COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the mid-term evaluation of the Framework Programme &quot;Security and Safeguarding Liberties&quot; (2007-2013)
Date: 2011-06-16
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Framework Programme for Research and Development, financial aid, prevention of delinquency, public insurance, teaching curriculum

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 16.6.2011 
COM(2011) 318 final 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL 

on the mid-term evaluation of the Framework Programme "Security and Safeguarding 
Liberties" (2007-2013) 

 
 
 
 
  
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

This  communication  consists  of  the  mid-term  evaluation  of  the  Framework  Programme 
“Security and Safeguarding Liberties (2007-2013) (SSL)”, composed of the two Programmes 
“Prevention and Fight against Crime (ISEC)” and “Prevention, Preparedness and Consequence 
Management of Terrorism and other Security Related Risks (CIPS)”.  

The ISEC programme concerns prevention of and combating crime, organised or otherwise, 
in particular terrorism, trafficking in human beings and offences against children, illicit drug 
trafficking and illicit arms trafficking, corruption and fraud. The CIPS programme concerns 
critical infrastructure and other security issues, including operational issues in areas such as 
crisis  management,  environment,  public  health,  transport,  research  and  technological 
development.  

According  to  the  relevant  Council  decisions  the  Commission  shall  submit  to  the  European 
Parliament  and  the  Council  an  interim  evaluation  report  on  the  results  obtained  and  the 
qualitative and quantitative aspects of the programmes.1 In order to fulfil this obligation the 
Commission has ordered a study carried out by Economisti Associati2. This study is based on 
interviews and meetings which covered 155 counterparts from 23 Member States (MS), while 
web surveys involved 190 entities based in all 27 MS. Moreover, the Commission has taken 
into account the recommendations made in the Friends of the Presidency Report on the ISEC 
programme  which  was  initiated  in  autumn  2009  by  the  Swedish  Presidency  with  multi-
disciplinary participation of 16 Member States. 

This report covers the 2007 – 2009 period as well as initial data related to 2010, and is aimed 
at assessing the quantitative and qualitative aspects of the implementation of the Programmes 
and the results obtained. This involves accurately mapping the programme activities, analysis 
of  the  performance  of  the  projects  financed,  and  a  review  of  the  instruments  and 
implementation mechanisms, in order to identify possible corrective measures.  

Budget and Management Model 

Extending  over  the  2007  –  2013  period,  the  ISEC  programme  is  endowed  with  a  total 
€ 140 million is reserved for CIPS. During 
allocation of approximately € 600 million, while 
the 2007 – 2009 period, ISEC allocations amounted to € 167 million , while CIPS received € 
46 million. The Programmes are implemented through Annual Work Programs (AWP), which 
set thematic and/or sector priorities. Implementation is carried out in the so-called centralized 
direct management, i.e. all programming and operational work is carried out by the European 
Commission (EC), which retains full responsibility.  

It should be noted that funds have been allocated where a demand was identified rather than 
setting  up  a  pre-defined  distribution.  Therefore,  the  budget  allocation  does  not  necessarily 
reflect the priorities set by the Commission in its programming documents. This is also linked 
to  a  low  demand  in  certain  areas  where  the  initially  reserved  budget  could  not  be  fully 
allocated and accordingly the funds were redistributed to other more in-demand areas. This, 
on the one hand, demonstrates that the programme management is flexible enough to respond 

1 

2 

Decision 2007/125/JHA, article 15.3(c) and Decision 2007/124/EC, Euratom, article 14.3(c), OJ L58 of 
24.2.2007. 
See report of 21.9.2010 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
to demands for funding. It shows, on the other hand, that it has not always been possible to 
dovetail  EU-funding  fully  with  pre-established  policy  priorities.  While  the  CIPS  and  ISEC 
calls for proposals do reflect policy priorities, the effective budget allocation largely depends 
on the thematic and quality of the proposals submitted by applicants. 

Financial instruments 

Funding  is  provided  primarily  through  action  grants  awarded  on  the  basis  of  calls  for 
proposals. Three types of grants are used, namely:  

(i)  action  grants  to  co-finance  specific  initiatives  awarded  through  open  calls  for  proposals 
(CFP);  

(ii) action grants awarded through restricted CFP reserved to public sector entities with whom 
‘framework partnership agreements’ (FPA) have been established; and  

(iii)  operating  grants  aimed  at  supporting  the  activities  of  non  governmental  organisations 
(NGO) with a European dimension.  

Other  funding  channels  include:  public  procurement  contracts,  involving  open  calls  for 
tenders and administrative arrangements with the Joint Research Centre (JRC). 

EU Agencies, funded by an EU subsidy, are not entitled to apply under these programs for the 
activities  they  are  responsible  for,  as  that  would  constitute  double  funding.  However, 
EUROPOL became an EU Agency only on 1 January 2010. Before that, being another type of 
legal  entity  (inter-governmental),  it  was  indeed  funded  to  carry  out  a  number  of  projects. 
However, EU Agencies may participate in projects, provided that they pay for their own costs. 

2. 
2.1. 

FINANCIAL SUPPORT 
Activities 

During the 2007 – 2009 period, the Programs cumulatively supported nearly 400 projects and 
ISEC 
financed  approximately  150  procurement  contracts,  worth  a  total  of  €  213  million. 
allocations amounted to € 167 million for CIPS to € 46 million. The bulk of the funding went 
to some 280 action grants, accounting for 61% of total resources, followed by approximately 
100 FPA grants, accounting for 24% of funds. Procurement accounted for about 10% of the 
funds. 

Nature of Activities 

The Programs provide support for; a wide range of activities, from training to the purchase of 
equipment,  and  from  the  preparation  of  technical  publications  to  assistance  to  cross  border 
police operations (including the Joint Investigation Teams).  

In the case of ISEC, projects tend to concentrate in five main areas, namely  

(i) tools and infrastructure, which is the main output for 22% of the projects,  

(ii) support to law enforcement operations (18%),  

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
(iii) training programmes (17%),  

(iv) publications (17%), and  

(v) conferences (14%).  

For CIPS,  

(i) 23% of projects have an operational cooperation and coordination component,  

(ii)15% are focused on the development and creation of networks,  

(iii) 49% of projects are involved in technology and methodology transfer and  

(iv) another 44% deal with analytical activities.  

Coherence with Objectives and Priorities 

For  ISEC,  the  legal  basis  identifies  four  objectives,  of  which  two  refer  to  operational 
approaches (the development of horizontal methods of crime prevention and the development 
of cooperation among law enforcement agencies and other bodies) and two relate to specific 
groups  of  beneficiaries  (the  development  of  best  practices  for  the  protection  and  support  of 
witnesses  and  crime  victims).  Many  projects  target  more  than  one  objective,  with  the  vast 
majority  focusing  on  horizontal  methods  of  crime  prevention  (targeted  by  79%  of  projects) 
and/or on cooperation between law enforcement agencies and other bodies (74%). Protection 
of victims of crime and protection of witnesses tend to attract much less attention, being the 
focus of, respectively, 14% and 3% of projects.  

For CIPS, reference is made to seven objectives, subsumed under two broad categories, i.e. 
the prevention and preparedness of risks and consequence management. Three quarters of the 
projects are linked to both broad objectives. Overall, prevention and preparedness is targeted 
by  92%  of  the  projects,  while  consequence  management  is  an  objective  pursued  by  63%  of 
them. 

Both  Programmes  present  a  high  level  of  trans-nationality.  Trans-national  projects  account 
for  80%  of  the  projects  in  ISEC  and  64%  in  CIPS.  The  transnational  orientation  of  the 
Programmes is generally highly appreciated by stakeholders, who emphasize the importance 
of having the opportunity to test new cooperation agreements or, in many cases, to build on 
pre-existing  longstanding  co-operation.  In  fact,  survey  results  reveal  that  some  90%  of 
beneficiaries  envisage  a  continuation  of  trans-national  cooperation  in  the  future, 
irrespective of any further participation in the Programmes. This is positive in that it points to, 
on  one  hand,  the  operational  impact  of  the  Programmes  in  the  Member  States  and,  on  the 
other hand, their contribution towards the establishment of a trans-national approach. 

Target Groups 

The  Programmes  are  aimed  at  a  varied  audience,  ranging  from  law  enforcement  officers  to 
members of civil society organisations, and from researchers to legal practitioners.  

Law enforcement officers are the main applying group in both  ISEC and CIPS, accounting 
for, respectively, 38% and 41% of participants in projects funded under the Programmes. In 
relation  to  ISEC,  other  important  applying  groups  include  NGOs  and  other  civil  society 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
organisations (12% of participants) and government officials in general (8%). Government 
officials (especially those working for security and safety-related agencies) are an important 
applying group also for CIPS (19%), followed by private sector representatives (10%). Many 
projects funded by the Programmes have been simultaneously addressed to several applying 
groups,  thereby  contributing  to  enhance  mutual  understanding  and  cross  fertilization  of 
experience. In this respect, three types of connections are of particular relevance:  

(i) the law enforcement – judiciary link, very common in ISEC projects;  

(ii) the public-private link, particularly well developed in CIPS, and  

(iii) the practice-science link, relevant for both Programmes. 

Those  are  all  target  groups,  but  the  above  percentages  reflect  the  number  and  quality  of 
applications actually received under the calls for proposals. 

Geographical coverage 

In general, the geographical distribution of projects is fairly skewed, with a relatively small 
number  of  countries  playing  a  leading  role.  In  the  case  of  ISEC,  four  countries  (Germany, 
Italy, Netherlands and UK) account for about 48% of all the projects and for 51% of project 
value. The degree of concentration is even greater in the case of CIPS, with just two countries 
(Italy and Spain) accounting for 48% of projects and for 60% of projects value. 

The  nature  of  proposals  submitted  and  approved  is  one  factor  contributing  to  explain  the 
geographical distribution of ISEC/CIPS initiatives, especially in terms of value. For instance, 
in  the  case  of  ISEC,  actions  related  to  the  implementation  of  the  Prüm  Treaty  (which 
sometimes involve the purchase of equipment), the provision of support to Joint Investigation 
Teams (JIT) or the establishment of complex networks (e.g. FIU.NET) tend to request higher 
grant amounts. In the case of CIPS, the size of projects is mostly correlated with the nature of 
beneficiary  organizations,  i.e.  larger  projects  tend  to  be  proposed  by  commercial  entities 
and/or  research  institutes,  while  projects  promoted  by  public  entities  are  comparatively 
smaller. 
2.2. 

Adequacy of programmes’ financial support 

For the ISEC programme,  the  following chart indicates the level of intervention among the 
various domains. For the period covered, the programme's activities correspond well with the 
EU’s priorities and policies. 

Figure 1 : ISEC Grants – Distribution by Domain of Intervention of the 334 funded projects 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
1 8 %
1 6 %
1 4 %
1 2 %
1 0 %
8 %
6 %
4 %
2 %
0 %

Number of Projects

Grant Value

Cyber crime

Sexual exploitation of children
Trafficking in human beings

 Financial and economic crime
Violent radicalization and terrorism
Juvenile and urban crime
Trans-border crime
Explosives materials

General crime/organized crime
Other specific crimes
Other domains
Assistance to victims and witnesses
Principle of Availability
Customs and border control

In 2008, the EU adopted an Action on enhancing the Security of Explosives which has been 
the basis for the funding of many projects. On the issue of CBRN threats, at the proposal of 
the  Commission,  the  EU  adopted  a  CBRN  Action  Plan  in  2009,  which  forms  the  basis  for 
many ISEC funded initiatives (both projects and studies). In relation to the implementation of 
the  CBRN  Action  Plan,  because  of  its  strategic  importance  the  Commission  committed  to 
making  available  up  to  100  M€  until  2013.  In  addi tion  anti-radicalisation  measures  are  of 
strategic importance to the EU, as highlighted by the EU’s Action Plan on Radicalisation and 
the strong emphasis placed on this issue by the Stockholm Programme. 

The  initial  priorities  of  the  ISEC  programme  have  been  reconfirmed  in  the  Commission’s 
communication of 22 November 2010 on the Internal Security Strategy in Action ("Internal 
Security Strategy") as part of the future strategic objectives and priority actions in the field of 
Internal Security. The Commission will ensure that future work programmes remain as close 
as possible to the Internal Security Strategy. 

Also, these priorities correspond to a large extent with the priorities identified in the Hague 
Action  Plan  and  with  the  priorities  identified  in  the  Stockholm  Action  Plan.  As  regards  the 
fight  against  organised  crime,  ISEC  has  sponsored  activities  which  contributed  to 
implementing  the  "strategic  concept  on  tackling  organised  crime",  adopted  by  the 
Commission in 2005 in the context of the Hague Action Plan. For example, in May 2007, the 
Commission  made  a  decision  to  propose  a  series  of  measures  for  better  coordination  in  the 
fight  against  cyber  crime,  both  between  law  enforcement  authorities  and  also  between  law 
enforcement  authorities  and  the  private  sector.  ISEC  subsequently  funded  two  projects  on 
cybercrime  investigation  and  various  specialised  conferences  and  workshops  for  law 
enforcement  officers.  The  ISEC  programme  funded  the  establishment  of  the  Financial 
Coalition  against  Child  Pornography  which  enables  credit  card  issuers,  law  enforcement 
bodies  and  internet  service  providers  to  work  together  to  eliminate  commercial  child 
pornography by taking action on the payment systems used to fund these illegal operations. 

The  "principle  of  availability"  domain,  under  which  information  that  is  available  to  law 
enforcement authorities in one Member State should  also  be  made  accessible  for  equivalent 
authorities  in  other  Member  States,  has  not  attracted  as  many  projects  as  could  have  been 
expected.  This  can  be  explained  by  the  fact  that  the  present  report  covers  the  period  2007-

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
 
 
2009,  which  corresponds  with  the  beginning  of  the  implementation  of  the  Prüm  Decision3 
(deadline  for  implementation  August  2011).  Firm  conclusions  about  the  impact  of  ISEC 
funding in this area cannot be drawn yet, in particular since the Prüm Decision was adopted 
only in June 2008 and since the relevant funded projects are on-going. Preliminary analysis 
suggests,  however,  that  the  ISEC  programme  is  supporting  the  implementation  of  the  Prüm 
Decision. 

As  reaffirmed  in  the  Internal  Security  Strategy,  cross-border  police  cooperation,  and  in 
particular  the  setting  up  of  Joint  Investigation  Team's  ("JIT's"),  are  and  will  remain  very 
important in the fight against international organised crime. 

For the CIPS programme, the level of intervention among the various domains is as follows. 

Figure 2 : CIPS Grants – Distribution by Domain of Intervention of the 65 funded projects 

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

Energy
Chemical industry

Food

Financial system

Number of Projects

Grant Value

Other sectors

ICT

General prevention/management

Public spaces

Water

Transport networks and facilities

This  corresponds  to  the  priorities  and  policies  agreed  in  the  field  of  Critical  Infrastructure 
Protection4,  which  have  been  confirmed  in  the  Stockholm  Programme.  The  Commission’s 
communication  of  22  November  2010  has  reconfirmed  the  overall  importance  of  critical 
infrastructure protection, especially for energy, transport and ICT sectors. 

The Commission will ensure that future work programmes in that field remain closely aligned 
with the Internal Security Strategy. 

3. 
3.1. 

OUTPUTS AND OUTCOME : MAIN ACHIEVEMENTS 
Data and examples 

In  general,  projects  supported  by  the  Programmes  are  largely  effective  in  delivering  their 
planned outputs. However, about two thirds of projects are not expected to use all the funds 

3 

4 

Council  Decision  2008/615/JHA  of  23  June  2008  on  the  stepping  up  of  cross-border  cooperation, 
particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime. 
e.g. EPCIP, Council Directive 2008/114/EC of 8 December 2008 on the identification and designation 
of European Critical Infrastructure and the assessment of the need to improve their protection 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
available,  mostly  because  there  was  an  initial  overestimation  of  costs,  but  also  due  to  the 
cancellation  of  some  activities.  In  addition,  relatively  lengthy  administrative  application 
procedures  which  are  typically  not  aligned  with  the  administrative  budgetary  procedures  in 
Member  States  may  have  had  a  negative  impact  on  the  overall  number  of  applications 
received.  Consequently,  both  programmes  present  an  under-spending  situation  report  of 
their payment appropriations every year. 

Nevertheless, the results sought and achieved reflect the varied nature of the projects funded, 
ranging from operational outcomes (e.g. arrests, seizures etc.) to less tangible results such as 
awareness-raising,  development  of  new  approaches.  The  most  common  types  of  results 
achieved  are  the  development  and  adoption  of  new  tools  and  methodologies,  such  as 
databases,  and  the  spreading  of  best  practices,  but  many  projects  also  contributed  to 
furthering the knowledge of specific issues and/or solutions. Although rarely a prime target, 
an increased mutual understanding of policies and legal and administrative systems across MS 
is also a common and widely valued ‘by-product’ of many projects. In certain cases, projects 
with an operational orientation have achieved very tangible results (examples below). Overall, 
the  level  of  achievement  of  results  is  broadly  satisfactory,  being  in  line  with  initial 
expectations in 60% of projects and better than expected for another 34%. 

Examples of projects’ outcome in various areas  

Police cooperation. A Joint Customs  Operation involving several countries led to the seizure of 4.5 
tons  of  cocaine.  Another  project  supported  an  international  operation  against  child  trafficking.  The 
operation is not yet completed but, by mid 2010, 26 of the some 90 suspects investigated had already 
been  charged.  Similarly,  another  operation  against  Eastern  European  gangs  involved  in  illegal 
immigration led to the arrest of some 90 people. 

Mutual  understanding.  This  is  usually  a  by-product  but  is  still  an  important  result.  For  example, 
projects aimed at networking (such as the ATLAS network of European anti-terrorism units and the 
Financial Investigation Units (FIU) Network) had an important role in increasing the knowledge about 
the different systems and legal frameworks existing in the various Member States. In these cases, first 
contacts  and  attempts  to  network  yielded  strong  permanent  structures.  The  same  is  true,  in  the 
terrorism field, for studies produced on radicalisation topics. 

Cross-border Cooperation. An example of a Joint Investigation Team (JIT) is the “COSPOL FII” 
project,  aimed  at  addressing  irregular  migration  from  Eastern  Europe  and  dismantling  the  criminal 
gangs  involved.  The  projects  consisted  of  four  operations  involving  coordinated  actions  in  10 
countries,  which  led  to  more  than  90  arrests,  the  interception  of  smuggled  immigrants  at  the  EU 
external borders, and the seizure of cash, vehicles, forged documents, equipment etc. An example of 
cross-border  coordinated  activities  aimed  at  combating  illicit  drug  trafficking  is  the  "MAOC-N" 
project (Maritime Analysis and Operations Centre-Narcotics) which has contributed to the seizure of 
52  tons  of  cocaine  and  47  tons  of  cannabis  since  2007.  Also,  important  results  in  the  field  of 
intelligence  and  information  sharing  were  achieved  through  the  various  Treaty  of  Prüm-related 
projects,  such  as  “Prüm  implementation  into  EU  legislation”,  and  “Development  of  software 
applications to enable and improve the automated exchange and comparison of DNA profile data and 
vehicle ID data”, and “Extension of the National Communication Interface NG SIS II”. 

Assistance  to  victims.  The  project  “Crime  Victims  Support  Network”  set  up  15  Centres  across  the 
country that so far made approximately 37,000 interventions (legal assistance, psychological support 
etc.). Similarly, the project on the “Implementation of messages for an Integral Monitoring System in 
cases of  Gender and Domestic Violence” contributed to the effective prevention of gender violence. 
Statistics indicate a significant reduction in the victims of gender violence in each country. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
Stakeholders’  and  policy-makers  awareness  of  specific  topics.  Numerous  projects  consisted 
essentially  on  the  organization  of  conferences’,  fora  and  symposia,  sometimes  on  a  yearly  basis. 
Examples include the International Symposia for Bomb Investigators and Bomb Disposal Personnel, 
the  Fora  on  Cybercrime,  and  the  Anti-corruption  Summer  School.  This  category  of  outcomes  also 
includes studies aimed at  furthering knowledge on specific topics. Some  JRC  studies are among the 
most  sizeable,  namely:  (i)  the  study  on  the  “Identification  and  Assessment  of  European  Critical 
Infrastructures”; and on the (ii) “Illicit Trafficking Radiation Detection Assessment Programme”.  

The  CIPS  Programme  has  financed  the  preparatory  actions  for  the  establishment  and  the 
operations  of  the  Critical  Infrastructure  Warning  Information  Network  (CIWIN).  About 
€0.7 million was allocated to this end through public procurement contracts.

Impact. The majority of projects funded by the Programmes are still under implementation or 
have just been  completed, and the assessment of impact  is  necessarily  of  a  tentative  nature. 
The  achievement  of  changes  in  operational  procedures/practices  emerges  as  the  most 
common  impact  (expected  to  occur  in  87%  of  projects),  but  a  majority  of  projects  are  also 
expected to achieve a capacity building effect and to assist in shaping the policy debate. Of 
particular importance is the contribution of many projects to the implementation of specific 
EU  policies  or  pieces  of  legislation.  These  include  the  Prüm  Decision  (which  has  been 
extensively  supported  by  ISEC),  the  Council  Framework  Decision  on  violence  against 
children5  (supported  through  studies  and  operational  projects),  the  Decision  on  financial 
intelligence6 (supported through the funding of the FIU.NET)7, and the European Programme 
for Critical Infrastructure Protection 8(to which several CIPS projects contributed). 

Sustainability. 70% of the beneficiaries having received a grant consider difficult to ensure 
the sustainability of their project results in case of no further allocation of EU funding. This is 
largely the consequence of the recent financial crisis that is threatening the budgets of many 
public  entities  and  that  could  prevent  the  expenditure  required  to  maintain  and/or  advance 
what has been achieved with the support of the Programmes. 

Visibility  and  Reputation.  ISEC,  and  particularly  CIPS,  are  fairly  well-known  in  the 
relevant  professional  circles,  although  about  one  quarter  of  people  surveyed  believes  that 
information  about  the  Programmes  is  still  scarce  and  does  not  sufficiently  reach  out  to  the 
potentially  interested  audience.  The  Info  Days  held  in  2008  and  2009  contributed  to  the 
dissemination  of  information  about  the  Programmes  although  beneficiaries  have  expressed 
that more outreach activities would be welcomed. 

Implementation issues.  

5 

6 

7 

8 

COUNCIL FRAMEWORK DECISION 2004/68/JHA of 22 December 2003 on combating the sexual 
exploitation of children and child pornography 
Directive  2005/60/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  26  October  2005  on  the 
prevention  of  the  use  of  the  financial  system  for  the  purpose  of  money  laundering  and  terrorist 
financing 
FIU.NET  is  a  secured  decentralised  computer  network  between  Financial  Intelligence  Units  (FIU) 
within the EU for the exchange of subject data. FIU.NET encourages cooperation and enables FIUs to 
exchange  intelligence  quickly,  securely  and  effectively.  The  main  purpose  of  this  cooperation  is  to 
further the fight against money laundering and terrorist financing. 
Communication  from  the  Commission  of  12  December  2006  on  a  European  Programme  for  Critical 
Infrastructure Protection [COM(2006) 786 final 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
About  75%  of  the  surveyed  projects  expressed  difficulties  of  different  nature  during  the 
implementation affecting to a varying extent the achievement of planned results, e.g. delays in 
the  approval  of  projects  and  the  finalization  of  grant  agreements  which  have  impacted 
beneficiaries' resource planning and implementation timetable. Other difficulties incurred by 
beneficiaries include increased / unexpected costs, sub-optimal commitment from the project 
partners,  wrong  assumptions  and  other  changes  occurred  during  the  implementation  that 
required a revision of activities and/or of planned outcomes.  

3.2. 

Adequacy of programme's outputs and outcome 

ISEC and CIPS programmes delivered the desired outcomes reasonably well. The chart below 
illustrates the various outputs, be it as a primary (desired) outcome or as a secondary (spin-
off) one. 

Figure 3 : Classification of ISEC and CIPS projects’ outputs 

ISEC

Secondary

Primary

Publications Meetings etc. Hard & Soft
Infrastructures

Operations

Trainings

Networks

Exchange of
Experts

Information
campaigns

Other

CIPS

Secondary

Primary

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

Publications Meetings etc. Hard & Soft
Infrastructures

Operations

Trainings

Networks

Exchange of
Experts

Information
campaigns

Other

Percentages represent the proportion of projects presenting that particular output. 

For secondary outputs (by-products), multiple items are possible, so the total does not add up to 100%. 

Through the ISEC programme the Commission contributes to: 

-  The  full  implementation  by  Member  States  of  the  Prüm  Decision  (Council  Decision 
2008/615/JHA  and  Council  Decision  2008/616)  on  the  stepping  up  of  cross-border 
cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime; 

-  Better  law  enforcement  cooperation  through  setting  up  and  operational  development  of 
Police Custom Cooperation Centres9;  

9 

Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council:  enhancing  police 
and customs cooperation in the European Union [COM (2004) 376 final 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
- The implementation of the 2005 – 2009 EU plan on best practices, standards and procedures 
for  combating  and  preventing  trafficking  in  human  beings  through  projects  aimed  at 
promoting  the  exchange  of  best  practice  and  information,  studies  and  research  into  various 
aspects  of  the  trafficking  phenomenon,  public  awareness  campaigns,  training,  the  collection 
of data and enhancing forms of international cooperation. 

- The fight against cybercrime and on-line child sexual abuse through projects on cybercrime 
investigation  techniques,  awareness  raising  campaigns  on  the  protection  of  child  victims, 
establishing international exchange of best practices and know how.  

- The promotion of a horizontal approach on crime prevention through events focused on the 
exchange of best practices, research and studies on crime prevention techniques; knowledge 
transfer and operational co-operation on crime prevention. 

- The prevention and fight against financial crime, including money laundering, fraud and the 
promotion  of  financial  investigation  techniques  through  expert  gatherings  aimed  at  the 
exchange of best practices and information, operational cooperation; training programmes on 
financial analysis and studies and research on new types of financial crimes and techniques. 

-  The  setting  up  of  Joint  Investigation  Teams  in  the  fight  against  cross-border  organised 
crime. 

Through  the  CIPS  programme,  the  Commission  contributes  in  various  ways  to  the 
implementation of European Programme for Critical Infrastructure Protection (EPCIP)10, 
and of sectoral EU rules such as the Council Directive On the identification and designation 
of  European  critical  infrastructures  and  the  assessment  of  the  need  to  improve  their 
protection11. 

Both  the  ISEC  and  the  CIPS  programme  have  proven  more  successful  at  addressing 
infrastructural  inadequacies  –  like  the  interconnection  of  Member  States  forces  within  the 
context  of  the  Prüm  decision  or/and  SIENA12–  than  at  supporting  operational  police 
cooperation. However, the way of addressing this imbalance lies not in an amendment to the 
current  objectives  of  the  programme  but  in  a  deeper  reflexion  on  procedural  and 
administrative  solutions  to  deal  with  programmes  objectives,  policy  needs,  and  stakeholder 
requests  in  an  integrated  and  smooth  manner,  taking  into  account  the  available  human 
resources and within the respect of the financial rules. 

4. 

IMPROVING PROGRAMME IMPLEMENTATION 

Building  on  the  findings  illustrated  in  the  previous  sections,  it  can  be  assessed  that  the 
implementation  of  both  programmes  was  reasonably  successful.  As  implementation 
mechanisms are key to the programme's success, this section addresses the operational aspects 
that  the  Commission  -  or  stakeholders  –  consider  it  is  important  to  improve,  and  illustrates 
some positive changes already in place. 

10 
11 
12 

COM (2006)786 final 
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 2008/114/EC 
SIENA  supports  Europe’s  Distributed  Computing  Infrastructure  (DCI)  initiatives  and  the  European 
Commission in working towards the delivery of a future e-Infrastructures roadmap that will be aligned 
with the needs of European and national initiatives. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
                                                 
1.  It  is  necessary  to  enable  potential  applicants  to  plan  their  participation  in  Calls  for 
proposals (CFP) regarding the mobilization of human resources for proposal preparation and 
especially  for  securing  the  co-financing,  more  effectively.  In  order  to  achieve  this,  the 
Commission  will  improve  the  planning  of  its  CFP  by  ensuring  that  they  are  published  as 
announced in the Annual Work Programme. This should ensure that the potential applicants 
are  aware  and  can  prepare  their  proposals  in  accordance  with  these  dates  and  their  own 
programming. In more general terms, an effort should be made to improve the timing of CFP, 
in order to  avoid  the launch of calls  too close to each other,  as  well as  calls with deadlines 
falling  in  the  last  months  of  the  year  which  cannot  be  answered  by  public  entities.  In  other 
words, a greater effort should be made at the level of the initial planning, and on sticking such 
initial planning. 

Related  to  this,  the  Info  Days  held  in  2008  and  2009  contributed  to  the  dissemination  of 
information  about  the  Programmes  and  particularly,  to  improving  the  understanding  of 
practical aspects of the CFP such as project implementation, financial aspects, etc. However, 
it is recognised that visits to Brussels involve a not-insignificant investment in terms of time 
and travel costs, and this will inevitably limit attendance from potentially interested applicants 
across the EU. In this respect, better results could be achieved through the organisation of a 
certain  number  of  Info  Days  in  individual  countries.  In  line  with  the  need  for  greater  MS 
involvement  in  Programmes’  activities,  the  Info  Days  should  be  organised  in  close 
collaboration with MS authorities, who should be asked to disseminate information among 
relevant circles, send invitations to selected stakeholders, and provide logistical support. 

2. Project Budget Review Exercise. The initial practice of extensively revising the budgets 
proposed by the applicants following the notification of awards and before the finalisation of 
the  grant  agreements  was  absorbing  a  considerable  amount  of  time  and  as  a  result  is 
lengthening the overall processing time. That practice of reviewing proposals' budgets is not 
without merit, as in the past it allowed for the reduction of some items to more realistic levels 
and/or the identification of ineligible costs, especially since around 2/3 of the project budgets 
are  overestimated.  However,  cost  effectiveness  considerations  suggest  speeding  up  the 
process and even a radical change in the approach. From 2010, a new mechanism was put in 
place  to  address  this  concern,  whereby  the  budget  examination  takes  place  within  the 
evaluation  process  so  that,  once  notified  whether  they  are  accepted  or  not,  beneficiaries  are 
also  simultaneously  informed  about  the  quality/status  of  their  budget.  The  Commission 
proposes changes (and not merely notices mistakes or inconsistencies) to the applicant that, if 
accepted, will be included in the grant agreement that can therefore be sent within days/weeks 
(instead  of  months,  as  under  the  initial  practice  described  above).  The  entire  evaluation 
process currently allows the contracting of beneficiaries within 6 months of the deadline of 
the call for proposals, as compared to 12 in 2008 and 10 in 2009.  

As a 6 months period remains a long time to approve projects, esp. for smaller ones and may 
affect the availability of Member State co-financing, the Commission is considering ways to 
further reduce processing periods and to allow a smoother implementation of the programme 
activities  in  line  with  the  expectations  of  the  stakeholders  and  meeting  the  needs  to  better 
coordinate  with  the  budgetary  programming  within  the  Member  States.  In  that  context,  the 
Commission has launched targeted call for proposals in some policy areas and is considering 
the possibility of authorising simplified procedures by signing framework agreements with 
specialised  stakeholders  or  national  administrations  to  ease  the  funding  of  projects  in 
dedicated policy areas. 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
In the future, the Commission will also analyse the feasibility of further simplification of the 
application  process,  especially  concerning  budgets.  The  idea  is  to  introduce  the  concept  of 
lump sums for budget items encompassing a large number of small sub items, for which it is 
impractical  to  obtain  detailed  information  ex  ante.  In  addition,  whenever  projects  involve 
carrying  out  certain  types  of  standard  activities,  for  example  workshops/seminars  and 
conferences,  it  should  be  possible  to  resort  to  flat  rates  (i.e.  a  certain  amount  per 
participant/day). 

3. Monitoring System. The current lack of a project monitoring mechanism does not allow 
for the timely adoption of corrective actions. The modification of grant agreements to include 
an obligation that beneficiaries submit periodical monitoring reports has been discussed and 
could  be  adopted  commencing  in  2011.  In  order  to  achieve  their  intended  purpose  without 
constituting an excessive burden on applicants, monitoring reports should be relatively short 
documents,  primarily  focusing  on  substantive  aspects,  and  submitted  only  at  discrete  time 
intervals  (e.g.  annually).  In  order  to  avoid  the  monitoring  obligation  becoming  a  mere 
administrative step, the review of monitoring reports should be done by Commission officials 
or  mandated  policy  experts.  This  should  probably  include  visits  to  the  premises  of 
beneficiaries  so  as  to  get  a  better  understanding  about  what  is  in  progress/being 
developed/being  achieved.  Also,  the  Commission  representative  could  potentially  discuss 
difficulties encountered by the beneficiaries and advise them accordingly. 

4.  Information  content  of  the  website.  The  DG  HOME  website  is  largely  regarded  as 
uninformative, and this extends to the ‘Funding’ section that should provide  information on 
the  ISEC  and  CIPS  Programmes.  The  material  available  for  both  Programmes  basically 
consists  of  only  the  CFP  notices  and  of  the  AWP.  In  this  respect,  two  projects  appear 
particularly useful: 

Timely  publication  of  the  results  of  CFP  on  the  website.  The  timely  publication  of  CFP 
results is regarded as important by MS, who consider it as an important contribution towards 
greater transparency in the management of the Programmes. Technically, this is quite simple 
to implement, as it involves the simple uploading of an existing document; 

Publication  of  information  on  projects  and  beneficiaries  on  the  website.  This  type  of 
information  is  deemed  useful  by  many  beneficiaries,  as  it  would  allow  for  an  easier 
identification  of  potential  partners  for  the  submission  of  applications  as  well  as  for  the 
identification  of  possible  synergies  or  overlaps.  In  practical  terms,  this  could  be  done  by 
including  in  the  DG  HOME’s  website  a  database  of  projects,  with  information  on  selected 
aspects, such as the identity of beneficiary, a description of the project, the nature of activities 
undertaken, the countries involved, etc. There currently exists a prototype database including 
these  elements.  The  Commission  envisages  the  upload  of  this  useful  information  on  its 
website in 2011. 

5. The range of instruments available is broadly sufficient to enable the achievement of the 
objectives of the Programmes, and the same can be said regarding the budgetary allocations 
reserved for the various instruments. Nonetheless, some changes appear to be advisable in the 
case of two ISEC instruments: 

•  Discontinuation  of  ISEC  Operating  Grants.  This  instrument  has  so  far  been  largely 
unsuccessful, with only one operating grant awarded over a period of three years. This has 
come  at  a  considerable  cost  in  terms  of  human  resources  devoted  to  the  analysis  of 
applications. Available evidence indicates that only a minority of NGOs are in a position to 
meet the eligibility and award criteria, and therefore demand is also likely to remain low in 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
the foreseeable future. This definitely suggests the discontinuation of CFP for operating 
grants.  

•  Improvement  of  the  Framework  Partnership  concept.  The  concept  of  a  ‘framework 
partnership  agreement’  is  invariably  appreciated  by  stakeholders,  and  both  beneficiaries 
and MS representatives are virtually unanimous in stressing the importance of building a 
long term relationship with the European Union. However, when the attention is focused 
on  the  operating  modalities  currently  adopted,  the  assessment  is  generally  less  positive, 
leading  to  the  impression  that  FPA  are  not  distinct  from  ‘standard’  action  grants.  Some 
recent  improvements  took  place  in  2010  (e.g.  simplification  of  application  forms,  more 
possibilities to utilize sub-contractors).  

This  requires  the  development  of  an  ‘enhanced’  version  of  the  FPA,  allowing  for  a  greater 
degree  of  flexibility  in  the  type  of  activities  to  be  performed  and  in  use  of  resources.  This 
instrument could be reserved to projects promoted by a group of public sector organisations 
that are willing to conduct a certain number of cross-border investigations and who could be 
duly  pre-qualified  as  framework  partners.  The  greater  flexibility  should  be  reflected  in 
contractual arrangements, which should explicitly allow for:  

(i) a broad definition of the scope of activities, so as to allow for rapid adjustment according 
to evolving needs,  

(ii)  an  equally  broad  definition  of  budget  items,  in  order  to  facilitate  the  reallocation  of 
resources,  

(iii)  indicative  allocation  of  funding  among  partners,  again  to  facilitate  reallocation 
adjustment depending upon needs, and  

(iv) the possibility of freely modifying the list of personnel involved in operations. 

5. 

FUTURE PERSPECTIVES 

Up to now, financial support under the ISEC and CIPS programmes has covered a variety of 
areas  of  intervention.  This  support  underlines  the  increasing  importance  of  the  Union's 
policies in the area of Freedom, Security and Justice, with the Lisbon Treaty in force and with 
the  guidance  provided  by  the  Stockholm  Programme  and  its  Action  Plan.  The  recent 
communication  of  the  Commission  from  22  November  2010,  "The  EU  Internal  Security 
Strategy in Action: Five steps towards a more secure Europe," proposes, over the next four 
years,  five  strategic  objectives  for  internal  security  and  suggests  under  each  of  these 
objectives  concrete  actions.  This  communication  in  particular  will  orient  priorities  for 
financial  support  by  the  Union  within  the  framework  of  the  existing  ISEC  and  CIPS 
programmes. 

Based  on  the  reasonable  success  of  both  programmes,  the  Commission  suggests  for  the 
remaining  period  until  end  2013  a  continuation  of  the  programmes  without  modifying  the 
current  legal  bases,  whilst  addressing  the  concerns  identified  in  the  evaluation  report  and 
improving  the  grant  approval  procedure  and  evaluation  process  to  enhance  budget 
consumption of the two programmes and stimulate the submission of high quality projects. 

However, when contemplating the next multi-annual financial framework for 2014-2020 and 
the  new  challenges  to  be  undertaken  with  limited  human  resources,  new  approaches  would 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
need  to  be  envisaged.  The  Commission  is  currently  reflecting  on  the  future  set-up  of  EU-
funding in the area of Home Affairs, in particular with regard to funding priorities, delivery 
mechanisms  and  budgetary  allocations.  When  considering  various  options  for  future  EU-
funding  as  from  2014  the  valuable  experience  acquired  with  the  ISEC  and  the  CIPS 
programmes  should  be  taken  into  account  including  solutions  identified  to  address 
shortcoming  identified  in  the  implementation  of  these  programmes.  For  the  time  being,  the 
Commission  intends  to  further  implement  the  current  programmes  taking  into  account  this 
evaluation report and focussing on the new policy priorities in the area of Home Affairs, as 
laid  down  in  particular  in  its  communication  "The  EU  Internal  Security  Strategy  in  Action: 
Five steps towards a more secure Europe", insofar as these priorities are not covered by other 
sector-specific funding mechanisms and programmes. 

EN 

15 

   EN