COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENTAccompanying the documents
Date: 2011-11-15
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Community budget, area of freedom, security and justice, fight against crime, fund (EU), immigration, public safety, right of asylum

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 15.11.2011 
SEC(2011) 1359 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

Accompanying the documents 

Communication 'Building an open and secure Europe: the home affairs budget for 2014-
2020' 

Proposal for a Regulation establishing the Asylum and Migration Fund 

Proposal for a Regulation establishing, as part of the Internal Security Fund, the 
instrument for financial support for police cooperation, preventing and combating 
crime, and crisis management 

Proposal for a Regulation establishing, as part of the Internal Security Fund, the 
instrument for financial support for external borders and visa 

Proposal for a Regulation laying down general provisions on the Asylum and Migration 
Fund and on the instrument for financial support for police cooperation, preventing and 
combating crime, and crisis management 

{COM(2011) 749 final} 
{COM(2011) 750 final} 
{COM(2011) 751 final} 
{COM(2011) 752 final} 
{COM(2011) 753 final} 
{SEC(2011) 1358 final} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

Home  affairs  policies  have  steadily  been  growing  in  importance  over  the  last  years.  These 
policies  aim  to  create  an  area  without  internal  borders  where  EU  citizens  and  third-country 
nationals  may  enter,  circulate,  live  and  work,  bringing  new  ideas,  capital,  knowledge  and 
innovation or filling gaps in the national labour markets, confident that their rights are fully 
respected  and  their  security  assured.  Cooperation  with  non-EU  countries  and  international 
organisations is crucial to achieving this goal. 

2. 

PROBLEM DEFINITION 

2.1. 

Policy challenges 

During  the  next  Multiannual  Financial  Framework  (2014-2020),  the  EU  will  be  facing 
important  challenges  in  the  home  affairs  area.  In  the  area  of  asylum,  the  factors  that  drive 
persons  to  seek  asylum  and  international  protection  in  the  EU,  such  as  wars,  repressive 
regimes and political instability are expected to continue. Flows of people seeking asylum or 
some  form  of  international  protection  can  fluctuate  considerably  and  be  composed  of  many 
different  groups  with  different  needs  and  motivations.  Dealing  with  these  flows  requires 
substantial 
receiving 
disproportionate numbers of asylum seekers due to their geographic location. 

from  Member  States  with  some 

resources  and  capabilities 

The integration of legally residing third-country nationals is a key challenge for the EU. Lack 
of integration can lead to social difficulties, the cost of which is ultimately borne by society as 
a  whole.  Better  integration  allows  legal  migrants  to  take  an  active  part  in  their  receiving 
society and help the EU's economy meet the demographic challenge it is currently facing. The 
inflow  of  legal  migrants  is  expected  to  increase  gradually,  especially  labour  migration.  The 
need for the integration of third-country nationals is therefore also expected to grow. 

Due to their geographic situation or attractive economic profile, some Member States receive 
disproportionate  numbers  of  irregular  migrants.  Irregular  immigration  is  costly  not  only  for 
the target Member States but also for the migrants themselves. The numbers of new irregular 
migrants is likely to decrease although the stock of irregular migrants in the EU is unlikely to 
reduce  markedly  even  if  there  were  marked  improvements  in  the  detection  and  removal  of 
irregular migrants. Consequently, return management is expected to remain a challenge. 

Effective,  efficient  and  secure  border  control  is  essential  for  the  free  movement  of  persons 
within the EU, as well as to maintain internal security. The length of the external border and 
the  number  and  nature  of  border  crossing  points vary  widely  between  Member  States.  As  a 
result,  some  Member  States  bear  a  disproportionate  share  of  the  associated  costs.  Because 
persons  with  a  valid  visa  or  residence  permit  can  move  freely  within  the  Schengen  area, 
Member  States  have  an  interest  in  applying  common  standards.  The  number  of  border 
crossings is expected to increase, and with it the challenge of managing the EU borders. 

Organised  crime  in  its  various  forms,  terrorism  and  other  security-related  risks  (including 
their  assessment  and  management)  pose  major  problems  for  the  EU.  Aggregate  levels  of 
crime  are  anticipated  to  continue  to  remain  stable  but  the  nature  of  crime  is  expected  to 
change with criminals using new technologies to commit crimes. Cross-border and organised 
crime can be expected to increase and become more sophisticated and international in nature. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
Some types of crime such as fraud, money laundering and cybercrime, are expected to grow. 
Although  the  continued  efforts  of  Member  States  and  EU  legislative  action  are  likely  to 
reduce terrorist activities, the transnational character of the terrorist threat remains acute and 
there is little prospect of the threat reducing substantially in the foreseeable future. 

Recent  events  at  the  Greek/Turkish  border  and  in  the  Southern  Mediterranean  also 
demonstrate how important it is for the EU to have a comprehensive approach to migration, 
covering various aspects such as strengthened border management and Schengen governance, 
better  targeted  legal  migration,  enhanced  dissemination  of  best  practices  on  integration,  a 
reinforced  Common  European  Asylum  System,  and  a  more  strategic  approach  to  relations 
with third countries on migration. 

2.2. 

The  current  home  affairs  financial  instruments  do  not  adequately  address 
future needs and priorities 

Although  the  current  home  affairs  financial  instruments  are  generally  considered  to  achieve 
their objectives and function effectively, they do not fully address the above challenges. 

General Programme Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows (shared management) 

The European Refugee Fund has insufficient resources to adequately support a comprehensive 
EU  resettlement  policy  and  to  incentivise  Member  States  to  take  part  in  resettlement 
operations  through  a  pledging  exercise.  It  also  does  not  foresee  any  additional  financial 
incentive for the intra-EU transfer of beneficiaries of international protection ("relocation"). 

The  European  Fund  for  the  Integration  of  Third-Country  Nationals  addresses  integration 
challenges through support for national strategies. However, the need for capacity building at 
national level is expected to decrease because some integration challenges are addressed more 
effectively  at  the  regional  and  local  level,  i.e.  at  a  level  closer  to  the  individual.  Specific 
measures  or  groups  of  migrants  who  are  not  easily  reached  by  mainstream  instruments  also 
need to be targeted more effectively. 

The  European  Return  Fund  does  not  currently  support  pre-removal  reception/detention 
conditions or more general measures to reduce irregular migration. 

The  External  Borders  Fund  cannot  provide  support  for  measures  regarding  controls  on  the 
freedom of movement (in land) and flanking measures regarding the prevention of irregular 
immigration, document management (databases on residence permits) and false documents. It 
is also does not support inter-agency co-operation and the building of connections across the 
different law enforcement authorities, including those working inside the EU territory. 

General Programme Security and Safeguarding Liberties (centralised direct management) 

The  Specific  Programmes  ISEC  (Prevention  of  and  the  fight  against  Crime)  and  CIPS 
(Prevention,  Preparedness  and  consequence  management  of  Terrorism  and  other  Security-
related risks) do not support the testing and validating of law enforcement equipment to close 
the gap between research and development and operational implementation/serial application 
or  structural  capacity  building  for  law  enforcement  authorities  through  the  purchase  of 
equipment  such  as  detection  devices  and  IT  systems.  Some  activities  such  as  joint 
investigation  teams  or  newer  policies  which  require  more  flexibility,  such  as  crisis 
management, are difficult to finance. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
2.3. 

The external dimension of home affairs policies is not supported adequately 

The existing external aid programmes are not designed to support the external dimension of 
home affairs policies but rather to cater mainly for other objectives, in particular enlargement, 
development  and  neighbourhood  policy,  aimed  primarily  at  addressing  the  needs  of  the 
recipient country. While such assistance should be maintained, there is a manifest lack of EU 
leverage to allow the EU to pursue and achieve its own policy priorities and cater for direct 
EU interests, such as the management of migratory flows and security. 

This problem is compounded by the fact that the current generation of home affairs financial 
programmes  also  do  not  cover  the  external  dimension.  Although  it  is  possible  at  present  to 
financially  support  some  activities  in  third  countries  notably  in  order  to  ensure  territorial 
continuity  of  financing,  starting  in  the  EU  and  continuing  in  third  countries,  these  activities 
are very limited. As such, there is inadequate funding for the negotiation and implementation 
of  readmission  agreements,  Mobility  Partnerships  and  Regional  Protection  Programmes,  to 
provide assistance to third countries to improve their border management or to cooperate with 
third countries in areas such as trafficking of human beings, drugs and weapons, dismantling 
international criminal networks and preventing terrorism and other security-related risks. 

2.4. 

Operational limitations of the home affairs delivery mechanisms 

The four shared management Funds each have their own legal basis and implementing rules. 
This  leads  to  a  duplication  of  efforts  and  a  multiplication  of  rules  which,  in  turn,  results  in 
additional workload, the risk of different interpretations and an increased risk of errors. The 
Funds combine a multiannual framework with annual programming which is complex, time-
consuming and difficult to manage. In terms of financial management and management and 
control systems, they are similar yet different from other Funds under shared management, in 
particular the Structural Funds, which leads to confusion. 

The  grants  provided  under  direct  management  (ISEC  and  CIPS)  are  generally  small, 
preventing their strategic use, and there is a problem of underspending. Because the eligibility 
rules are complex, the overall error rate is relatively high in the cost claims submitted by the 
final  beneficiaries,  requiring  reinforced  ex-ante  and  ex-post  controls,  resulting  in  a  high 
administrative  workload.  The  grant  application  process  is  also  too  long,  preventing  law 
enforcement authorities from mounting operations quickly in response to emerging threats. 

Recent events in the Southern Mediterranean have shown how important it is for the EU to be 
able  to  respond  quickly  and  effectively  to  crisis  situations.  The  current  emergency  response 
mechanism covers only asylum-related crises and fails to respond quickly and effectively to 
crisis situations. The available funding is also too limited. 

3. 

ANALYSIS OF SUBSIDIARITY 

3.1. 

The EU's right to act 

The EU's right to act in the area of home affairs derives primarily from Title V of the Treaty 
on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), in particular Articles 77(2), 78(2), 79(2) 
and(4),  82(1),  84  and  87(2)  TFEU.  Cooperation  with  third  countries  and  international 
organisations is covered by Article 212(3) TFEU.  

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
3.2. 

Subsidiarity 

The challenges facing  the EU in the area  of home affairs cannot be tackled by the Member 
States  acting  alone.  Dealing  with  migration  flows,  the  management  of  the  EU's  external 
borders  and  the  security  of  the  EU  requires  substantial  resources  and  capabilities  from  the 
Member States. EU funding is the mechanism which gives effect to the financial implications 
of  the  principle  of  solidarity  and  the  fair  sharing  of  responsibilities  between  Member  States 
and without which some would have to shoulder the disproportionate burden of long borders 
or surges in migration. Improved operational co-operation involving the pooling of resources 
creates economies of scale and synergies thereby ensuring a more efficient use of public funds 
and  reinforcing  solidarity  and  mutual  trust  between  Member  States.  EU  funding  can  also 
create  the  leverage  necessary  to  convince  third  countries  to  engage  with  the  EU  on  issues 
which are mostly of relevance to the EU and the Member States. 

4. 

OBJECTIVES 

The Communication "A Budget for Europe 2020"1 announced the creation of two Funds: 

Fund 

Objective 

Budget in 2011 
prices (€ million) 

Migration and Asylum Fund  Support  actions  in  relation  to  asylum  and  migration,  the 

€ 3,433 m 

integration of third-country nationals and return 

Internal Security Fund  

Provide  financial  assistance  for  initiatives  in  the  areas  of 
external borders and internal security 

€ 4,113 m 

The general and specific objectives of these Funds are to: 

General objectives 

Specific objectives 

Enhance the effective management of 
migration flows to the EU in areas 
where the EU adds maximum value, in 
particular through solidarity, 
responsibility-sharing and cooperation 
with third countries 

Facilitate  legal  migration  to  the  EU  in  line  with  the  economic  and 
social  needs  of  the  Member  States  and  support  the  integration  of 
legally residing third-country nationals 

Support implementation of the Common European Asylum System 

Reduce irregular migration and promote voluntary return 

Support the external aspects of the EU's migration policy 

Strengthen EU external borders 

Facilitate mobility across EU external borders 

Reduce the risk of and increase detection and successful prosecution 
of organised crime, terrorism and other security-related threats 

Support the external aspects of the EU's internal security policy  

Enhance the EU's internal security 
through management of the external 
borders and law enforcement, 
including by strengthening the 
preparedness and response activities 
that are best supported by EU financial 
resources, in particular through 
transnational cooperation, economies 
of scale, public-private partnerships 
and cooperation with third countries 

1 

COM(2011)500 final – Parts I and II of 29 June 2011 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
In achieving  these  specific policy objectives, due regard should also be given to the overall 
horizontal objective of simplification, and in particular the flexibility of the future Funds, the 
speedy release of funding in the event of crises and the reduction of administrative workload. 

5. 

POLICY OPTIONS 

Issue A – Funding priorities 

Option A.1 – Continuation of the 2013 distribution of funding (status quo). 

Option A.2 – Average 2007-2013 distribution of funding. 

Option A.3 – Introduction of an external dimension component within the two Funds to fund 
actions  in  or  in  relation  to  third  countries  which  cater  primarily  for  EU  interests  and 
objectives, have a direct impact in the EU and its Member States and ensure continuity with 
activities  implemented  in  the  territory  of  the  EU.  This  funding  is  not  intended  to  support 
actions which are development-oriented and will complement, when appropriate, the financial 
assistance  provided  through  EU  external  aid  instruments.  Reduction  of  funding  across  all 
policy  areas  but  with  more  marked  cuts  in  areas  where  the  added  value  and  impact  of 
supporting external dimension activities is expected to be higher. 

Issue B – Shared management 

Option  B.1  –  A  common  multiannual  framework  in  line  with  broadly  defined  political 
priorities set in EU strategic guidelines with national annual programmes (status quo). 

Option B.2 – Multiannual programming only, as under the Structural Funds. 

Option B.3 – A senior level, home affairs policy dialogue focused on home affairs objectives 
and  funding  with  individual  Member  States  to  support  the  development  and  monitoring  of 
their national multiannual programmes in line with EU priorities. 

Issue C – Centralised management (direct and indirect) 

Option  C.1  –  Implementation  of  a  mixture  of  grants  and  procurement  to  provide  financial 
support  to  transnational  projects  and  non-state  actors,  promote  policy-driven  activities  and 
procure services (status quo). 

Option C.2 – Use of centralised management procurement only and discontinuation of grants. 

Option  C.3  –  Improved  and  diversified  centralised  management  through  contribution 
agreements with international organisations, framework partnerships with civil society and the 
delegation of specific tasks to existing agencies (indirect management). A limited number of 
grants would still be awarded through calls for proposals. Procurement would be maintained. 

Issue D – Emergency response mechanism 

Option D.1 – Current emergency response mechanism under shared management in the area 
of asylum without covering other migration-related or security crises (status quo). 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
Option D.2 – Improvement of current emergency response mechanism by bringing it under 
centralised  management  and  extending  it  to  other  migration-related  and  security  crises.  The 
duration of emergency measures would be extended from the current 6 to 18 months and the 
responsible Commissioner would be empowered to approve spending on emergency measures 
within days of an emergency occurring. 

Option  D.3  –  Mechanism  under  Option  D.2  extended  to  the  area  of  migration  but  not  to 
internal security. The latter would be included in the scope of the EU Solidarity Fund. 

6. 

ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS 

Issue A – Funding priorities 

Option  A.1  –  2013  distribution  (status  quo):  It  will  be  more  difficult  for  Member  States' 
asylum  systems  to  cope  adequately  with  complex  and  fluctuating  migration  flows.  Some 
Member  States  would  have  to  bear  disproportionate  costs  for  hosting  refugees  and  asylum 
seekers.  There  would  be  insufficient  resources  for  resettlement  operations  or  for  additional 
support to Member States who have to cope with particular pressures on their asylum systems. 
Member  States  would  continue  setting-up  national/regional  integration  strategies  or 
strengthening  the  strategies  already  in  place.  This  will  improve  the  integration  of  third-
country  nationals  and  therefore  have  positive  impacts  on  social  cohesion  and  the  EU 
economy, but the added value of funding for capacity building is likely to diminish over time. 
Return  management  capacity  would  continue  to  be  built  but  support  would  be  added  for 
detention  /  reception  capacity.  Although  Member  States  would  be  better  equipped  to  return 
numbers  of  irregular  migrants,  the  added  value  of  further  /  continued  capacity  building  is 
likely to diminish over time. The efforts of those Member States who carry out border control 
tasks on behalf of and in the interest of the EU as a whole would be supported systematically 
from  the  EU  budget  thereby  giving  concrete  expression  to  the  principles  of  solidarity  and 
responsibility-sharing. The use of new technologies will improve border security and generate 
positive  economic  impacts  as  it  would  promote  innovation,  facilitate  travel  of  bona  fide 
travellers to and from the EU. A more consistent use of EU funding for consular co-operation 
on  visa  and  support  for  local  border  traffic  arrangements  in  particular  border  areas  would 
allow for efficiency gains thereby having a positive impact on the EU economy. The creation 
of  Eurosur  would  also  lead  to  reductions  in  irregular  migration,  cross-border  crime  and  the 
loss  of  migrants'  lives  at  sea.  The  main  priorities  in  the  area  of  internal  security  would  be 
catered for financially. This is expected to lead to an improvement of EU security in the long-
term, although it would remain difficult to fund the activities of joint investigation teams or 
newer  policies  such  as  emergency  support  and  crisis  management  where  flexibility  is 
essential.  The  external  dimension  of  home  affairs  policies  would  remain  unaddressed,  with 
the consequences explained above. 

Option  A.2  –  Average  2007-2013  distribution:  There  would  be  improvements  to  asylum 
standards  and  Member  States  would  be  able  to  address  complex  and  fluctuating  migration 
flows  and  deal  with  disproportionate  pressures  on  their  asylum  systems.  However,  there 
would  be  insufficient  support  for  setting-up  an  EU  resettlement  scheme  or  to  incentivise 
Member  States  to  participate  in  the  intra-EU  transfer  of  beneficiaries  of  international 
protection.  Impacts  regarding  the  integration  of  legally  residing  third-country  nationals  are 
expected  to  be  similar  to  those  under  Option  A.1.  Reduced  EU  support  for  the  return  of 
irregular migrants is likely to decrease the number of returns and lead to an increased number 
of  irregular  migrants  remaining  in  the  EU.  Member  States  may  cooperate  bilaterally  with 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
countries  encountering  similar  challenges  or  with  third  countries  directly,  to  have  some 
leverage over future migrant numbers and this may divert and increase flows to other Member 
States. The situation of irregular immigrants, who are often employed in the illicit economy, 
is  expected  to  worsen.  Reduced  funding  for  the  management  of  the  external  borders  will 
necessitate a shift away from overall capacity building efforts towards specific projects such 
as the implementation of EUROSUR and/or the development of new IT systems. This would 
allow  maintaining  current  levels  of  border  security  but  would  be  insufficient  to  support  the 
notion  of  border  control  as  a  "public  service".  Through  increased  financial  support  for  the 
strengthening  of  practical  cooperation  between  law  enforcement  authorities,  Member  States 
would be able to more effectively combat serious and organised crime in its many forms. The 
external  dimension  of  home  affairs  would  remain  largely  unaddressed.  The  EU  would 
therefore not be able to increase its leverage with third countries to encourage them to engage 
with the EU on issues of relevance to the EU and the Member States and which might not be 
priority  issues  for  the  third  countries  themselves  (readmission,  fighting  irregular  migration, 
reinforcing border management etc.). 

third-country  nationals'  employment  opportunities 

Option  A.3  –  Re-distribution  with  external  dimension  component:  Asylum  standards 
would be improved and the EU and the Member States would be able to address complex and 
fluctuating migration flows, deal with disproportionate pressures on national asylum systems, 
set-up an EU resettlement scheme and provide additional financial incentives for the intra-EU 
transfer  of  beneficiaries  of  international  protection.  Regional  Protection  Programmes  would 
alleviate the burden on these countries and creating an equitable sharing between the EU and 
Member States in finding durable solutions within the international refugee protection system. 
The shift to support for more targeted strategies designed to promote the integration of third-
country nationals at local level, implemented mainly by local or regional authorities and non-
state actors, is expected to have beneficial impacts on social cohesion and the EU economy in 
in  particular.  More 
general  and 
comprehensive  support  for  the  implementation  of  Mobility  Partnerships,  coupled  with 
strengthened collaboration and cooperation of the EU with international organisations, would 
help maximise the operational synergies and lead to greater effectiveness. The refocusing of 
return  operations  on  assisted  voluntary  return,  reintegration  measures  and  improving  the 
detention  capacity  of  Member  States  will  substantially  improve  the  quality  of  case 
management  by  Member  States,  enable  Member  States  to  offer  the  means  to  provide  a 
meaningful incentive for repatriation to all potential returnees and to ensure full compliance 
with  the  twin  principles  of  the  primacy  of  voluntary  return  under  EU  standards  and  the 
humane and dignified treatment of all potential returnees. Support for the implementation of 
readmission  agreements  would  contribute  significantly  to  fighting  irregular  migration.  The 
cumulative  impacts  of  the  EU  resettlement  scheme,  Regional  Protection  Programmes, 
Mobility  Partnerships  and  readmission  agreements  could  reduce  the  need  for  emergency 
funding for sudden migratory pressures, the need for international protection in the countries 
of origin and in Member States, the incidence of irregular entry into the EU and the need for 
funding  return  operations.  The  impacts  on  external  borders  are  expected  to  be  the  same  as 
those described under Option 1 but through the external dimension component, more efficient 
cooperation between Frontex and third countries on border management is likely to increase 
the detection rates of irregular migrants or prevent their entry into the EU. The main priorities 
in the area of internal security would be achieved, thereby improving EU security in the long-
term.  Support  for  the  external  dimension  of  internal  security  policies  would  increase 
understanding of the security threats originating in third countries. Coupled with cooperation 
with these countries in other domains such as migration management, this would increase the 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
effectiveness  of  interventions  aimed  at  preventing  and  detecting  potential  terrorist  and 
organised crime threats. 

Issue B – Shared management 

Option B.1 – Status quo: Maintaining annual programming within a multiannual framework 
would  allow  to  chose  and  implement  actions  which  are  aligned  more  with  evolving  EU 
priorities. Although reducing the number of annual programmes by about 50% to around 392 
constitutes an improvement, the system would remain complex, time-consuming and difficult 
to  manage  with  a  heavy  administrative  workload.  The  closure  procedure  would  also  be 
incompatible with the procedure foreseen in the revised version of the Financial Regulation.  

Option  B.2  –  Multiannual  programming:  With  a  total  of  around  56  multiannual 
programmes  to  manage,  the  administrative  workload  for  both  the  Commission  and  the 
Member States would be reduced significantly. Programming would be brought in line with 
other  shared  management  instruments,  increasing  coherence  and  clarity  for  all  stakeholders. 
Despite offering increased flexibility, multiannual programming does not adequately address 
the specificities of the home affairs area. 

Option B.3 – Multiannual programming with policy dialogue: With a total of around 56 
multiannual  programmes  to  manage,  the  administrative  workload  for  both  the  Commission 
and  the  Member  States  would  be  reduced  significantly.  The  senior  level  policy  dialogue 
would result in a more results-driven approach. Because of the combination of simplification 
and results-oriented programming, it constitutes a major improvement on the status quo. 

Issue C – Centralised management (direct and indirect) 

Option  C.1  –  Status  quo:  Significant  amounts  would  be  spent  under  centralised 
management,  in  particular  in  the  area  of  internal  security.  Without  efforts  to  simplify  rules 
and  streamline  procedures,  the  administrative  workload  for  both  the  Commission  and  final 
beneficiaries will increase, which is expected to result in an increased risk of errors. 

Option  C.2  –  Procurement  only:  No  resources  would  be  needed  to  manage  the 
implementation of grants. However, it will not be possible to support policy-led, innovative 
actions,  stimulate  transnational  co-operation  or  support  and  reinforce  civil  society.  There 
would be no improvement in the EU's ability to react quickly and effectively in case of crises. 

Option  C.3  –  Improved  and  diversified  centralised  management:  Grants,  implemented 
more  effectively  and  efficiently  by  the  most  appropriate  actors  in  the  field,  will  support 
policy-driven  actions.  Although  this  may  initially  lead  to  a  moderate  increase  in 
administrative workload, in the long-term it will improve relations with key stakeholders and 
reduce overall workload. Recourse to a limited number of open calls for proposals will also 
decrease  administrative  workload.  Delegating  the  implementation  of  specific  tasks  to  home 
affairs agencies, including in third countries, is expected to improve synergies and coherence. 

Issue D – Emergency response mechanism 

Option  D.1  –  Status  quo:  The  EU  would  not  be  able  to  react  quickly  and  effectively  to 
asylum-related crises or to react to other migration-related or security crises. 

Option  D.2  –  Improved  mechanism  and  extension  to  other  migration-related  and 
security  crises:  The  EU  would  be  able  to  react  quickly  and  effectively  to  migration  crises 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
(other than asylum) and security crises. Interventions would be more efficient as it would be 
possible  to  choose  the  most  appropriate  implementing  partner  for  emergency  funding,  to 
release emergency funding more quickly and to extend the duration of emergency measures in 
order to address more completely the continuing needs arising from emergency interventions. 

Option  D.3  –  Improved  mechanism  extended  to  other  migration-related  crises  and 
inclusion of security under the EU Solidarity Fund: Impacts would be as described under 
Option D.2. The inclusion of man-made security crises in the scope of the EU Solidarity Fund 
is  unlikely  to  lead  to  significant  administrative  workload  savings  and  may  lead  to  a  loss  in 
focus of the EU Solidarity Fund which is unlikely to be welcomed in Council. 

7. 

COMPARISON OF OPTIONS 

7.1. 

Comparative analysis of the options 

Issue A – Funding priorities 

Options A.1 and A.2 do not include a specific funding component for the external dimension 
of  home  affairs  policies.  Although  more  funding  is  therefore  available  for  the  "internal" 
aspects of these policies, this funding is not necessarily spent where it has the greatest effect. 
By  contrast,  the  inclusion  of  a  sizeable  external  dimension  component  in  both  Funds  under 
Option A.3 would have a significant "preventive" impact on all home affairs policies and may 
therefore reduce the overall level of funding needed for the internal aspects of these policies. 
It will also ensure a better protection of EU interests outside the EU, notably through support 
to actions starting in the EU and continuing in third countries. This will allow the EU not just 
to address the consequences of migration flows and organised crime and terrorism but seeks 
also to take preventive action in third countries. The beneficial consequences of such action 
could  include  a  reduction  in  the  number  of  persons  in  need  of  asylum  or  other  forms  of 
international  protection  and  in  the  number  of  irregular  migrants  crossing  the  EU  external 
borders, and a reduction in cross-border crimes such as trafficking of human beings, drug and 
weapons  trafficking.  Increased  cooperation  with  third  countries  would  also  allow  better 
management of legal/labour immigration and thus better tackle labour shortages in the EU. 

Issue B – Shared management 

Option B.1 (status quo) would have a very negative impact on administrative workload and 
would  not  meet  Member  States'  demands  for  simplification.  The  shift  to  multiannual 
programming proposed under Option B.2 would constitute a significant improvement on the 
status quo as it would reduce the number of programmes to be managed by the Commission 
and  the  Member  States.  Alignment  with  other  EU  instruments  under  shared  management 
would  also  increase  coherence  and  clarity  for  all  stakeholders.  Despite  offering  increased 
flexibility,  Option  B.2  would  not  address  the  continuous  need  to  respond  to  changing 
situations  in  the  Member  States  and  third  countries,  typical  of  the  home  affairs  area.  The 
policy  dialogue  proposed  under  Option  B.3  would  address  this  need  and  would  allow  for  a 
more results-driven shared management. It is also expected to result, after the first two years 
during  which  old  and  new  instruments  will  overlap,  in  a  more  flexible  approach  to 
programming and a significantly reduced workload for all stakeholders. 

Issue C – Centralised management (direct and indirect) 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
Of the three options considered in relation to the implementation of centralised management, 
Option  C.1  (status  quo)  is  the  least  attractive  because  it  offers  little  or  no  prospect  of 
simplification  or  reduction  of  administrative  workload.  In  this  respect,  Option  C.2 
(procurement  only)  would  constitute  a  significant  improvement  although  it  would  eliminate 
completely  the  possibility  of  promoting  policy-driven  actions,  stimulating  transnational  co-
operation  and  supporting  civil  society  through  grants.  Through  recourse  to  framework 
partnerships,  contribution  agreements,  indirect  management  and  a  limited  use  of  open  calls 
for proposals implemented by the most appropriate actors, Option C.3 would lead to a more 
targeted, diversified and less resource-intensive centralised management. 

Issue D – Emergency response mechanism 

Option D.1 (status quo) clearly does not meet the need for the EU to respond more quickly 
and  effectively  to  crises  in  the  areas  of  migration  and  security.  Although  Option  D.3 
constitutes an improvement on Option D.1 because it envisages a faster release of funds under 
centralised  management  in  the  area  of  migration,  the  extension  of  the  scope  of  the  EU 
Solidarity  Fund  to  crises  in  the  area  of  security  is  likely  to  meet  opposition  from  Member 
States because of the risk that it would reduce the focus of the instrument. Option D.2 would 
also  constitute  a  marked  improvement  on  the  status  quo  because  it  would  allow  for  a  rapid 
release of funding in case of migration-related emergencies and in addition, it would include a 
dedicated response mechanism in the Internal Security Fund. 

7.2. 

Preferred option and organisational aspects 

The preferred option is a combination of Options A.3, B.3, C.3 and D.2. Shared management 
will be the main management method for delivering home affairs funding although centralised 
management will be maintained and improved for transnational actions, innovative projects, 
support for civil society, IT systems, studies, events, and actions with an external dimension 
and/or requiring the quick mobilisation of EU funds. The agencies will be entrusted with the 
implementation  of  specific  operational  tasks  in  the  framework  of  their  missions  and  in 
complementarity with their work programmes. 

The  preferred  option  will  be  implemented  in  full  coherence  with  the  decision  to  reduce  the 
number  of  financial  instruments  to  two,  thereby  increasing  the  visibility  of  home  affairs 
funding and making it easier to fund actions which at present are on the nexus between Funds. 
Another key feature of the future home affairs funding architecture will be the creation of a 
horizontal instrument, common to both Funds, which will include all rules on programming, 
reporting, financial management and controls. This presents two distinct advantages: first, it 
avoids  duplication  and  reduces  significantly  the  number  of  (otherwise  identical  parallel) 
provisions  in  the  two  Funds  and  second,  it  achieves  simplification  and  consistency  because 
the  same  rules  will  apply  to  all  beneficiaries,  regardless  of  which  instrument  their  funding 
comes from, thereby facilitating their understanding of and access to the Funds. 

8. 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

Provision will be made for a mid-term review and the ex-post evaluation of both Funds. The 
timing of the mid-term review will not be fixed in advance to guarantee maximum flexibility. 
In order to monitor progress and in order to measure the results and impacts achieved by EU 
spending  on  home  affairs,  a  set  of  indicators  will  be  developed  to  track  the  performance  of 
home affairs funding in terms of inputs, outputs and, where possible, outcomes.  

EN 

11 

   EN