. There are approximately 1 700 sea, air and land BCPs with non-Schengen States , more than half of which were supported by the EBF for joining the VIS. 1 072 out of 2 189 consulates had access to and input into VIS by the end of 2014, an increase of 573%; 889 had access to SIS II by this time. In addition, 914 BCPs are now connected to VIS. In December 2015 the system was publicly declared to be fully operational . In addition to border guard training, the EBF has also funded the development of new working methods, logistical measures and state-of-the-art technology to strengthen systematic controls of persons on entry and exit at BCPs. The number of border guards that have been trained (22 505) suggests an increase in capacity and expertise. Most MSs reported a positive change in terms of the number of false or falsified travel documents detected at BCPs with equipment acquired or upgraded under the 2011-2013 APs. In terms of management of flows of persons at the external borders, the EBF contributed to some extent to the following outputs: •More than 200 000 false /falsified travel documents or Schengen visas were detected at BCPs 2011- 2014; •An increase in the capacity and level of qualification of border guards to undertake border checks and surveillance tasks (according to Member State NERs); •VIS and SIS II became fully operational, facilitating working processes for more effective structural, strategic and operational coordination between all authorities operating at BCPs at the national level. Objective 3 – Uniform application by border guards of the provision of EU Law on the crossing of the external borders EQ7: To what extent did the EBF 2011-2013 actions contribute to the uniform application by border guards of the provisions of EU law on the crossing of external borders, in particular Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 ? EQ11 to assess priority 5: To what extent did the EBF 2011-2013 actions contribute to the effective and efficient application of relevant EU legal instruments in the field of Schengen visas, in particular the Visa Code? Main conclusions: The short- and medium-term outputs and results of the actions funded in this area are clearly positive in terms of the number of staff trained, the increase in the understanding and application of the Visa Code, operation of the STS and support to other EBF priorities as well as the general objectives through training of personnel. Furthermore, the EBF has achieved wide-reaching effects in terms of training of border guards, construction, renovation and upgrading of Border Crossing Points (BCPs) and first reception centres.

While it is not possible to assess the overall impact of the training of border guards, these activities have inter alia contributed to the achievement of outputs under other priorities (e.g. identification of forged documents at BCPs, number and processing time for visa applications at consulates, etc.). Actions financed in this area also contributed to the adequate use of the investments in equipment already analysed under EQ5, such as the training of helicopter pilots, other training programmes for border guards, or facilities used to provide the trainings. In addition to these activities, the EBF supported the Special Transit Scheme (STS) through the APs of Lithuania, which provided financial support to compensate for the additional costs resulting from the delivery of transit visas to be issued to travellers between the Kaliningrad Oblast enclave and the mainland of the Russian Federation. Three types of eligible actions were included in STS: (i) infrastructures, (ii) training of staff and (iii) operational costs. The actions funded appear to have been effective in achieving the objective of training staff to ensure the functionality of the STS, and the objective of covering the operational costs of the transit of foreign nationals. 1 400 officers were trained on the practical aspects of the STS and other trainings were provided on, for example, Community Law, the effective use of SIS and VIS, document examination and verification, and foreign languages. The Fund enabled Member States to increase their provision of vocational training for border guards in the application of the provisions of EU law on the crossing of external borders. In fact between 2011 and 2013 more than half (22 500) of all 42 000 border guards operating in Member States received training financed by the EBF, which included the use of VIS and SIS II at BCPs and learning foreign languages. As an example, in IT, over 400 navy personnel was given Arabic and English classes to be able to communicate with migrants intercepted or rescued at sea. In HU, a training centre was set up providing optimal conditions for border guards to be trained; Hungary found that these trainings helped border guards more effectively carry out their duties. In order to contribute to the uniform application by border guards of the provisions of EU law on the crossing of external borders (EQ7), detention facilities and BCPs could be constructed or upgraded. Only four MSs invested in the construction and/or upgrading of 38 detention facilities and construction and/or upgrading of 547 places within detention facilities through EBF funding 2011-2013. Overall, the number of facilities and places used for the detention of third-country nationals apprehended in connection to an irregular border crossing remained stable over the period. 13 MSs used EBF funding for the upgrading of BCPs. However, it is unclear how many of these investments contributed to the specific objective which these actions sought to address ('security at the premises of BCPs to secure the safety of border guards and the protection of equipment, surveillance systems and means of transport', Specific Objective C7). Objective 4 – Management of consular and co-operation activities EQ9: To what extent did the EBF 2011-2013 actions, and in particular the EBF Community Actions, contribute to the improvement of the management of activities organised by the consular and other services of the Member States in third countries as regards the flows of third-country nationals into the territory of the Member States and the co-operation between Member States in this regard? EQ10 to assess priorities 3 and 5: To what extent did the EBF 2011-2013 actions contribute to the effective processing of Schengen visas and the tackling of illegal immigration, including the detection of false or falsified documents by enhancing the activities organised by the consular and other services of the Member States in third countries? EQ11 to assess priority 5: To what extent did the EBF 2011-2013 actions contribute to the effective and efficient application of relevant EU legal instruments in the field of Schengen visas, in particular the Visa Code? Main conclusions: The EBF made a weak to moderate contribution to the improvement of the management of activities organised by the consular and other services of the Member States in third countries. This is largely due to the fact that a relatively low amount of funding was dedicated to funding priority 3 and that Member States showed little interest in developing projects related to consular cooperation – including under Community actions. External factors, such as difficult diplomatic relations or the situation on the ground, turned out to be a barrier for the implementation of some of the projects in this area. Under the Community actions, limited results have been achieved with respect to consular cooperation with only two projects implemented. Regarding the enhancement of ILO activities, actions in this area achieved most of their objectives. However, the number of actions and the MSs applying for funding were very similar to those under the previous programming period (2007-2009), and projects implemented in 2011-2013 were often a continuation of projects from the previous period. The type of projects funded under Objective 4, priority 3 focused on three main types of activities: ·The deployment of document advisors in third countries; ·The deployment of immigration liaison offices (ILOs); and ·The upgrade and enhancement of security systems at consulates issuing Schengen visas. An amount of EUR 42.4 million was programmed to be spent under Priority 3 of the 2011 to 2013 APs – which was the lowest amount of the 5 priorities. The final EU contribution stood at EUR 31.5 million, a total implementation rate of 74%. While 17 Member States had co-funded actions programmed under the priority, three Member States (DE, MT and NL) accounted for 50% of the programmed and 58% of the final EU contribution for Priority 3.

Member States showed little interest in developing projects related to consular cooperation. This is mainly due to the fact that Member States perceived common visa application centres to be too costly, chose to keep their representations in third countries or do not consider the visa system as an area where they want to cooperate and share costs. The Commission has decided to incentivise this area through a 90% co-financing rate in national programmes under the ISF, while the scope has been extended beyond common application centres to include other types of consular cooperation in addition to the renovation, adaptation and/or equipping of consulates. 9.2.1 Document advisors and ILOs 541 ILOs and document advisors per year were deployed during the implementation period of the 2011-2013 APs, the bulk of which (366) were deployed by Germany. Projects related to the deployment of ILOs and document advisors generally attained or outperformed the objectives set in their APs. Germany reported that the number of rejections of visa applications and passengers being excluded from flights based on the assumption that they were using counterfeit border-crossing documents increased significantly due to the advice provided by the document advisors on counterfeit border crossing documents or missing visas (DE case study). The effectiveness of actions was also enhanced by the increased cooperation between some Member States in the implementation of these types of projects (e.g. joint deployment of ILOs). 9.2.2 Consulates Under the 2011-2013 APs, 4 513 consular officials were trained and 889 out of 2 189 consulates were equipped with operating equipment for Schengen visa processing. The following outputs can be listed: ·Spain was the most active participating Member State with 100 out of 2,189 consulates equipped with security enhancing equipment (security doors, bulletproof windows, etc.) ·The objectives of Malta, one of the largest beneficiaries of Priority 3, were to extend the country’s ability to issue visas through mobile consulates as well as setting up Schengen compliant consulates in Tripoli, Misrata, Doha, Shanghai, Qatar, Abu Dhabi and Kuwait City. However, due to the critical political situation in Libya, the Misrata consulate could not be opened. The Doha consulate was not opened either due to difficult bilateral relationship between the Qatari and Maltese governments. The EBF allowed Malta to increase the number of Schengen processing consulates from 31 to 35. ·Slovenia purchased safes to store visas and visa stickers. External factors, such as difficult diplomatic relations or the situation on the ground, turned out to be a barrier for the implementation of some of the projects. However the EBF's contribution to the construction or renovation of consulates, as well as its contribution to the training of consular officials is likely to have facilitated the processing of visa applications. As for international cooperation between Member States in the field of consular activities, not all projects were effective. The BE consular cooperation action in Gaza (establishing a common application centre – CAC) was ineffective due to factors such as a lower than expected interest from Member States (only DK and SE expressed interest), reducing the potential economies of scale, the instability in the region and a lower than expected number of visa applications. The action was therefore discontinued and the processing of visa applications in the territory has been outsourced to a private organisation (BE NER), with the visas now being processed in Jerusalem, as was the case before the project. 9.2.3 Community actions under objective 4 Under the Community actions there were two main annual priorities dealing with issues relevant to this objective: strengthening consular cooperation (accounting for only 7.3% of all grants allocated) and enhancing ILO activities (32% of community funds approved). As is the case with national actions, limited results have been achieved with respect to consular cooperation under Community Actions, with only two projects implemented:

·a follow-up project for a visa application centre. Under the 2011 AWP, a Community Action was awarded to PT in partnership with BE and LU, concerning the further development of a common visa application centre (CVC) in Cape Verde. This was a follow-up project of an initiative already established under the previous programme period (funded under the 2007 and 2009 AWP). The objective of the centre was to strengthen cooperation at local level with other MS and to reduce costs for the implementation of VIS and the Visa Code. It also aimed to increase the Schengen visa applications made on behalf of several MSs (PT, BE, LU, AT, SK, CZ, IT, SL, SE, FI, FR, NL, DE). The outputs included trainings of consular staff and local authorities, conferences and local meetings, promotion activities, computer equipment, and document fraud laboratories. Mobile consulates / mobile equipment were introduced in several islands in order to extend the service coverage of the CVC. The results included a 647% increase registered at the CVC in visa applications requested on behalf of the partners and represented MSs, consolidation of CVC activities and expansion of coverage and visibility. The DG Home Mission Report conducted in 2014 described the project as an EU flagship project, and noted its added value and sustainability as being on track. ·the deployment of Common Immigration Advisors on combating fraud in migration procedures, deployed between 2014 and 2015 in Ghana. Although the project’s results were assessed as successful due to increased cooperation between MSs at local level and increased awareness of migration-related fraud, the 12-month placement was also seen by the implementing body as too short to ensure the sustainability of efforts. Some of the results included the review/investigation of 320 cases for potential fraud, the launch of four joint investigations with the UK, DE, PT and BE, and a 40% detection fraud rate in all different procedures conducted. A follow-up project under the 2014 ISF Specific actions was approved for a Regional Schengen Cooperation Officer. The specific results achieved by these two projects speak of a high level of impact and effective response against the set objectives. The set-up of ILOs has been an important objective of DG Home’s policy units, which was emphasised in the AWPs and calls for proposals. For the period under review, 17 community projects were approved for funding for the priority ‘Enhancement of activities of ILOs in several regions and/or in third countries’. The overall value of Community actions approved for financing under this priority amount to EUR 4.94 million (36% of all Community Actions for 2010-2013 AWPs – excluding emergency assistance). Regarding the two categories of eligible activities under this priority, most projects (13) focused on setting up or maintaining ILO points acting on behalf of several Member States (DE, LV, EE and PT), while only two projects dealt with promoting ILO networks (NL and HU) through meetings, conferences, exchange of information and training. Not only was the number of actions similar to the 2007-2009 programming period, but Member States applying for community funds were the same (mainly DE, LV (on behalf of EE and LT), PT and NL). Several of the actions implemented in 2010-2013 were follow-up projects from the previous EBF period and the majority were implemented by Member States with previous experience of deploying ILOs to third countries and cooperating with other Member States. The region most intensively covered by ILO cooperation was Eastern Europe (Russia, Georgia, Ukraine, Moldova, and Belarus) on the part of the Baltic States. Overall, ILO-related Community Actions depended on the willingness of Member States to apply, rather than on the actual need for the deployment of ILOs in third countries. Hence, the priority has not been fully addressed in terms of number and scope of outputs (projects) implemented, although the outputs are similar to the previous programme period. The review of the available technical implementation reports shows that most of the objectives expected from ILO postings to third countries have been achieved. The more notable positive examples concern a few Member States which applied consistently for Community Assistance related to ILO activities. A good level of cooperation seems to have been achieved between the Baltic States through three projects deploying ILOs by EE or LV, also acting on behalf of LT and FI. The ILOs were posted in Russia, Ukraine and Moldova, identified as source countries of significant illegal migration flows. Similarly, ES, PT and FR have enhanced the activities of their common ILO in locations in Africa. Effectiveness of the principle of solidarity EQ8. To what extent were the EBF 2011-2013 actions, and in particular the EBF Community Actions, effective in providing support services to Member States in duly substantiated emergency situations requiring urgent action at external borders? Main conclusions: The evaluation found that the Fund has been effective in achieving financial solidarity among the Member States. The distribution key was designed in such a way that it helped support Member States which were under the highest migratory pressure during the period under evaluation. However, given the fact that the allocations provided in a given year to the Member States were calculated on the basis of data from previous years, the funding could not take into account sudden and unforeseen circumstances. Consequently, the use of emergency measures proved to be crucial for the Member States which were subject to acute and urgent migration pressure. Hence, Emergency measures partially counter-balanced the limitations of the distribution key. According to recital 4 of the Decision setting up the EBF, the Fund was conceived as a 'Community financial solidarity mechanism in order to support the Member States who bear, for the benefit of the Community a lasting and heavy financial burden'. The evaluation found that the Fund has been effective in achieving financial solidarity among the Member States. As shown in Section 8.1 (Finding 2), the distribution key was designed in such a way (See Point 7.1) that it helped support Member States located on Europe's southern maritime borders; these were the MSs which were under the highest migratory pressure during the period under evaluation. This finding is supported by the European Court of Auditors: "The EBF allocation clearly helped to spread the Member States' financial burden caused by the introduction of the Union's integrated management of common external borders". The financial solidarity that the Fund helped materialize can for instance be illustrated by the case of Switzerland. In accordance with the Agreement concluded between the Commission and the four Associated States on supplementary rules in relation to the EBF, Switzerland paid financial contributions to the Fund between 2009 to 2013 for a total amount of 53.4 Million EUR while it participated in the Fund only as of 2010 and received in total 15.2 Million EUR for the implementation of its 2010 to 2013 annual programmes. However, the distribution key, and in particular the reference period of the data on which it was based showed its limitations in the context of the crisis and following unforeseen circumstances. The yearly revision of the allocation of EU funds to the annual national programmes has been key to ensure that the funds available have targeted the most affected Member States. However, given the fact that the allocations provided in a given year to the Member States were calculated on the basis of data from previous years (See Point 7.1), the funding could not – for obvious practical reasons – take into account sudden and unforeseen circumstances. Consequently, the use of emergency measures proved to be crucial for those Member States which were subject to acute and urgent migration pressure. Hence, Emergency measures partially counter-balanced the limitations of the distribution key.

Figure 4: Allocations provided to MSs through Emergency Actions under the 2010-2013 AWPs Source: Emergency Action grants Examples of emergency measures provided under Community actions: Italy received the highest allocation for the implementation of the annual programmes and was the first recipient of emergency assistance. Indeed the central Mediterranean route has long been popular. In 2008, nearly 40,000 migrants were detected, mostly near the islands of Lampedusa. Migration along this route almost completely stopped in 2009 following a bilateral agreement between Italy and Libya. The situation changed dramatically in 2011 i.e. the year of the Arab Spring. Between January and March alone, some 23 000 Tunisians (most of them economic migrants hoping to find jobs in France)– arrived on the small Italian island of Lampedusa. Then, between March and August 2011, more than 40,000 sub-Saharan Africans arrived on Lampedusa. Many had been forcibly expelled by the Gaddafi regime. With the collapse of the Gaddafi regime in August 2011, the flow of migrants again almost entirely stopped. Detections remained very low throughout 2012. By 2013, however, the smugglers had reorganised themselves and there was no shortage of customers desperate to escape Libya as the state imploded and violence escalated. The size and the scope of the emergency assistance grants to Italy mirrored the above mentioned migratory flows to the country. Indeed, Italy was granted emergency assistance under all AWPs under evaluation as the route has always been very popular. However, in 2012, Italy received around half of the amount received during the other years. This corresponds to the year during which the number of irregular crossings was the lowest. These grants provided support to Italy with first aid and medical assistance for search and rescue operations, the internal transfer of migrants until first reception, the deployment of multidisciplinary teams for first reception response and interpretation/cultural mediation services to assist border police during screening procedures. Greece received the third highest allocation from EBF for the implementation of the 2010-2013 APs and was the third highest recipient of emergency assistance grants in the period under evaluation. This was due to the fact that the Eastern Mediterranean route remained one of the most transited routes to the EU during this time. In 2010-2011, Greece registered the highest number of irregular border crossings at the Greece-Turkey border. Following the implementation of a set of Greek operations at the Greece-Turkey border in August 2012, there was a significant decrease in irregular border crossings detected there. This led to a shift in migration flows from the region of Evros (land border with Turkey) to the Aegean Sea (sea border with Turkey), which in turn led to an increase in detections of irregular border crossings in this area. As a result of these changes, Greece needed to enhance its first reception response capacity in both the Aegean Sea and the region of Evros, which nevertheless continued to receive considerable irregular migrant arrivals. To cater for these needs, Greece received support through two grants which complemented each other; the first grant (awarded to UNHCR) amounted to 2,707,585.01 EUR and was implemented from 1 January 2013 while the second amounted to 999,734 EUR and was implemented from 1 November 2013. Both actions lasted about two years. It can also be noted that the number of irregular crossings were significantly lower in 2012 (see Introduction). In view of this, more than half (56%) of the budget available for emergency assistance was re-directed towards supporting certain Member States in implementing SIS II in order to catch up with the delayed transition period. Eight Member States (CY, CZ, EE, LU, MT, NL, PT, SK) were awarded emergency assistance in the final stages of SIS II development (actions implemented in late 2011 and 2012) which led to the successful launch of SIS II in 2013. In the reply to the Court of Auditors' report on EBF, the Commission highlighted that the financing of SIS II final development steps for some Member States constituted an emergency because a failure or delay on the part of a single MS in completing the SIS II tests scheduled in the second half of 2011, would have resulted in a delay for the entire project. This reflects the significant efforts that the Commission made to mitigate the risk of delay by Member States in adhering to the SIS II schedule due to a lack of financial resources to complete the development and testing of the national SIS II components. The evaluation shows that emergency action grants were effective in supporting Member States in duly substantiated emergency situations, mainly Member States with the highest migratory pressure at their external borders as the annual allocation did not take into account unforeseen circumstances. The main results of the Emergency Actions include: •Reinforcement of means of transport (for border patrolling activities and internal relocation of migrants) which led to immediate relief of crowding of first arrival places and more efficient registration of migrants as well as increased patrolling and surveillance capacity; •Increased financial capacity to address immediate needs in order to react to unplanned events and migration influx (i.e. fuel costs, deployment of additional personnel, repair of equipment, refurbishing first reception centres, and consumables for first reception centres); •Deployment of trained multidisciplinary teams for first reception as well as search and rescue operations. This resulted in more efficient identification of arriving migrants who received information, counselling, aid packages and medical assistance and identification and recovery of disaster victims; •Successful launch of SIS II in the remaining eight MSs. The average absorption rate of emergency assistance grants is rather good and amounts to 80.03%. 9.3 Efficiency EQ12: To what extent were the effects of the EBF 2011-2013 actions achieved at a reasonable cost in terms of financial and human resources deployed?

Main conclusion: The evaluation concluded that the EBF actions, for the most part, have been implemented efficiently i.e. comprehensive management and control systems that included stringent procurement procedures, have greatly contributed to this result. However, the majority of Member States also reported on the efficiency issues they faced, such as issues linked to the difficulties in finding the required national co-financing, timeliness of the programming cycle length and dissatisfaction with the perceived high administrative costs, especially in the Member States with the lowest allocations. Further difficulties regarding the annual programming cycle were reported, in terms of finalising the acquisition of large and complex equipment and the acquisition of large systems purchased over many years. The difficulty of having to attribute multiannual investments to specific annual programmes for programming purposes added a level of administrative burden for RAs. It should also be highlighted that the measurement of the efficiency of EBF was subject to heavy limitations. The average administrative cost at the level of MSs is not known, as data on it was not made available by the RAs during the evaluation. The Fund was implemented by public authorities and the staff allocated to the implementation of the Fund did not work exclusively on it. To mitigate the difficulties associated with the evaluation of efficiency under the new Fund, the Commission included some common indicators in the "Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework" of ISF. The majority of Member States reported that, to a large extent, the EBF actions were implemented in an efficient manner, with the 'value for money' principle considered as a key driver. Implementing public procurement procedures was also considered to be an effective way of ensuring efficient use of inputs. The case studies provide the bulk of the information on the efficiency of actions in terms of public procurement. Overall, the findings appear to show high levels of efficiency in the processes used, in spite of the pressure to complete the procedures in a limited amount of time. In addition to using public procurement procedures, the national management and control systems were vital to ensuring efficiency i.e. project and system audits, verification of eligibility and appropriate use of funds and constant monitoring. Additional success factors reported by the RAs include the presence of staff with extensive experience in the management of EU funds and the low turnover of staff. Assessing efficiency requires an analysis of the relationship between the inputs used (time, human resources, financial resources) and the results achieved by the EBF 2011-2013. The evaluation study concluded that it was not feasible to compare 'cost of actions' under EBF (controls at border crossing points, issuance of visa, surveillance of EU external borders etc) with other similar actions or with some average market prices, as the activities and services implemented under EBF are an exclusive competence of well identified public bodies. As a result, the evaluation looked into the procurement procedures as these tend to determine the cost of the actions, under the assumption that if fair tendering took place, then this was the reasonable cost that the market could offer. Nevertheless, some weaknesses related to the procurement procedures could be generally identified, namely the subsequent use of the same supplier without adequate competition, the fact that the responsible authorities' verification of procurement procedures could be inadequate or the fact that Member States could not adequately justify their use of the exception clause for defence and security procurements. However, the issues mentioned are regularly checked by the Commission at the stage of closures and through ex post audits. Project-specific corrections or flat-rate financial corrections were applied in case of irregularities in procurement procedures and/or insufficient documentation on the justification of the choice of procurement. Existing frameworks played an important role in ensuring the efficiency of the procedures. In FI, the central purchasing body of the government signed framework contracts with vehicle suppliers, whereby the RA and Finnish Border Guards (FBG) had input in specifying re