COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 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) 1358 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 

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) 1359 final} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

2. 

2.1. 

2.2. 

2.3. 

Introduction .................................................................................................................. 6 

Procedural issues and consultation of interested parties .............................................. 6 

Policy context............................................................................................................... 6 

Organisation and timing............................................................................................... 7 

Consultation and expertise ........................................................................................... 7 

2.3.1.  Evaluation and use of expertise.................................................................................... 7 

2.3.2.  Public consultation ....................................................................................................... 9 

2.3.3.  Stakeholder conference ................................................................................................ 9 

2.3.4.  Other consultations..................................................................................................... 10 

3. 

4. 

4.1. 

4.2. 

4.3. 

4.4. 

4.5. 

4.6. 

Overview of home affairs funding (2007-2013) ........................................................ 11 

Policy challenges and the added value of EU funding in the area of home affairs.... 12 

Asylum ....................................................................................................................... 13 

Legal migration and integration of third-country nationals ....................................... 13 

Irregular immigration and return................................................................................ 14 

Management of the EU's external borders and visa ................................................... 16 

Prevention of and fight against organised crime........................................................ 16 

Prevention, preparedness and consequence management of terrorism and other 
security-related threats ............................................................................................... 17 

5. 

Problem definition...................................................................................................... 18 

5.1. 

The current instruments do not adequately address future needs and priorities ........ 18 

5.1.1.  Asylum ....................................................................................................................... 18 

5.1.2.  Legal migration and integration of third-country nationals ....................................... 19 

5.1.3. 

Irregular immigration and return................................................................................ 19 

5.1.4.  Management of the EU's external borders and visa ................................................... 20 

5.1.5.  Prevention of and fight against organised crime........................................................ 21 

5.1.6.  Prevention, preparedness and consequence management of terrorism and other 

security-related threats ............................................................................................... 22 

5.2. 

The external dimension of home affairs policies is not supported adequately .......... 23 

5.2.1.  Asylum ....................................................................................................................... 23 

5.2.2.  Legal migration and integration of third-country nationals ....................................... 24 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
5.2.3. 

Irregular immigration and return................................................................................ 24 

5.2.4.  Management of the EU's external borders and visa ................................................... 24 

5.2.5.  Prevention of and fight against organised crime and prevention, preparedness and 

consequence management of terrorism and other security-related threats ................ 24 

5.3. 

Operational limitations of the home affairs delivery mechanisms............................. 25 

5.3.1.  Shared management ................................................................................................... 25 

5.3.2.  Direct management .................................................................................................... 25 

5.3.3.  Emergency response mechanism ............................................................................... 26 

5.4. 

The EU's right to act and justification for EU action ................................................. 27 

5.4.1.  The EU's right to act................................................................................................... 27 

5.4.2.  Subsidiarity ................................................................................................................ 27 

5.4.2.1.  Necessity test.............................................................................................................. 27 

5.4.2.2.  EU added value .......................................................................................................... 28 

5.5. 

How would the problem evolve, all things being equal? ........................................... 29 

5.5.1.  How the policy challenges are expected to evolve .................................................... 29 

5.5.2.  How the situation with the financial instruments is expected to evolve .................... 29 

6. 

7. 

7.1. 

7.2. 

Objectives................................................................................................................... 30 

Policy options............................................................................................................. 32 

Issue A – Funding priorities....................................................................................... 32 

Delivery mechanisms ................................................................................................. 34 

7.2.1. 

Issue B – Shared management ................................................................................... 34 

7.2.2. 

Issue C – Centralised management (direct and indirect) ........................................... 35 

7.2.3. 

Issue D – Emergency response mechanism ............................................................... 36 

8. 

8.1. 

8.2. 

Impacts of the policy options ..................................................................................... 36 

Issue A – Funding priorities....................................................................................... 37 

Delivery mechanisms ................................................................................................. 43 

8.2.1. 

Issue B – Shared management ................................................................................... 43 

8.2.2. 

Issue C – Centralised management (direct and indirect) ........................................... 44 

8.2.3. 

Issue D – Emergency response mechanism ............................................................... 46 

9. 

Comparing the options ............................................................................................... 47 

9.1. 

Issue A – Funding priorities....................................................................................... 47 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
9.2. 

Issues B, C and D – Delivery mechanisms ................................................................ 48 

10. 

The preferred option(s) .............................................................................................. 50 

10.1. 

Implementation of the preferred option(s) ................................................................. 50 

10.2.  Other organisational aspects of the future home affairs Funds.................................. 52 

11. 

Monitoring and evaluation ......................................................................................... 53 

Annex 1 – List of acronyms ..................................................................................................... 55 

Annex 2 – Glossary .................................................................................................................. 58 

Annex 3 – Overview of Home Affairs Funding (2007-2013).................................................. 63 

Annex 4 – Summary assessment of the Home Affairs Programmes 2007-2013 ..................... 77 

Annex 5 – Policy Challenges in the Home Affairs area .......................................................... 82 

Annex 6 – Complementarity of the Asylum and Migration Fund and Internal Security Fund 

with other EU instruments ......................................................................................... 91 

Annex 7 – Summary results of the public consultation on the future of EU funding for Home 

Affairs after 2013 ....................................................................................................... 93 

Annex 8 – Examples of indicative indicators........................................................................... 96 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
Disclaimer:  This  report  commits  only  the  European  Commission's  services  involved  in  its 
preparation  and  does  not  prejudge  the  final  form  of  any  decision  to  be  taken  by  the 
Commission. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
Lead DG:  Home Affairs 

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

In  accordance  with  the  Communication  on  the  EU  Budget  Review1,  a  fresh  look  has  been 
taken  at  spending  priorities  and  delivery  mechanisms  in  the  home  affairs  area  in  order  to 
identify policy priorities with a clear focus on European added value and to examine how best 
to achieve tangible results and ensure solidarity in delivering mutual benefits.  

The  present  report  constitutes  both  the  ex-ante  evaluation  required  for  programmes  or 
activities occasioning expenditure from the EU Budget2, and the impact assessment that will 
accompany the legislative proposals for the future home affairs financial instruments. 

2. 

PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES 

2.1. 

Policy context 

Home  affairs  policies  have  been  growing  steadily  over  the  last  years.  Their  importance  has 
been  confirmed  by  the  Stockholm  Programme3  and  its  Action  Plan4,  the  implementation  of 
which is a strategic priority for the next five years and covers areas such as migration (legal 
migration and integration; asylum; irregular migration and return), security (prevention of and 
fight  against  terrorism  and  organised  crime;  police  cooperation)  and  management  of  the 
external borders  (including  visa policy), as well as the external dimension of these policies. 
The Lisbon Treaty5 also enables the Union to demonstrate greater ambition in responding to 
the day-to-day concerns of citizens in the area of freedom, security and justice.  

The final aim of these policies is 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. 

Home  affairs  policy  priorities  should  also  be  seen  in  the  context  of  the  seven  flagship 
initiatives  presented  in  the  Europe  2020  Strategy6  which  aim  to  help  the  EU  overcome  the 
current  financial  and  economic  crisis  and  achieve  smart,  sustainable  and  inclusive  growth. 
Key guidance documents such as the EU Counter-terrorism Strategy7, the EU policy cycle for 
organised  and  serious  international  crime  ("Harmony")8,  the  Commission's  Communication 

1 
2 

3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 

COM(2010)700 final of 19/10/2010. 
Article  21  of  Commission  Regulation  (EC,  EURATOM)  No  2342/2002  of  23/12/2002  laying  down 
detailed  rules  for  the  implementation  of  Council  Regulation  (EC,  Euratom)  No  1605/2002  on  the 
Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the EU, OJ L 357, 31.12.2002.  
Council document 17024/09 of 1-2/12/2009. 
COM(2010)171final of 20/04/2010. 
OJ 2008 C115 of 9/05/2008. 
COM(2010)2020 final of 3/03/2010.  
Council doc. 14469/4/05 of 30/11/2005. 
Council doc. 15358/10 of 25/10/2010. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
on  the  Internal  Security  Strategy9  and  the  European  Pact  on  Immigration  and  Asylum10 
provide additional direction to activities in the home affairs area.  

Recent  events  in  Northern  Africa  have  brought hope  of  democratic  change.  They  have  also 
prompted large numbers of people to flee the region, some of them towards Europe, thereby 
putting  the  Schengen  system  and  the  freedom  of  movement  under  increasing  strain.  These 
events  have  demonstrated  how  important  it  is  for  the  EU  to  have  a  comprehensive  and 
coordinated approach to migration and borders, 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. EU funding is a key 
tool for the success of such an integrated and comprehensive approach.  

2.2. 

Organisation and timing 

Following the creation of DG Home Affairs in July 2010, a Task Force was appointed at the 
start  of  November  2010  under  the  Chairmanship  of  the  Director-General  and  composed  of 
representatives from all home affairs policy areas. The Task Force met regularly to coordinate 
and prepare the public consultation, impact assessment and legislative proposals for the future 
home affairs financial instruments.  

This  report  also  incorporates  comments  received  in  the  context  of  the  Inter-service  Impact 
Assessment  Steering  Group  meetings  on  15  June  and  29  July  2011.  The  following 
Directorates-General  and  services  were  invited:  SG,  BUDG,  SJ,  EEAS,  RTD,  DEVCO, 
INFSO,  TAXUD,  JUST,  EMPL,  EAC,  MOVE,  REGIO,  MARE,  ELARG,  ENTR,  SANCO, 
ECHO and JRC. 

The Impact Assessment Board reviewed a draft version of this report and delivered its opinion 
on 9 September 2011. Its recommendations for improvement were incorporated in this revised 
version of the report. In particular, the following changes were made: simplification measures 
and  actions  in  relation  to  the  external  dimension  of  home  affairs  were  better  identified  and 
explained; indicative operational objectives and indicators as well as monitoring arrangements 
were provided; the baseline option for the distribution of funding was better explained; a list 
of acronyms (Annex 1) and a glossary (Annex 2) were added and text on return activities has 
been clarified.  

2.3. 

Consultation and expertise 

2.3.1.  Evaluation and use of expertise 

In  accordance  with  the  greater  emphasis  placed  on  evaluation  as  a  tool  to  inform  policy 
making,  the  present  report  takes  account  of  evaluation  results.  The  following  evaluation 
results are available, the details of which can be found at Annex 4:  

Internal security 

• 

9 
10 

EN 

Mid-term  evaluation  of  the  General  Programme  Security  and  Safeguarding 
Liberties11, covering the implementation of the ISEC and CIPS Programmes;  

COM(2010)673 final of 22/11/2010. 
Council doc. 13440/08 of 24/09/2008. 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Migration, asylum and management of external borders 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

the  qualitative  and  quantitative  aspects  of 

Preliminary  conclusions  on 
the 
management and implementation of the European Fund for the Integration of third-
country nationals (EIF), the External Borders Fund (EBF) and the Return Fund (RF) 
under  the  General  Programme  "Solidarity  and  Management  of  Migration  Flows", 
based on national evaluation reports from the Member States, a comparative analysis 
and  information  on  implementation  available  to  the  Commission  (e.g.  through 
monitoring reports). It is important to note that the first annual programmes (2007 for 
EIF and EBF; 2008 for RF) were being closed at the moment Member States had to 
report  on  progress.  Available  information  is  therefore  quite  limited  and  mainly 
relates  to  inputs  (distribution  of  funding  across  priorities,  number  of  projects 
approved etc) because it is too early to report on outcomes, results and impacts12;  

Ex-post evaluation of the results achieved under the European Refugee Fund for the 
period 2005-2007, including qualitative and quantitative aspects of implementation13. 
As this evaluation was ongoing and has meanwhile  become  available,  no  mid-term 
evaluation was required for the European Refugee Fund for the period 2008-2013; 

Communication on the application of the criteria for distribution of resources among 
the  Member  States  under  the  External  Borders  Fund,  the  European  Fund  for  the 
integration of third-country nationals and the European Return Fund14, including the 
report; 

European Migration Network's (EMN) study on "Programmes and Strategies in the 
EU  Member  States  fostering  Assisted  Return  to  and  Reintegration  in  Third 
Countries"15; 

Ex-post  evaluations  of  the  predecessor  programmes  of  the  current  generation  of 
Funds such as the INTI and RETURN Preparatory Actions; 

Evaluation of the European Migration Network16; 

External dimension 

• 

11 

12 
13 

14 

15 
16 

Mid-term review of the Thematic Programme for Cooperation with Third Countries 
in the Areas of Migration and Asylum17; 

COM(2011)318 final of 16 June 2011: Communication on the mid-term evaluation of the Framework 
Programme "Security and Safeguarding Liberties" (2007-2013) 
Adoption in progress 
COM(2011)2 final of 14 January 2011: Communication on the results achieved and on qualitative and 
quantitative aspects of implementation of the European Refugee Fund for the period 2005-2007. 
COM(2011)448 of 20 July 2011. No such obligation exists in the legal basis of the European Refugee 
Fund for the period 2008-2013 (ERF III) because it constitutes a continuation of previous generations of 
the  Fund,  established  as  of  2000  (ERF  I  and  ERF  II),  and  its  basic  act  has  consolidated  the  past 
experiences, including those concerning the distribution criteria. However, for the sake of completeness, 
an  analysis  of  the  amounts  allocated  to  the  Member  States  for  the  European  Refugee  Fund  for  the 
period 2008-2011 was included in the annex of the report. 
Available at the EMN website: http://www.emn.europa.eu under "EMN studies" 
The External Evaluation of the EMN is expected to be completed by the end of 2011. The results will 
be made available via the EMN website at http://www.emn.europa.eu.  

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                                                                                                                         
• 

External evaluation of pilot Regional Protection Programmes (RPP);  

Other evaluative elements 

In  order  to  fill  any  evaluation  gaps,  an  internal  stocktaking  exercise  was  undertaken  to 
identify shortcomings in both the scope and the delivery mechanisms of the existing financial 
instruments.  

In addition, a study was launched in December 2010 with the aid of an external contractor to 
support the preparation of the impact assessment18. The study was completed in July 2011 and 
brings together available evaluation results for the existing financial instruments and informs 
the problems, objectives and policy options identified in this report, as well as the assessment 
of the likely impacts of the options.  

2.3.2.  Public consultation 

A dedicated on-line public consultation19 ran from 5 January to 20 March 2011 and was open 
to all stakeholders, both from within the EU and from third countries. In order to receive as 
many responses as possible the consultation was available in 22 languages. 

In  total,  115  responses  were  received  from  individuals  and  on  behalf  of  organisations, 
including  8  position  papers.  Respondents  from  all  Member  States  contributed  to  the 
consultation as well as respondents in some third countries. 22% of responses were received 
from individuals and 78% on behalf of organisations. Omitting any duplicates and accounting 
for missing responses to some questions, most questions achieved more than 100 responses. 
This is considered satisfactory for a consultation on a topic of this kind.  

In general, respondents strongly support the need for simplification in the delivery of home 
affairs  financial  instruments,  the  need  for  greater  flexibility  (specifically  in  relation  to  the 
ability to deal with migration and security related crises), and the need for increased funding 
and  support  in  areas  with  a  strong  responsibility-sharing  (asylum  and  borders)  and/or 
cooperative dimension (internal security, agencies). Responses demonstrate that only through 
these  measures  can  EU  added  value  be  enhanced  and  the  effectiveness  and  efficiency  of 
instruments improved. Greater home affairs policy leverage in third countries was also shown 
to  be  important  and  desired  by  stakeholders.  A  summary  of  the  consultation  results  is 
provided in Annex 7.  

2.3.3. 

Stakeholder conference 

The stakeholder conference "The future of EU funding for Home Affairs: A fresh look" took 
place  in  Brussels  on  8  April  2011.  The  conference  brought  together  key  stakeholders 
(Member States, international organisations, civil society organisations etc) and gave them the 
opportunity to share their views on the future of EU funding for home affairs. The conference 
was also an occasion to validate the outcome of the stock taking and the public consultation.  

17 
18 

19 

Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/what/migration-asylum/index_en.htm  
GHK,  "Impact  Assessment  Study  on  the  next  Multiannual  Financial  Framework  in  the  area  of  Home 
Affairs", under Framework Contract JLS/2009/A1/001. 
The consultation documents and report on the results of the consultation are available on the DG Home 
Affairs website: http://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/news/consulting_public/consulting_0020_en.htm  

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                                                                                                                         
The  conclusions  of  the  conference20  are  broadly  in  line  with  the  outcome  of  the  public 
consultation with stakeholders stressing that in order to add value EU spending should reflect 
EU level priorities and policy commitments and should support the implementation of the EU 
home  affairs  acquis.  In  the  area  of  immigration  and  asylum,  stakeholders  confirmed  the 
important  contribution  made  by  the  existing  Funds  but  called  for  an  improvement  in  their 
scope  and  for  sufficient  funding  to  be  made  available.  In  the  area  of  internal  security  and 
borders, stakeholders considered that the broad thematic priorities have already been decided 
and  that  a  future  funding  mechanism  should  be  defined  comprehensively,  comprising  law 
enforcement, border guards and customs communities. Stakeholders also considered that the 
external dimension of home affairs policies is considered extremely important and that more 
funding should be made available to support it although opinions diverged on the best funding 
sources to provide such support, either through the future home affairs Funds or external aid 
instruments. Sufficient funding should also be made available for the home affairs agencies, 
in particular EASO, Europol and Frontex.  

In  relation  to  simplification,  stakeholders  supported  the  idea  of  reducing  the  number  of 
financial  instruments  to  a  two-Fund  structure  on  the  condition  that  this  actually  leads  to 
simplification. They  also  agreed  on  the need for a flexible emergency response mechanism. 
Shared  management  with  a  move  to  multi-annual  programming  is  generally  seen  as  the 
appropriate  management  mode  for  home  affairs  spending.  Non-governmental  organisations 
were of the view that direct management should also be continued.  

2.3.4.  Other consultations 

The  future  of  EU  funding  for  home  affairs  was  raised  and  discussed  with  institutional 
stakeholders  on  numerous  occasions,  including  at  an  informal  lunch  discussion  during  the 
JHA Council on 21 January 2011, an informal breakfast with the political coordinators of the 
European Parliament on 26 January 2011, at the hearing of Commissioner Malmström before 
the  Parliament's  SURE  Committee  on  10  March  2011  and  during  an  exchange  of  views 
between the Director-General of DG Home Affairs and the Parliament's LIBE Committee on 
17 March 2011.  

Discussions  also  took  place  at  the  COSI  meeting  on  5  October  2010  where  a  preliminary 
exchange of views was made with representatives of the Member States and representatives of 
agencies  (Eurojust,  Europol,  CEPOL  and  Frontex)  and,  at  expert  level  during  the  EOS 
Conference on Industry and Security on 9 February 2011, at the meeting of the Committee on 
Immigration and Asylum (CIA) on 22 February 2011, the meeting of the network of National 
Contact Points on Integration on 15 March 2011, the  meeting of the  Contact Committee on 
the Return Directive on 18 March 2011 and at the meeting of the High Level Working Group 
on Migration and Asylum on 27 April 2011.  

the 
Moreover,  written  contributions  were  received  on 
implementation  of  the  future  financial  instruments  following  the  meeting  of  the  Committee 
for the General Programme "Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows" on 7 April 2011 
and  a  further  exchange  of  views  with  Member  States'  representatives  took  place  during  a 
dedicated  "enlarged"  meeting  of  the  Committee  on  5  July  2011.  Finally,  technical  aspects 
linked to the implementation of the future financial instrument in the area of Internal Security 

technical  aspects 

linked 

to 

20 

A full report on the conference is available on the DG Home Affairs website: http://ec.europa.eu/home-
affairs/funding/beyond/funding_future_en.htm  

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
                                                 
were also discussed with Member States' experts at the meetings on 15 February and 18 July 
2011  of  the  two  committees  for  the  General  Programme  on  Security  and  Safeguarding 
Liberties (ISEC and CIPS). 

These consultations confirmed that there is an overall consensus among key stakeholders on 
the  need  for  a  wider  scope  of  action  for  EU  funding,  including  as  regards  its  external 
dimension,  thus enhancing the impact of home  affairs policies,  and a  need to  work towards 
more simplification in the delivery mechanisms and greater flexibility, notably to respond to 
emergencies.  

As  evidenced  above,  this  report  is  based  on  a  wide  consultation  of  stakeholders.  General 
principles and minimum standards for consultation of interested parties were therefore met in 
the preparation of this impact assessment.  

3. 

OVERVIEW OF HOME AFFAIRS FUNDING (2007-2013) 

The  share  of  funding  for  home  affairs  in  the  EU  budget  is  relatively  small  but  has  been 
growing  steadily.  Funded  under  Heading  3a  "Freedom,  Security  and  Justice"  (internal 
policies) of the EU budget, home affairs spending in the period 2007-2013 amounts to €6,449 
million21,  representing  0.77%  of  the  total  EU  budget  (ceilings  of  the  current  financial 
framework). These figures cover not only financial programmes, but funding for large-scale 
IT systems (VIS, SIS, Eurodac) and agencies. A full overview is provided in Annex 3. It is 
important to note that current home affairs spending is characterised by heavy 'back-loading', 
increasing  from  €516.72  million  in  2007  to  €1,464.33  in  2013.  This  represents  an  annual 
average increase in the home affairs budget of approximately 15% in the period 2007-2013. 

The main financial instrument in support of home affairs policies is the General Programme 
Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows, which consists of four Funds: the European 
Refugee  Fund,  the  European  Fund  for  the  Integration  of  Third-Country  Nationals,  the 
European  Return  Fund  and  the  External  Borders  Fund.  In  addition,  funding  in  the  area  of 
internal  security  is  channelled  through  the  General  Programme  Security  and  Safeguarding 
Liberties, composed of the two Specific Programmes ISEC and CIPS. Table 3.1 provides an 
overview of the scope, budgets and participation of these General Programmes.  

Table 3.1 – Summary overview of home affairs Funds and Programmes (2007-2013) 

General 
Programme 

General 
Programme 
Solidarity and 
Management 
of Migration 
Flows 

(93% to 96% 

Policy area 

Fund / Specific 
Programme 

Budget 

Participation 

Asylum 

European Refugee Fund 
(ERF III, 2008-2013) 

€614m22  All EU MS except Denmark 

Integration of 
legally residing 
third-country 
nationals, legal 

European Fund for the 
Integration of Third-
Country Nationals (EIF, 
2007-2013) 

€825m 

All EU MS except Denmark 

21 

22 

Figures provided are commitment appropriations expressed in current prices and based on latest figures 
available (including all budget amendments 2007-2010 and 2011 budget).  
After adoption of EASO; takes account of Decision No 458/2010/EU amending the ERF basic act. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
                                                 
General 
Programme 

shared 
management; 
remainder 
under 
centralised 
direct 
management) 

Policy area 

migration 

Fund / Specific 
Programme 

Budget 

Participation 

Return  

European Return Fund 
(RF, 2008-2013) 

€676m 

All EU MS except Denmark 

Integrated border 
management and 
visa  

External Borders Fund 
(EBF, 2007-2013) 

€1,820m 

All EU MS (including 
Romania and Bulgaria and 
the participation of Schengen 
associated states from 2010) 
except the UK and Ireland 

General 
Programme 
Security and 
Safeguarding 
Liberties 

(centralised 
direct 
management) 

Prevention of and 
fight against 
organised crime 

Specific Programme 
Prevention of and Fight 
against Organised Crime 
(ISEC, 2007-2013) 

Combating 
terrorism and 
other security-
related risks 

Specific Programme 
Prevention, Preparedness 
and Consequence 
Management of Terrorism 
and Other Security-related 
Risks (CIPS, 2007-2013) 

€600m 

All EU MS 

€140m 

All EU MS 

The external dimension of home affairs policies is currently covered through geographic and 
thematic  external  instruments  under  budget  heading  4  "EU  as  global  player".  Funding  to 
support third countries in home affairs policy areas is channelled mainly through the Thematic 
Programme "Cooperation with Third Countries in the Area of Migration and Asylum" which 
is  relatively  small  (€55  million  annually).  Although  additional  funding  is  also  available 
through  geographic  and  other  thematic  programmes,  the  amounts  actually  allocated  vary 
depending  on  the  programming  needs  of  the  beneficiary  countries  (roughly  estimated  at 
approximately €135 million per year). 

4. 

POLICY  CHALLENGES  AND  THE  ADDED  VALUE  OF  EU  FUNDING  IN  THE  AREA  OF 
HOME AFFAIRS 

This  section  provides  a  brief  overview  of  the  policy  challenges  facing  the  EU  in  the  home 
affairs  area  and  the  achievements  of  the  current  generation  of  home  affairs  financial 
instruments,  created  to  respond  to  these  challenges.  A  summary  of  the  assessment  of  the 
financial  instruments  can  be  found  in  Annex  4.  More  detailed  information  about  the  policy 
challenges, including their scale, drivers and likely future trends is provided in Annex 5.  

Evaluation  results  and  stakeholder  feedback  confirm  that  these  financial  instruments  are 
generally effective in supporting home affairs objectives and that the EU funding channelled 
through these financial instruments adds genuine value. The problems identified in relation to 
these instruments are the subject of the problem definition, discussed in the next chapter. 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
4.1. 

Asylum 

The  number  of  asylum  applications  varies  significantly  between  Member  States.  This  is 
mostly  due  to  their  geographic  location.  Flows  of  people  seeking  asylum  or  some  form  of 
international  protection  can  also  fluctuate  considerably  and  can  be  composed  of  many 
different  groups  with  different  needs  and  motivations,  some  of  which  are  particularly 
vulnerable  such  as  unaccompanied  minors,  women,  and  victims  of  violence  (including 
torture)  and  of  trafficking  in  human  beings.  Dealing  with  these  flows  requires  substantial 
resources  and  capabilities  from  Member  States  with  some  Member  States  receiving  higher 
numbers of asylum seekers than the capacity of their system to process, support (through the 
provision of reception, health and social services) and protect asylum applicants.  

At EU level, the development and implementation of the Common European Asylum System 
(CEAS)  is  supported  financially  primarily  by  the  European  Refugee  Fund  (ERF).  The  third 
generation  of  this  Fund23  (ERF  III,  2008-2013:  €614  million24)  was  created  to  promote 
solidarity and responsibility-sharing between Member States in bearing the consequences of 
receiving  refugees  and  displaced  persons.  It  supports  capacity  building  for  Member  States' 
asylum  systems  in  general,  the  voluntary  efforts  of  Member  States  to  provide  a  durable 
solution  in  their  territories  to  refugees  and  displaced  persons  identified  as  eligible  for 
resettlement  by  the  UNHCR,  and  voluntary  responsibility-sharing  between  Member  States 
consisting of the transfer of beneficiaries of and applicants for international protection from 
one Member State to another granting them similar protection ('relocation'). With respect to 
resettlement,  the  ERF  provides  an  additional  financial  incentive  to  Member  States  who 
resettle  persons  belonging  to  specific  categories  (vulnerable  groups  and  persons  from 
countries  and  regions  designated  for  the  implementation  of  a  Regional  Protection 
Programme).  This  is  done  on  the  basis  of  a  'pledging'  exercise  whereby  Member  States 
provide  an  estimate  of  the  number  of  persons  they  will  resettle  in  the  following  year  and 
subsequently receive a fixed amount of €4,000 per effectively resettled person. 

Stakeholders are largely positive about the achievements of the Fund, in particular its support 
for  improvements  in  Member  States'  reception  infrastructures  and  the  quality  of  services 
provided  to  asylum  seekers,  in  particular  vulnerable  groups,  as  well  as  its  support  for 
integration measures for migrants who had received international protection status.  

4.2. 

Legal migration and integration of third-country nationals 

According to Eurostat, an estimated 1.8 million third-country nationals immigrated to the EU 
in 200825. The stock of third-country nationals in the EU in 2010 was 20.2 million, i.e. 4% of 
the total population26. Compared to EU citizens, migrants generally experience lower labour 
market  participation  rates,  poorer  than  average  educational  attainment  and  reduced  social 
mobility. This lack of integration can lead to social difficulties, the cost of which is ultimately 

23 
24 

25 

26 

ERF I (2000-2004), ERF II (2005-2007) 
Initially  €703.61  million.  Revised  Amount  reflects  situation  after  adoption  of  EASO  legal  basis 
(Decision No 458/2010/EU amending the ERF basic act). 
Eurostat.  Data  are  residence  permit  data  in  accordance  with  the  Migration  Statistics  Regulation. 
Immigration means an action by which a person establishes his or her usual residence in the territory of 
a  country  for  a  period  that  is,  or  is  expected  to  be,  at  least  twelve  months,  having  previously  been 
usually  resident  in  another  country.  Immigrant  means  a  person  undertaking  immigration.  See  also: 
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-SF-11-001/EN/KS-SF-11-001-EN.PDF  
Eurostat.  See  also:  http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-SF-11-034/EN/KS-SF-11-
034-EN.PDF 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
                                                 
borne by society as a whole. The integration of these migrants is therefore a key challenge for 
the EU and Member States, ensuring that they take active part in their receiving society and 
enjoy the same benefits, freedoms and rights as EU citizens, thus enabling the EU to benefit 
fully  from  their  skills.  Better  integration  would  also  help  the  EU's  economy  meet  the 
demographic challenge it is currently facing and reach the objective of the EU 2020 Strategy 
to increase the employment rate of the population aged 20-64 from the current 69% to at least 
75% by 2020. 

The  European  Fund  for  the  Integration  of  Third  Country  Nationals  (EIF,  hereafter 
"Integration Fund") (2007-2013: €825 million27) was created with the aim of supporting the 
implementation  of  a  common  immigration  policy  by  providing  a  credible  response  to  the 
multidimensional  issue  of  the  integration  of  third-country  nationals  who  are  not  covered  by 
the  European  Refugee  Fund.  Both  Funds  support  integration  activities28,  with  the  latter 
focusing on refugees and persons benefiting from other forms of international protection and 
the former on all (other) legally-residing migrants. The European Social Fund (ESF) provides 
complementary  funding  for  integration,  supporting  integration  measures  on  access  to  the 
labour  market  whereas  the  Integration  Fund  finances  measures  such  as  reception  and 
introductory schemes, participation in social and civic life, equal access to services, etc.  

Overall, the Integration Fund has proven to be effective in supporting Member States in the 
development  and  implementation  of  their  national  integration  strategies  for  legally  residing 
third-country nationals. The mid-term evaluation of the Fund confirms that it enabled several 
Member States (e.g. Hungary, Slovakia) to design, for the first time, a comprehensive policy 
framework  for  the  integration  of  third-country  nationals.  In  other  Member  States,  such  as 
Bulgaria, Cyprus, Estonia or Greece, where a national framework for integration was already 
in  place,  the  Fund  provided  financial  resources  for  its  implementation.  Finally,  in  more 
experienced Member States, the Fund targeted specific measures or specific groups which are 
difficult to reach with mainstream funding instruments.  

In  this  context,  the  Integration  Fund  brought  about  substantial  effects  in  areas  such  as  the 
improvement  of  linguistic  skills,  promoting  meaningful  contact  and  constructive  dialogue 
between  third-country  nationals  and  the  receiving  society,  and  tackling  third-country 
nationals’  health  problems.  Most  Member  States  assessed  the  programmes  financed  by  the 
Fund as effective: projects selected in the 2007-2009 period were implemented successfully 
and achieved their objectives. In nearly all Member States, the Fund is perceived as having a 
genuine  added  value,  yielding  results  in  the  area  of  integration  that  could  not  have  been 
obtained otherwise. 

4.3. 

Irregular immigration and return 

Because  of  its  clandestine  nature,  it  is  very  difficult  to  determine  the  scale  of  irregular 
immigration in the EU. Estimates vary significantly, with estimates of between 4.5 million29 

27 
28 

29 

Initially €830 million. 
Approximately 41% of ERF resources are estimated to be used for this purpose (GHK (2009): Getting 
more out of migration funds: effective programming and evaluation – overview of the type and value of 
actions  included  in  the  annual  programmes  for  each  fund,  for  the  European  Commission  DG  Justice, 
Freedom and Security) 
European  Commission,  Directorate  General  for  Communication  (2009):  ‘Migration  in  the  European 
Union: An opportunity and a challenge’, ‘Europe on the move’ document completed in May 2009 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
                                                 
and  8  million30  irregular  migrants  living  in  the  EU  in  2009  being  cited  frequently. 
Approximately  500,000  of  these  are  apprehended  annually,  the  majority  of  whom  are 
overstayers  choosing  to  remain  in  a  Member  State  for  economic  reasons31.  Due  to  their 
geographic  situation  or  attractive  economic  profile,  some  Member  States  face  greater 
challenges,  receiving  numbers  of  irregular  migrants  disproportionate  to  their  capacity  to 
detect, regularise or return such migrants. Critically, due to the free movement of persons in 
the Schengen area, the burden of dealing with irregular immigration does not necessarily fall 
on the country of entry but rather on the destination Member  State targeted by the migrant. 
Irregular  immigration  is  costly  not  only  for  the  ‘target’  Member  States  which  spend 
considerable  sums  on  enforcement  measures,  including  detention,  identification,  return  and 
reintegration operations, but also for the migrants involved.  

In  order  to  increase  the  effectiveness  of  the  implementation  at  national  level  of  the  fight 
against  irregular  migration,  the  European  Return  Fund  (RF)  (2008-2013:  €676  million)  was 
created, as part of the General Programme "Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows", 
to support the voluntary and, where necessary, forced return of illegally staying third-country 
nationals within a common framework of "integrated return management" and in accordance 
with common standards. The Return Fund aims towards a fair sharing of the responsibilities 
between Member States as concerns the financial burden arising from the implementation of a 
common policy on return. With common standards bound to affect Member States to different 
extents (e.g. for geographical reasons), a degree of responsibility-sharing reinforces solidarity 
between Member States and brings overall benefits in terms of the value for money offered by 
an EU-wide approach, including by unlocking synergies, building co-operation on the basis of 
good practices and jointly implementing operations or testing new measures.  

Member  States  gave  a  (partly)  positive  overall  assessment  on  the  implementation  of  the 
Return  Fund.  They  report  that  at  least  for  the  2008  programme,  completed  in  the  reporting 
period,  the  desired  results,  as  defined  in  the  multiannual  strategy,  were  generally  achieved. 
Several Member States highlight in this context particular achievements regarding voluntary 
return: the development of a holistic approach in national policies supporting voluntary return 
(Italy); the increased capacity to carry out assisted voluntary return activities (Estonia, Malta 
and  Romania);  the  implementation  of  assisted  voluntary  return  programmes,  including  the 
introduction of new tools, a website and a free telephone service, as well the evaluation of the 
programmes  (Hungary);  the  enhancement  of  the  counselling  structures,  rendering  more 
effective the existing assisted voluntary return programme (Germany); the fact that the Fund 
simply made it possible for a greater number of migrants to return voluntarily (Spain) or for 
many  third-country  nationals  to  make  a  dignified,  orderly  and  sustainable  return  and  to 
receive reintegration assistance once there (United Kingdom).  

Moreover,  quite  a  few  Member  States  referred  to  the  usefulness  of  the  Return  Fund  in 
assisting  civil  society  to  contribute  to  voluntary  return.  Poland  underlined  that  without  the 
Fund  non-governmental  organisations  would  not  have  had  sufficient  resources  to  undertake 
voluntary return activities, while Romania referred to the first steps in developing partnerships 
with  non-governmental  organisations  under  the  Fund  and  Portugal  to  the  possibility  to 
continue to improve the voluntary return network in its country thanks to the Fund.  

30 

31 

Lodovici, M. S. (2010): ‘Making a success of integrating immigrants in the labour market’, Discussion 
Paper 
European  Commission,  Directorate  General  for  Communication  (2009):  ‘Migration  in  the  European 
Union: An opportunity and a challenge’, ‘Europe on the move’ document completed in May 2009 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
                                                 
4.4.  Management of the EU's external borders and visa 

Effective,  efficient  and  secure  border  control  is  essential  for  the  free  movement  of  legally 
residing  third-country  nationals  and  EU  citizens,  as  well  as  to  maintain  internal  security. 
Because the length of the external border and the number and nature of border crossing points 
vary  widely  between  Member  States,  the  responsibilities  for  border  control  differ 
considerably  from  Member  State  to  Member  State,  resulting  in  some  of  them  bearing  a 
disproportionate share of the associated costs. Member States at the periphery of the EU with 
long borders and many border crossing points have larger responsibilities than other Member 
States to prevent irregular migration, facilitate bona fide cross-border movements and provide 
security.  In  the  Schengen  area,  persons  holding  a  visa  or  residence  permit  from  a  Member 
State can move freely to other countries. Because Member States therefore do not only issue 
visas in their own interest, they have a common interest in applying common standards. 

The External Borders Fund (EBF) (2007-2013: €1,820 million) was created in 2007, as part of 
the  General  Programme  'Solidarity  and  Management  of  Migration  Flows',  to  support  the 
capacity building of those Member States which bear the responsibility for an efficient, high 
and uniform level  of control at the external borders and the implementation of the common 
visa policy. To promote solidarity, the Fund aims towards a fair share of the responsibilities 
between  Member  States  as  concerns  the  financial  burden  arising  from  the  introduction  of 
integrated management of the Union's external borders.  

Most  Member  States  gave  a  positive  overall  assessment  of  the  results  achieved  through 
actions co-financed by the External Borders Fund, classifying the possibilities under the Fund 
for projects as effective and useful. In particular, in the 2007-2009 period, the Fund actively 
leveraged important EU policy initiatives and projects, contributing significantly to furthering 
integrated border management and the use of new technologies to facilitate legitimate travel. 
Besides  the  development  of  the  Schengen  Information  Systems  (SIS  II)  and  the  Visa 
Information System (VIS), the Fund supported pilot projects on the introduction of automated 
border  controls  and  preparation  for  the  registered  travellers'  programme.  The  Fund  proved 
very useful to boost, in a very short period of time, investments in vulnerable areas such as the 
Mediterranean. Finally, Member States made use of the additional resources provided by the 
Fund for measures to improve the visa handling process by investing in modern technology 
equipment  (including  biometric  capture  devices)  and  strengthening  the  security  of  consular 
offices.  These  measures  have  contributed  to  swifter  processing  of  visa  applications, 
enhancement in the quality of services and an equal and fair treatment of visa applicants.  

4.5. 

Prevention of and fight against organised crime 

Organised  crime  in  its  various  forms  (e.g.  drug  trafficking,  trafficking  in  human  beings, 
crimes  by  itinerant  criminal  gangs,  money  laundering,  fraud,  cybercrime,  corruption, 
counterfeited  products  and  firearms,  sexual  exploitation  of  children,  and  various 
environmental crimes) poses major problems for the EU. Organised crime in all its forms is 
estimated  to  cost  the  EU  over  €250  billion  per  year.  Due  to  changes  in  technology  and 
increased internet activity, crimes such as cybercrime and payment card fraud are growing in 
importance with the costs of internet crime alone roughly estimated at €220 billion in 201032. 
There  is  a  continued  need  to  effectively  prevent  such  crime  and,  when  it  does  occur,  to 
convict its perpetrators in order to ensure that "crime  does not pay" and to  bring justice  for 

32 

Office of Cyber Security & Information Assurance, UK and Detica (2011): “The Cost of Cyber Crime” 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
                                                 
victims.  However,  organised  crime  is  increasingly  cross-border  in  nature.  This  reduces  the 
effectiveness  of  national  law  enforcement  activities  and  encourages  criminals  to  evade  law 
enforcement bodies by crossing over European borders and jurisdictions.  

The  General  Programme  'Security  and  Safeguarding  Liberties'  (2007-2013)  was  created  to 
ensure  effective  operational  cooperation  in  the  fight  against  terrorism,  including  its 
consequences,  organised  crime  and  general  crime,  to  support  the  exchange  of  information, 
experience  and  best  practice  on  a  European  scale  and  to  strengthen  the  prevention  of  crime 
and terrorism, in order to promote secure societies based on the rule of law.  

Within  the  General  Programme,  support  for  the  prevention  of  and  fight  against  organised 
crime is channelled more specifically through the Specific Programme 'Prevention and Fight 
against  Crime'  (ISEC)  (2007-2013:  €607.36  million).  The  mid-term  evaluation  of  the  ISEC 
Programme,  covering  the  period  2007-2009,  found  that  ISEC  funding  directly  reached 
137,000  persons.  For  example,  it  has  facilitated  transnational  cooperation  between  Member 
State  police  leading  to  seizures  and  some  200  arrests  in  area  of  drugs  trafficking,  human 
trafficking  and  human  smuggling  and  financed  more  than  25,000  support  actions  to  crime 
victims (counselling, therapy).  

4.6. 

Prevention, preparedness and consequence management of terrorism and other 
security-related threats  

Terrorism  and  other  security-related  threats  including  their  assessment  and  management 
present a major challenge to internal security in the EU. Terrorism presents unique threats in 
comparison to organised crime owing to the sporadic and transnational nature of offences, the 
potential for generating fear across Member States and the longer term fear perceptions that 
tend  to  be  created.  The  number  of  terrorist  attacks  occurring  in  Europe  between  2005  and 
2009  has  varied  markedly33  and  the  incidence  of  terrorist  attacks  in  the  EU  appears  to  be 
decreasing  slightly  in  recent  years,  the  transnational  character  of  the  threat  remains  acute. 
Reliable data on the costs of terrorism are scarce and often based on mere estimates34. But the 
consequences of terrorism in terms of the costs of human life, material destruction and related 
economic costs are significant, especially if compared to the relatively low cost of financing 
terrorist attacks.  

Terrorism is one of the ten particularly serious crimes listed in Article 83 TFEU. Support for 
the  prevention  of  and  fight  against  terrorism  is  therefore  channelled  through  the  Specific 
Programme 'Prevention and Fight against Crime' (ISEC) (2007-2013: €607.36 million). This 
applies in particular to measures countering the possible use by terrorists of CBRN materials 
and  explosives,  protecting  victims  of  terrorism  and  addressing  radicalisation  leading  to 
terrorism. In addition, funding for tackling terrorist threats is also available under the Specific 
Programme 'Prevention, Preparedness and Consequence Management of Terrorism and Other 
Security Related Risks' (CIPS) (2007-2013: €142.17 million). The mid-term evaluation of the 
General  Programme  shows  that  CIPS  has  supported  the  development  of  new  tools  and 
methodologies  in  critical  infrastructure  sectors,  especially  transport  and  energy,  and  has 
increased knowledge of security-related risks in specific sectors, e.g. water management.  

33 

34 

In 2006, 498 terrorist attacks took place within the EU; in 2007 there were 583; in 2008 this number 
decreased to 515 and in 2009 there were 294 attacks. See the Europol Terrorism Situation and Trend 
(TE-SAT) Reports. Available from: http://www.europol.europa.eu/index.asp?page=publications 
For confirmation and further analysis, see the EP commissioned research note on estimated costs of EU 
Counter-terrorism measures (June 2011). 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
                                                 
5. 

PROBLEM DEFINITION 

Building on available evaluation results and stakeholder consultation, the problem definition 
looks  at  the  fact  that  some  activities  cannot  currently  be  funded  or  not  adequately  and 
operational problems linked to the delivery of funding. A number of assumptions underlie the 
problem definition:  

• 

• 

• 

The public consultation confirmed that there is broad agreement among stakeholders 
on  the  EU  added  value  of  home  affairs  funding  and  overall  support  for  the 
continuation  of  such  funding.  Although  a  number  of  limitations  and  shortcomings 
have been identified (discussed below) in the current financial instruments, these are 
not of a nature to put into question the very purpose of these instruments. 

Based  on  recent  policy  developments  and  the  results  of  the  public  consultation,  it 
was  decided  to  create  a  two-Fund  structure  to  have  two  coherent  frameworks  to 
support  the  very  different  policies  of  migration  and  security.  The  Asylum  and 
Migration  Fund  will  focus  on  people  flows  and  the  integrated  management  of 
migration.  The  Internal  Security  Fund  responds  to  the  call  of  the  Stockholm 
Programme for the creation of a Fund to support the Internal Security Strategy and a 
coherent and comprehensive approach to law enforcement cooperation, including the 
management of the EU's external borders. The activities currently supported by the 
External Borders Fund will therefore form part of the Internal Security Fund rather 
than  the  Asylum  and  Migration  Fund.  The  two  other  components  of  the  Internal 
Security  Fund  will  focus  on  support  to  police  cooperation,  crime  prevention  and 
fighting serious cross-border crime as well as crisis management and the protection 
of EU critical infrastructure.  

Simplification is a major concern of stakeholders. The Stockholm Programme calls 
for "better/easier access" of beneficiaries to home affairs funding. Stakeholders were 
in  favour  of  the  creation  of  a  two-Fund  structure  on  the  condition  that  this  would 
actually  lead  to  simplification,  hence  the  need  for  a  common,  underpinning 
instrument to lay down uniform rules and procedures under both Funds. In addition, 
streamlining is needed in order to align the regulatory framework of the home affairs 
Funds with the revised Financial Regulation, its implementing rules and the rules that 
will  apply  to  the  other  EU  instruments  under  shared  management,  in  particular  the 
Structural Funds.  

5.1. 

The current instruments do not adequately address future needs and priorities 

5.1.1.  Asylum 

The  European  Refugee  Fund  cannot  adequately support  a  number  of  increasingly  important 
activities,  in  particular  resettlement  operations  and  the  intra-EU  transfer  ('relocation')  of 
beneficiaries and applicants of international protection.  

Although  experience  in  relation  to  the  pledging  exercise  for  resettlement  of  specific 
categories of refugees remains rather limited, the mechanism seems to successfully contribute 
to the development of EU resettlement policy. For the period 2008-2012, Member States were 
allocated financial incentives for the resettlement of 15,292 persons falling within the specific 
categories.  However,  because  the  allocations  for  resettlement  are  taken  from  the  total 
European  Refugee  Fund  envelope  (and  currently  represent  approximately  12%),  increasing 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
involvement of Member States in resettlement operations reduces the allocations available for 
other actions under the Member States' annual programmes. There are therefore insufficient 
resources to support a more comprehensive EU resettlement policy and to incentivise Member 
States to take part in the resettlement operations through the pledging exercise. 

The  European  Refugee  Fund  also  does  not  provide  any  additional  financial  incentive  to 
Member  States  for  the  intra-EU  transfer  of  beneficiaries  of  and  applicants  for 
international protection ('relocation'). Despite the fact that such operations represent an EU 
specific  priority  and  may  therefore  benefit  from  an  increased  co-financing  rate  of  75% 
(normal  co-financing  rate  is  50%),  Member  States  do  not  include  them  in  their  national 
programmes  because  the  financial  incentive  offered  for  receiving  relocated  persons  is 
insufficiently  big  and  they  prefer  to  use  the  envelope  for  other  actions  addressing  their 
specific  needs.  Such  operations  have  therefore  been  financed  so  far  with  the  support  of  the 
Community  Actions  (centralised  direct  management)  component  of  the  ERF,  for  example 
through  the  European  Relocation  Malta  (EUREMA)  project  which  aimed  at  relocating  260 
beneficiaries of international protection from Malta to ten other Member States with the help 
of UNHCR (mainly for the identification of the cases) and the International Organisation for 
Migration  (mainly  for  general  administrative  support,  medical  checks,  cultural  orientation, 
transport, etc).  

5.1.2.  Legal migration and integration of third-country nationals 

Overall, the Integration Fund has proved effective in supporting the setting-up and reinforcing 
of  Member  States'  national  strategies  for  the  integration  of  third-country  nationals. 
Nevertheless,  as  Member  States'  national  frameworks  for  integration  mature,  the  need  for 
capacity  building  at  national  level  is  expected  to  decrease.  Many  stakeholders,  including 
the Committee of the Regions, consider that integration challenges for example in the areas of 
housing, education, social assistance and health are addressed more effectively at the regional 
and local level, i.e. at a level closer to the individual. This is linked to the need to target more 
effectively specific measures or specific groups of migrants who cannot easily be reached by 
mainstream instruments.  

5.1.3. 

Irregular immigration and return 

The  European  Return  Fund  currently  provides  financial  support  for  both  assisted  voluntary 
return and forced return35. A recent study of the European Migration Network concludes that 
Assisted Return is seen by non-governmental organisations and also increasingly by Member 
States as a valid and often preferable alternative to forced return36. It is also significantly more 
cost-effective than forced returns or deportations, to the extent that voluntary operations may 
be  more  than  66%  less  expensive  than  forced  returns  when  reintegration  assistance  is  taken 
into account37. As a result, Member States are taking steps to make this a credible and feasible 

35 

36 
37 

The mid-term evaluation found that nearly 53% of the resources for 2008 and 2009 were budgeted for 
forced  return  measures,  43%  for  supporting  voluntary  return  activities  and  4%  consisted  of  (capacity 
building) activities conducive to either type of departure. 
EMN study on Assisted Return available from http://www.emn.europa.eu under "EMN Studies"  
Estimates  from  the  UK  indicate  that  forced  returns  could  cost  the  taxpayer  between  €12,400  and 
€28,900  per  returnee,  as  opposed  to  a  range  of  €680  -  €5,650  per  voluntary  return  (depending  on 
whether the calculation covers only travel costs or also includes reintegration assistance). See Özlem, T. 
(2010):  “Voluntary  return  programmes:  an  effective,  humane  and  cost  effective  mechanism  for 
returning  irregular  migrants”,  report  prepared  by  Committee  on  Migration,  Refugees  and  Population, 
Turkey. Exchange rate (£1 = €1.13) calculated using www.xe.com as at 15 April 2011 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
                                                 
return option, including by measures to overcome the various obstacles persons who wish to 
return may face during the different phases of return (i.e. pre-return, transportation and post-
return).  Furthermore,  in  several  Member  States,  the  focus  has  also  shifted  from  organising 
assisted  return  measures  (solely)  regarding  the  pre-return  and  transportation  phases,  to  the 
post-return phase ("reintegration measures"). Sufficient financial support should therefore be 
available  for  this  comprehensive  and  sustainable  approach  to  the  return  process  after 
2013.  Nevertheless,  Member  States  consider  that  funding  should  also  be  maintained  for 
forced returns. 

Because  the  Return  Fund  currently  focuses  on  funding  the  return  process,  it  does  not  cover 
other  necessary  costs  such  as  the  costs  of  pre-removal  reception/detention  conditions, 
which  has  proved  problematic  for  Member  States.  Moreover,  the  Fund  does  not  support 
measures  essential  for  the  prevention  of  irregular  immigration  including  trafficking, 
document management (databases on residence permits) and false documents.  

In addition, only 2% of the funds allocated so far under the European Return Fund have been 
used for cooperation between Member States, such as joint flights, although such cooperation 
is  a  clear  way  of  achieving  economies  of  scale  and  synergies.  The  need  for  increased  co-
operation  and  co-ordination  in  return  operations  is  acknowledged  and  is  evinced  in  the 
steady  increase  of  the  share  of  allocations  committed  from  the  budget  of  the  European 
Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders (Frontex) to 
joint return operations, increasing from €5.2 million for 2009 to €6.7 million for 2010 and €10 
million (planned) for 2011.  

5.1.4.  Management of the EU's external borders and visa 

The  External  Borders  Fund  is  instrumental  in  providing  support  to  Member  States  for  the 
management  of  the  EU's  external  borders  and  the  EU's  visa  policy.  A  number  of  key 
developments  will  take  place  in  this  area  between  2014  and  2020  such  as  the  further 
development  of  an  integrated  border  management  system  by  improving,  replacing  and 
upgrading  equipment/infrastructure  for  visa  and  borders  according  to  new  technological 
developments. This would in particular include enhancing the operational capabilities of the 
Member States within the framework of EUROSUR standards.  

To  ensure  adequate  border  control,  sufficient  financial  support  is  needed  to  ensure  the 
maintenance of the large-scale IT systems SIS II and VIS and the functioning of a future IT 
Agency  which  will  gradually  take  over  the  management  and  development  of  these  systems. 
Some  financial  support  is  currently  provided  under  the  External  Borders  Fund  for  national 
components of SIS II and VIS. Sufficient financial assistance will also be needed in the period 
2014-2020  for  the  development  and  maintenance  of  any  future  IT-systems,  such  as  the 
Entry/Exit  System  and  the  Registered  Traveller  Programme.  This  could  include  not  just  the 
central (EU-level) components but also the national components (Member States) of these IT 
systems.  This  would  ensure  that  financial  problems  and  budget  cuts  at  the  level  of  the 
Member States do not cause delays and jeopardise the overall project.  

At the moment, support from the External Borders Fund is limited to border control and visa 
policy stricto sensu. As a result, the Fund cannot support control measures within the area 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
of free movement which are not carried out at or close to the external borders (in land)38. It 
also  cannot  support  inter-agency  cooperation  and  the  building  of  connections  across  the 
different  law  enforcement  authorities,  including  those  working  inside  the  territory  (police, 
border guards, customs, etc) within the framework of an internal security agenda. 

5.1.5.  Prevention of and fight against organised crime 

Feedback  from  beneficiaries  (mostly  law  enforcement  authorities)  confirms  that  the  ISEC 
Programme  in  particular  currently  covers  too  wide  a  range  of  activities,  leading  to 
fragmentation and a lack of focus. There is therefore a need to use these funding in the area of 
internal security more strategically by focussing more on the political priorities as listed in the 
Internal Security Strategy, such as cybercrime, sexual crimes against children etc.  

Combating  serious  and  organised  crime  effectively  in  its  many  forms  will  require  the 
strengthening of practical law enforcement cooperation through financial support for joint 
operations (including Joint Investigation Teams), the pooling of resources (including through 
initiatives such as the Baltic Sea Task Force to combat regional criminal hubs), the greater use 
of financial investigation tools to identify and confiscate criminal assets. Support will also be 
needed for the development of tools at Member State level necessary for law enforcement 
cooperation.  This  includes  IT  systems  for  the  exchange  of  Passenger  Name  Records  (PNR) 
data  the  automated  exchange  of  DNA,  fingerprints  and  vehicle  registration  data  between 
Member  States.  Secure  communication  links,  such  as  the  SIENA  system  developed  by 
EUROPOL, are needed for practical cooperation and should also be supported.  

In the fight against drugs specifically, efforts will also be stepped up to reinforce operational 
cooperation,  such  as  the  actions  already  financed  on  drugs  smuggling  in  the  framework  of 
MAOC-N (Maritime Analysis and Operation Centre – Narcotics) and CeCLADM (Centre de 
Coordination  pour  la  Lutte  Anti-drogue  en  Méditerranée),  and  to  develop  common  risk 
analyses  involving  all  relevant  authorities  with  a  security  role  (including  police,  border 
guards and customs authorities). In order to disrupt the illicit market for drugs, more support 
should be given to law enforcement authorities in bilateral, multilateral and regional efforts to 
curb drugs supply; and disrupting drugs routes and moda operandi. With respect to trafficking 
in human beings, EU funding should be available for measures to support victims and for 
the  development  of  law  enforcement  responses  and  prevention  programmes  in  source 
(third) countries. In the area of sexual crimes against children, law enforcement cooperation 
should  be  supported,  including  exchange  of  know-how  and  IT-solutions  to  combat  child 
pornography  on  the  internet.  To  address  corruption,  EU  funding  should  be  available  to 
develop capacity in law enforcement and building partnerships with the private sector and 
civil society, both within the EU and in third countries with a high level of EU investment.  

Appropriate training is therefore essential to ensure that the law enforcement community is 
fully  equipped  to  deal  with  the  threats  posed  by  these  developments  whilst  fully  respecting 
fundamental  rights.  Training  is  a  horizontal,  cross-cutting  need  for  police  forces  (language 
courses,  increasing  knowledge  of  EU  tools  etc).  Substantial  funding  should  be  available  to 
support it. Moreover, training activities should also target more specifically law enforcement 
officers  dealing  with  specialist  and  highly  technical  issues,  such  as  in  the  area  of  IT 

38 

In accordance with the four-tiers access control model on Schengen. These measures prevent irregular 
immigration and cross-border crime inside the territory of the Schengen States by enhanced searches, 
checks and surveillance measures based on national information, and in accordance with national law. 

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(cybercrime), because criminals are increasingly using new technologies to commit crime, as 
shown by recent EU Organised Crime Threat Assessments (OCTA) produced by Europol. 

5.1.6.  Prevention,  preparedness  and  consequence  management  of  terrorism  and  other 

security-related threats 

the 

including 

The  ISEC  and  CIPS  Programmes  do  not  adequately  support  the  prevention  of  and  fight 
against  terrorism  and  other  security-related  risks.  In  the  first  place,  the  terrorist  threat  has 
rapidly evolved in recent years, with changes in the modus operandi of terrorist activists and 
supporters 
replacement  of  structured  and  hierarchical  groups  by 
semiautonomous regional cells loosely tied to each other. Such cells increasingly rely on the 
use of new technologies, in particular the Internet. Increasingly, so-called 'lone wolves', who 
may  have  developed  their  radical  beliefs  on  the  basis  of  extremist  propaganda,  commit 
terrorist  acts  using  training  materials  found  on  the  internet.  Financial  support  is  therefore 
needed  to  prevent  and  raise  awareness  of  radicalisation  and  recruitment,  for  example 
through  support  for  an  EU  radicalisation-awareness  network  and  civil  society  organisations 
which expose, translate and challenge violent extremist propaganda on the internet. Victims 
should also be supported because of their role in de-legitimising and deglamourising terrorism 
and crime and in raising awareness for preventing violent radicalisation.  

Tracking  down  terrorist  movements,  for  example  by  collecting  and  analysing  the  Name 
Records of passengers travelling to and from Europe and cutting-off terrorists from access to 
financial means by following their transactions is equally important. Funding is therefore not 
just needed for a future European PNR but might also be envisaged – subject to the political 
debate  launched  by  the  Commission  in  July  201139  –  for  a  European  Terrorist  Financing 
Tracking  System,  allowing  law  enforcement  officers  to  detect  and  dismantle  terrorist 
networks by extracting and analysing financial messaging data held on EU territory. The latter 
would  also  include  funding  for  the  activities  of  the  EU  agencies  which  may  be  involved  in 
this system, such as Europol, Eurojust or the IT-Agency. Preventing access to explosives and 
Chemical,  Biological,  Radiological  and  Nuclear  (CBRN)  substances  and  enhancing  their 
security is another  key  component of a successful fight against terrorism  and requires, inter 
alia,  funding  to  further  develop  and  maintain  a  European  Bomb  Data  system  and  a  law 
enforcement Early Warning System at EUROPOL for incidents related to explosives and 
CBRN materials and close coordination with Member States. 

More  financial  support  is  also  needed  for  critical  infrastructure  protection  in  order  to 
protect  those  assets  which  are  essential  to  the  functioning  of  European  society  and  its 
economy. In order to increase Europe's resilience to crises resulting from terrorist activities, 
financial  support  is  needed  for  all  phases  of  the  crisis  management  cycle  (preparedness, 
response  and  recovery)  with  a  focus  on  enhancing  Europe's  preparedness  for  crises  and 
developing  European  Emergency  Response  Capacity40.  While  the  EU  should  financially 
support Member States' crisis management in order to enhance the interoperability of national 
crisis  management  systems  and  technical  capacities,  a  coherent  risk  management  policy 
which  links  threat  and  risk  assessment  should  be  established  at  EU  level.  This  requires 
developing a European analytical capacity to assess risks and threats on the basis of common 
methodologies  and  parameters,  for  example  through  the  establishment  of  a  "European  Alert 
Register" on the basis of input from Member States.  

39 
40 

COM(2011)429 final of 13/07/2011. 
COM(2010)673 final of 22/11/2010: As outlined in strategic objective 5 

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
                                                 
5.2. 

The external dimension of home affairs policies is not supported adequately 

The  current  generation  of  home  affairs  financial  programmes  do  not  cover  the  external 
dimension  of  home  affairs.  Although  it  is  possible  at  present  to  financially  support  some 
activities in third countries in order to ensure territorial continuity of financing, starting in the 
EU  and  continuing  in  third  countries,  these  activities  are  very  limited.  Examples  of  such 
activities are the reintegration measures supported by the Return Fund (specific measures for 
returnees  in  the  country  of  return  in  order  first  to  ensure  effective  return  under  good 
conditions  and  enhance  their  durable  reintegration),  the  deployment  of  immigration  and 
aircraft liaison officers (prevention of illegal entry) and surveillance activities outside the EU 
territory (high seas) under the External Borders Fund and the technical working arrangements 
concluded  by  Frontex  with  the  border  guard  authorities  of  third  countries  (Russia,  Ukraine, 
the Western Balkan countries, Moldova, Georgia, the US and Belarus) to develop cooperation 
on training, risk analysis and joint operations with them.  

Funding  for  third  countries  in  Home  Affairs  policy  areas  is  therefore  almost  exclusively 
provided  through  external  relations  instruments  under  budget  heading  4  of  the  EU  Budget: 
"EU  as  a  global  player".  Although  such  funding  is  increasingly  being  channelled  through 
geographic programmes, the Thematic Programme 'Cooperation with Third Countries in the 
Area  of  Migration  and  Asylum'  remains  the  main  instrument  in  support  of  the  external 
dimension  of  migration  and  asylum  policies.  This  programme  is  relatively  small,  with  an 
average  annual  budget  of  €  55  million  (€  384  million  for  the  period  2007-2013).  Besides, 
although the Programme's objectives encompass the different facets of migration management 
policy,  it  is  increasingly  seen  as  a  development-oriented  instrument  because  it  has  its  legal 
basis in the Development Cooperation Instrument (DCI).  

In  fact,  the  external  aid  programmes  are  not  designed  to  support  the  external  dimension  of 
home  affairs  policies  but  rather  to  cater  primarily  for  other  policy  objectives,  in  particular 
enlargement,  development  and  neighbourhood  policies.  At  present,  95%  of  EU  funding 
qualifies  as  Official  Development  Assistance  (ODA)  and  must  by  definition  target 
development objectives in favour of the recipient country. Accordingly, needs assessment and 
identification of priorities is mostly jointly agreed with beneficiary countries. While this very 
important and migration-related development assistance should be kept and expanded, there is 
a  manifest  lack  of  EU  leverage  to  allow  the  Union  to  pursue  and  achieve  its  own  policy 
priorities  and  cater  for  the  EU  interest,  such  as  the  management  of  migratory  flows  and 
security.  

5.2.1.  Asylum 

In view of the pressure on Member States' asylum systems, cooperation with third countries to 
ensure the international protection of asylum seekers and refugees, notably through Regional 
Protection  Programmes  has  become  increasingly  important.  These  Programmes  form  an 
important component of the common asylum policy. An external evaluation of pilot Regional 
Protection Programmes (RPP) concluded that the concept of RPP constitutes a first successful 
step towards establishing a mechanism for an increase of the capacity of areas which are close 
to regions of origin, or which are areas of transit, to protect refugees through the three durable 
solutions  of  repatriation,  local  integration  and/or  resettlement.  Despite  their  importance, the 
European  Refugee  Fund  cannot  support  Regional  Protection  Programmes  financially. 
Current  funding  for  RPP  is  too  fragmented  and  as  a  result,  achievements  under  these 
Programmes  are  not  optimal,  in  particular  in  terms  of  visibility  and  understanding  of  the 
overall  RPP  concept  and  RPP  awareness  in  the  beneficiary  countries.  In  addition  to  these 

EN 

23 

   EN 

 
Programmes, there is a need to explore and develop options for the processing of requests for 
international protection in the regions of origin (outside the EU territory) and the setting-up of 
a  more  effective  system  of  responsibility-sharing  among  countries  of  origin,  transit  and 
destination. 

5.2.2.  Legal migration and integration of third-country nationals 

The  Integration  Fund  does  not  provide  financial  support  for  developing  the  EU  'Global 
Approach to Migration' (GAM), in particular the negotiation, signing and implementation of 
Mobility  Partnerships.  Although  support  for  instruments  such  as  Mobility  Partnerships  has 
been  provided  through  external  aid  instruments  such  as  the  Thematic  Programme 
'Cooperation with Third Countries in the area of Migration and Asylum', these instruments are 
aimed  exclusively  at  supporting  third  countries'  capacities  and  therefore  do  not  adequately 
cover the full migration cycle, encompassing both its internal and external dimension, thus not 
allowing  adequate  support  for  the  specific  interests  of  the  Member  States  in  addressing  the 
challenge of migration management to the EU.  

5.2.3. 

Irregular immigration and return 

Readmission agreements are another important tool for an efficient management of migration 
flows, in particular in fighting irregular immigration, and an important component of the EU 
return policy, because they facilitate the swift return of irregular migrants. However, although 
a  couple  of  projects  supporting  the  implementation  of  readmission  agreements  have  been 
supported through the Thematic Programme 'Cooperation with Third Countries in the area of 
Migration and Asylum', the existing financial instruments do not provide sufficient financial 
incentives  to  help  third  countries  cope  with  the  financial  burden  of  the  readmission  of 
irregular  migrants,  either  in  terms  of  reintegrating  their  own  nationals  or  onward 
readmission of third-country nationals to their countries of origin. To be efficient as leverage, 
such  funding  must  also  be  substantial  and  additional  to  what  is  available  to  third  countries 
under development assistance.  

5.2.4.  Management of the EU's external borders and visa 

Through its external relations instruments, the EU also provides substantial support to third 
countries  aiming  at  improving  their  border  management  capacities.  However,  such 
mechanisms  cannot  provide  adequate  support  to  many  activities  in  third  countries  whose 
primary  purpose  is  to  serve  EU  interests  and  needs  in  terms  of  border  surveillance,  for 
instance in the framework of programmes such as EUROSUR, of which the primary aim is to 
prevent cross border illegal activities into the EU.  

5.2.5.  Prevention  of  and  fight  against  organised  crime  and  prevention,  preparedness  and 

consequence management of terrorism and other security-related threats 

The increasingly important external dimension of the EU's internal security policy is not 
adequately covered by the ISEC and CIPS Programmes as transnational projects are limited to 
acceding countries, candidate countries and International Organisations who may not submit 
projects  but  only  participate  as  partners.  Cooperation  with  third  countries  in  areas  such  as 
trafficking  of  human  beings,  trafficking  of  drugs  and  weapons,  dismantling  international 
criminal  networks  and  the  prevention  of  terrorism  and  other  security-related  risks  can 
therefore  not  be  supported  properly.  Although  external  aid  instruments  support  activities  in 
third  countries  aiming  at  strengthening  their  capacities  in  security  related  areas,  those 

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
instruments  do  not  cover  adequately  direct  EU  needs,  as  they  are  not  adapted  to  supporting 
actions with a direct impact in the EU or with activities serving simultaneously the needs of 
the EU and third countries (networks of liaison officers, intelligence networks, joint training 
of EU and third countries police, etc). 

5.3. 

Operational limitations of the home affairs delivery mechanisms 

5.3.1. 

Shared management 

Shared management is the main delivery mechanism for home affairs funding with over 93% 
of  the  allocations  under  the  four  Funds  under  the  General  Programme  Solidarity  and 
Management of Migration Flows implemented in this way. Although shared management is 
generally  considered  the  appropriate  management  mode  for  most  home  affairs  actions, 
stakeholders stress the need for simplification and reduction of administrative burden.  

Each  of  the  four  Funds  under  the  General  Programme  has  its  own  legal  basis  and 
implementing rules (including rules on eligibility of costs etc). This leads to a duplication of 
efforts and a multiplication of rules which, in turn, results in additional workload and the risk 
of different interpretations by the Commission, the Member States and the final beneficiaries 
and also increases the risk of errors.  

Although  these  four  Funds  are  similar  to  the  Structural  Funds  which  provide  financial 
assistance  to  address  structural  economic  and  social  problems  in  the  field  of  EU  cohesion 
policy, there are also important differences, notably in relation to the management and control 
systems Member States are required to put in place, the role of the different authorities in the 
process, the eligibility rules at project level, the approach to programming and reporting, and 
the  budgetary  and  closure  mechanisms.  These  differences  may  increase  the  work  load  in 
terms of project management and control tasks and often lead to confusion on the part of the 
national authorities in charge of implementing these Funds as well as the beneficiaries. 

The  Funds  of  the  General  Programme  currently  combine  a  multiannual  framework  with 
annual  programmes.  This  system  is  complex,  time-consuming  and  difficult  to  manage. 
With  four  Funds  and  around  100  annual  programmes  to  manage  on  a  yearly  basis,  the 
administrative workload for both the Commission and Member States is very heavy.  

5.3.2.  Direct management 

Centralised  direct  management  is  the  main  delivery  mechanism  for  funding  in  the  area  of 
internal security ("General Programme on Security and Safeguarding Liberties). It is also the 
ancillary implementation mode for the four Funds of the General Programme "Solidarity and 
Management  of  Migration  Flows"  where  it  is  used  mainly  to  provide  financial  support  to 
transnational  projects,  studies,  conferences,  innovative  actions  and  other  types  of  actions  of 
EU interest. Operating grants are also available to civil society organisations which pursue an 
aim  of  general  European  interest  or  have  an  objective  forming part  of  an  EU  policy.  Direct 
management  is  also  the  method  for  the  implementation  of  the  assistance  provided  to  third 
countries  through  external  aid  instruments  (geographic  and  thematic  programmes)  which  is 
implemented with the full involvement of the EU Delegations and the support for running the 
Eurodac system and developing the central parts of large-scale IT systems, such as VIS and 
SIS II.  

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
The grants provided under the two Specific Programmes (ISEC and CIPS) under the General 
Programme  on  Security  and  Safeguarding  Liberties  are  generally  small.  However,  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.  The 
mid-term  evaluation  and  stakeholder  consultation  confirm  that  the  administrative  burden 
under the Programmes is significant for the beneficiaries (and the Commission).  

The ISEC and CIPS Programmes also suffer from significant under-spending. In 2009, only 
77%  of  ISEC  commitment  appropriations  and  65%  of  payment  appropriations  were  spent. 
The  situation  is  even  worse  for  the  CIPS  Programme,  with  only  62%  of  commitment 
appropriations  and  59%  of  payment  appropriations  used  in  2009.  Although  some  of  this 
under-spending is due to a lack of quality applications, it is caused primarily by the limited 
flexibility of the Specific Programmes, in particular the excessive time needed to complete the 
grant  process  (call  for  proposals,  submission  of  bids,  award  of  grants,  signature  grant 
agreement, release of funds etc).  

Indeed,  stakeholders  are  critical  in  particular  of  the  lengthy  application  process  under  the 
ISEC  Programme  which  prevents  law  enforcement  authorities  from  mounting  operations 
quickly  in  response  to  emerging  threats.  This  hampers  the  successful  implementation  of 
precisely  those  actions  which  the  Programme  is  meant  to  support  in  order  to  improve 
operational  cooperation,  such  as  Joint  Investigation  Teams  and  other  forms  of  cross-border 
joint  operations  (such  as  COSPOL  projects,  ISS  related  pilot  projects  and  the  future 
"Harmony"  operational  action  plans).  Although  there  are  early  signs  that  some  of  the 
measures taken recently to improve access to these Programmes, for example through more 
targeted  calls,  the  situation  is  unlikely  to  improve  markedly  due  to  the  increase  in  the 
appropriations for these Programmes in 2012 and 2013. 

In  view  of  the  above,  there  is  broad  agreement  among  stakeholders  on  the  need  for 
simplification.  The  mid-term  evaluation  recommends  improvements  to  be  made  to  the 
implementation  of  the  Programmes  such  as  better  timing  calls  for  proposals,  rendering  the 
budget  review  exercise  more  efficient,  discontinuing  the  use  of  operating  grants  (ISEC), 
implementing a project monitoring system, enhancing the framework partnership concept and 
stepping-up  simplification  efforts  (flat-rates,  lump  sums  etc).  This  is  extremely  important 
since through the 'Harmony' operational action plans, the Commission is asked to review its 
funding  mechanisms  and  to  make  it  easier  in  future  to  finance  more  operations  and  joint 
investigation teams for the full 'Harmony' cycle (2013-2017). 

5.3.3.  Emergency response mechanism 

The first lessons drawn from the crisis at the Greek/Turkish external border and the crisis in 
the  Southern  Mediterranean  demonstrate  that  the  EU  should  improve  its  ability  to  respond 
rapidly and effectively to situation of crisis and massive arrivals of people. Currently, only the 
European Refugee Fund is equipped with an emergency response mechanism. An emergency 
reserve of €9.8 million is available under the Fund to support emergency measures in Member 
States  facing  situations  of  particular  migratory  pressure,  characterised  by  the  sudden 
arrival  at  particular  points  on  the  borders  of  a  large  number  of  third-country  nationals  who 
may  be  in  need  of  international  protection.  This  mechanism  was  triggered  each  year  since 
2008: for Italy, Greece and Malta in 2008, for Greece and Malta in 2009, for Greece in 2010 
and for Belgium and Italy in 2011.  

EN 

26 

   EN 

 
These experiences have shown that while providing additional support to Member States, the 
emergency mechanism fails to respond quickly and effectively to crisis situations. This is 
due  to  the  fact  that  the  duration  of  emergency  measures  under  the  ERF  is  limited  to  six 
months, their triggering is administratively burdensome (requiring a revision of the Member 
State's  annual  programme),  the  amounts  available  are  limited  and  its  intervention  scope  is 
limited to inflows of asylum seekers without taking into account mixed flows.  

Moreover, in the area of internal security, the existing Programmes do not cover emergency 
measures  in  case  of  crisis  situations  where  flexibility  is  essential.  In  view  of  the  fact  that 
certain events may require a quick and effective response at EU level, for example terrorist 
attacks, large-scale cyber attacks or mass counterfeiting of the Euro, an emergency response 
mechanism should be created to enable the EU to release funding for the rapid deployment of 
specialised technical support in collaboration with the Member States concerned.  

5.4. 

The EU's right to act and justification for EU action  

5.4.1.  The EU's right to act 

The  EU's  right  to  act  in  the  area  of  home  affairs  derives  primarily  from  Title  V  'Area  of 
Freedom,  Security  and  Justice'  of  the  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the  European  Union 
(TFEU): 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

External borders and common policy on visa (in particular Article 77(2) TFEU); 

Common  policy  on  asylum,  subsidiary  protection  and  temporary  protection  (in 
particular  Article  78(2)  TFEU)  including  partnership  and  cooperation  with  third 
countries; 

Common  immigration  policy  and  return  policy  (in  particular  Article  79(2)  and  (4) 
TFEU) including conclusion of readmission agreements with third countries; 

Judicial co-operation in criminal matters (in particular Article 82(1) TFEU); 

Crime  prevention,  crisis  management  and  protection  of  critical  infrastructure  
(Article 84 TFEU); 

Measures regarding police co-operation (in particular Article 87(2) TFEU); 

Cooperation  with  third  countries  and  the  competent  international  organisations 
(Article 212(3) TFEU). 

5.4.2. 

Subsidiarity 

5.4.2.1.  Necessity test 

The  challenges  facing  the  EU  in  the  areas  of  asylum,  immigration,  external  borders,  the 
prevention  of  and  fight  against  serious  and  organised  crime,  terrorism  and  other  security-
related risks cannot be dealt with by the Member States acting alone.  

The abolition of internal border controls must be accompanied by common measures for the 
effective  control  and  surveillance  of  the  Union's  external  borders.  Due  to  their  specific 
geographic  situation  and  the  length  of  their  external  border,  some  Member  States  receive 

EN 

27 

   EN 

 
higher  numbers  of  asylum  seekers  than  the  capacity  of  their  system  to  process,  support  and 
protect  asylum  applicants.  This  is  compounded  by  the  fact  that  migration  flows  are  mixed 
(being composed of many different groups with different needs and motivations, in particular 
vulnerable groups) and can fluctuate significantly. For the same reasons, some Member States 
also have to deal with  higher  numbers of irregular migrants and the  associated cost of their 
detection, apprehension and return, not to mention the challenge of "mixed flows". Article 80 
TFEU expressly states that the common policies on asylum, immigration and external borders 
are based on the principle  of solidarity  and fair sharing of responsibilities  between Member 
States. EU funding is the mechanism which gives effect to the financial implications of this 
principle and without which some Member States would have to shoulder the disproportionate 
burden of long borders or surges in migration.  

Serious  and  organised  crime  (e.g.  drug  trafficking,  sexual  abuse  of  children,  trafficking  in 
human beings, cybercrime), terrorism and other security-related threats are also increasingly 
cross-border  phenomena.  Transnational  co-operation  between  Member  States' 
law 
enforcement  authorities  working  with  Europol  and  Eurojust  is  therefore  essential  to 
successfully  fight  and  prevent  these  crimes,  including  the  exchange  of  information  and 
common threat and risk assessments.  

Cooperation  with  third  countries,  notably  through  actions  outside  the  EU  aiming  at 
strengthening their capacities, is instrumental in addressing the aforementioned challenges.  

5.4.2.2.  EU added value 

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. Improved 
operational  co-operation  involving  the  pooling  of  resources  in  areas  like  training  and 
equipment creates economies of scale and synergies thereby ensuring a more efficient use of 
public funds and reinforcing solidarity and mutual trust between Member States. In addition, 
the  integrated  management  of  the  EU's  external  borders  and  the  completion  of  a  Common 
European Asylum System are the most effective ways to fairly share these responsibilities and 
their financial implications between Member States.  

In  the  area  of  internal  security,  EU  funding  has  been  a  key  factor  in  supporting  new 
developments.  For  example,  funding  from  the  CIPS  programme  was  instrumental  for  the 
development  of  a  Critical  Infrastructure  Warning  Information  Network  (CIWIN),  a  multi-
level communication system for the exchange of CIP-related ideas, studies and best practices, 
within  a  secure  IT  environment.  CIWIN  acts  as  a  central  hub  and  coordination  tool  for 
Member  States'  experts  working  on  critical  infrastructure  protection  issues.  As  Critical 
Infrastructure Protection in the EU is currently subject to a patchwork of protective measures 
and obligations, CIWIN is a good example of where EU action offers better value for money 
by  facilitating  the  exchange  of  information  and  pooling  the  expertise  and  resources  from 
national administrations and the Commission, thereby avoiding fragmentation and duplication 
of activities in Member States. This “one-stop-system” for all relevant information on critical 
infrastructures in the EU also helps to build trust among relevant stakeholders across the EU. 

Action  at  EU  level  in  relation  to  the  external  dimension  of  home  affairs  also  brings  added 
value.  Co-operation  with  third  countries  at  EU  level  can  significantly  increase  the  leverage 
necessary to convince third countries to engage with the EU on issues of relevance mostly to 
the EU and the Member States. 

EN 

28 

   EN 

 
5.5. 

How would the problem evolve, all things being equal? 

5.5.1.  How the policy challenges are expected to evolve 

In the area of asylum, the underlying causes and drivers of factors that lead to the seeking of 
asylum  and  international  protection  in  the  EU  (war,  repressive  regimes,  political  instability 
etc.)  are  very  likely  to  continue.  ‘New’  factors  such  as  water  shortages  and  environmental 
disasters may also contribute to migration flows. Overall, it is reasonable to assume that the 
numbers of asylum applications will increase gradually with fluctuations by year and country. 
In relation to legal migration and integration of third-country nationals, the annual inflow of 
legal  migrants  is  estimated  to  increase  steadily.  Although  the  inflow  depends  upon  demand 
and policies within the EU and a supply of migrants from third countries, labour migration is 
expected  to  remain  the  main  contributor  to  the  growth  in  legal  migration.  The  need  for  the 
integration  of  third-country  nationals  is  therefore  also  expected  to  grow.  With  regard  to 
irregular immigration and return, the number of ‘new’ irregular migrants in the EU is likely to 
decrease,  largely  as  a  result  of  the  implementation  of  policy  measures  and  practices  to 
prevent,  detect  and  return  irregular  migrants.  However,  the  stock  of  irregular  migrants  is 
unlikely  to  reduce  markedly  even  if  there  were  marked  improvements  in  detection  and 
removal rates of existing irregular migrants. 

In the area of external borders and visa, it is anticipated that the current 300 million border-
crossings  annually  will  increase  to  around  324  million  in  2014  and  350  million  in  2020 
(assuming  a  continuing  average  growth  rate  of  around  2%  in  the  number  of  trips).  The 
challenge of managing the EU borders is thus likely to increase. In relation to the prevention 
of and fight against organised crime, 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. Developments for some types of 
organised crime are very difficult to predict. Drug trafficking is likely to stabilise or increase 
and  it  is  hoped  that  trafficking  in  human  beings  will  remain  at  current  levels  or  that  the 
introduction of new EU legislation will lead to a decline in the mid to long-term. Other types 
of crime such as fraud, money laundering and cybercrime, are expected to grow. With regard 
to the prevention, preparedness and consequence management of terrorism and other security-
related  risks,  it  can  be  anticipated  that  the  continued  efforts  of  Member  States  and  EU 
legislative  action  will  reduce  terrorist  activities  and  their  consequent  harm.  However,  the 
grievances  and  sources  of  radicalism  that  breed  terrorism  will  continue  and  there  is  little 
prospect of the threat of terrorism reducing substantially in the foreseeable future.  

Annex 3 provides a detailed description of the expected evolution of these policy challenges. 

5.5.2.  How the situation with the financial instruments is expected to evolve 

Under shared management, the resources under the national programmes of the four Funds of 
the  General  Programme  Solidarity  and  Management  of  Migration  Flows  have  increased 
steadily  over  the  last  years.  For  2012  and  2013,  another  45%  of  the  total  envelope  of  the 
General Programme remains to be committed and spent. Bearing in mind the limitations and 
complexity  of  the  regulatory  framework  and  the  accumulation  of  overlapping  programming 
and  reporting  obligations  under  the  annual  programming  cycles,  involving  ever  increasing 
individual  actions  and  potential  complications  in  terms  of  eligibility  and  control,  the 
continuation of this model under the next Multi-annual Financial Framework is not a viable 
option for the Commission and the Member States. In addition, the current management and 

EN 

29 

   EN 

 
control system model is not fully compatible with the shared management model as foreseen 
in  the  upcoming  revision  of  the  Financial  Regulation,  for  example  in  relation  to  the 
requirement incumbent on Member States to issue an annual management declaration audited 
by an independent body.  

In  relation  to  centralised  direct  management,  a  similar  conclusion  can  be  drawn.  The  back-
loading of home affairs resources in the period 2013-2007 had an impact both on the size of 
the  "Community  actions"  under  the  General  Programme  Solidarity  and  Management  of 
Migration Flows and the two Specific Programmes of the General Programmes Security and 
Safeguarding  Liberties  (ISEC  and  CIPS).  The  resource  implications  resulting  from  the 
accumulation  of  outstanding  calls  and  projects  to  be  evaluated,  monitored  and  controlled  in 
accordance  with  the  Financial  Regulation  and  the  principle  of  sound  management,  are 
becoming such for both beneficiaries and the Commission that they risk calling into question 
the added value of the efforts made.  

Moreover,  the  area  of  home  affairs  being  what  it  is,  the  daily  management  of  these 
instruments has been subject to constant review and adjustment. The lack of flexibility of the 
existing  framework  makes  it  difficult  to  take  into  account  properly  the  needs  arising  from 
unforeseen  events  such  as  the  situation  in  the  Mediterranean  and  from  new  policy 
developments, such as Joint Investigation Teams and other cross-border joint operations (e.g. 
COSPOL  projects,  pilot  projects  related  to  the  2010  Internal  Security  Strategy  or  the  future 
"Harmony" operational action plans). Without a change to the existing framework, it will be 
increasingly difficult to address new needs and priorities in a timely manner. 

6. 

OBJECTIVES 

On the basis of the policy needs, problems and drivers that are anticipated in the period until 
2020, the general and specific objectives of the future home affairs instruments are as follows: 

General 
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 

Specific objectives 

Operational objectives 

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 the 
implementation of the 
Common European 
Asylum System 

- Increase the number of third-country nationals benefiting 
from social and/or legal services or specific assistance 

- Increase the number of third-country nationals benefiting 
from orientation, language and other support furthering their 
integration into society 

-  Increase  the  number  of  asylum  seekers,  refugees  etc.  who 
benefit from social and/or legal services or specific assistance 

- Increase and/or improve reception infrastructure and services 

-  Increase  the  number  of  refugees  resettled  into  and/or 
relocated within the EU 

Reduce irregular 
migration and promote 
voluntary return 

-  Increase  the  number  of  third-country  nationals  who  benefit 
from social and/or legal services 

-  Increase  and/or  improve  the  number  of  reception  and/or 

EN 

30 

   EN 

 
General 
objectives 

Specific objectives 

Operational objectives 

detention places 

- Increase the number of persons who return voluntarily 

Support the external 
aspects of the EU's 
migration policy  

-  Increase  the  number  of  third-country  nationals  benefiting 
from  actions  developed  in  the  framework  of  a  Mobility 
Partnership supported by the EU 

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 

- Increase the number of refugees resettled into the EU in the 
context  of  Regional  Protection  Programmes  supported  by  the 
EU 

-  Increase  the  number  of  third-country  nationals  returned 
under readmission agreements supported by the EU 

Strengthen EU external 
borders 

-  Equip,  secure  and/or  enhance  border  crossing  points  with 
state-of  the-art  technology  to  facilitate  smooth  and  secure 
border checks 

- Increase local border traffic agreements  

- Introduce and/or upgrade border surveillance systems within 
the  framework  of  EUROSUR,  including  through  cooperation 
with third countries  

- Apprehend irregular immigrants at the EU external border 

-  Improve  provision  of  consular  services  to  third-country 
nationals abroad 

- Improve regional consular co-operation 

- Develop methodologies, tools and structures, including new 
(interoperable) technologies and the exchange of best practices 

- Develop training schemes in implementation of EU training 
policies 

-  Establish  secure  links  and  effective  cooperation  between 
crisis coordination actors at EU and national level 

-  Increase  the  exchange  of  information  between  Member 
States/EU, Agencies and third countries 

Improve  operational  co-operation  between  Member 

- 
States/EU, Agencies and third countries 

Facilitate mobility 
across EU external 
borders  

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

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

Given the wide ranging objectives and activities of the current home affairs instruments, the 
specific objectives are broader and less detailed than would be appropriate for any particular 
programme. The key purpose of these objectives is to provide a basis for assessing the options 
in relation to the future priorities within the two future Funds.  

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  emergencies  and  the  reduction  of  administrative 

EN 

31 

   EN 

 
workload. The options in relation to the delivery mechanisms will be assessed against these 
objectives. 

7. 

POLICY OPTIONS 

A number of options have been identified in order to address the problems identified earlier. 
The options concerning Issue A 'Funding priorities' aim at achieving an optimal distribution 
of funding within each of the two Funds in order to address the funding needs and priorities of 
the home affairs area. In addition, a number of options are considered in relation to the design 
of the delivery mechanisms under shared (Issue B) and centralised (Issue C) management, as 
well as an emergency response mechanism (Issue D). 

7.1. 

Issue A – Funding priorities 

The  Communication  "A  Budget  for  Europe  2020"41  announced  the  simplification  of  the 
structure  of  EU  funding  in  the  home  affairs  area  by  reducing  the  number  of  financial 
programmes to two and proposes the following amounts of funding: (€ million) 

Fund 

Objective 

Migration and 
Asylum Fund 
(AMF) 

Support  actions 
migration, 
the 
nationals and return 

in  relation 
integration  of 

to  asylum  and 
third-country 

Budget in 2011 
prices  

Budget in 
current prices 

€ 3,433 m 

€ 3,869 

Internal Security 
Fund (ISF) 

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

€ 4,113 m 

€ 4,648 

It should be noted that this distribution of funding between the Asylum and Migration Fund 
and  the  Internal  Security  Fund  (45%  and  55%  respectively)  differs  from  the  distribution 
between  the  'migration'  and  'security'  envelopes  under  the  2007-2013  period  in  general,  as 
well as from the distribution in 2013, the last year of the current financial framework.  

A key challenge is how to distribute funding within the two Funds in order to meet the policy 
challenges  described  earlier  whilst  addressing  the  limitations  identified  for  the  current 
generation  of  financial  instruments.  Three  options  have  been  identified  in  relation  to  the 
distribution of resources within the Funds: 

Option A.1 – 2013 level distribution (status quo) 

Option 1 envisages the continuation in the period 2014-2020 of the distribution of funding in 
2013. This means that under the AMF, actions in support of return and integration would each 
be allocated about 38% of funding, whereas support for asylum would represent 24% of the 
spending  under  the  Fund.  Under  the  ISF,  funding  for  the  management  of  the  EU’s  external 
borders would reach 77% and the remaining 23% would be allocated to action in the area of 
internal security. There would be no specific component to support actions in relation to the 
external  dimension  of  home  affairs  policies.  Because  this  option  reflects  the  most  recent 
political choices and represents continuity of funding, it is the baseline scenario against which 
the other options will be assessed. 

41 

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

EN 

32 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Option A.2 – 2007-2013 average distribution 

This  option  entails  the  continuation  of  the  average  distribution  of  the  resources  allocated  to 
various  home  affairs  policies  under  the  existing  financial  instruments  for  the  period  2007-
2013. Because the home affairs budget increases by about 15% annually from 2007 to 2013 
('back-loading'),  this  distribution  reveals  the  relative  financial  weight  of  each  policy  area 
under the current Multiannual Financial Framework. For the AMF, this option means that the 
majority  of  funding  would  be  allocated  to  the  integration  of  third-country  nationals  (38%), 
followed  by  spending  on  asylum  and  return  on  equal  footing  (30%).  Under  the  ISF,  about 
70% of funding would be allocated to the management of the EU’s external borders and just 
below 30% to internal security. As under Option 1, there would be no specific component to 
support the external dimension of home affairs policies. 

Option A.3 – Re-distribution with external dimension component 

The  distribution  of  allocations  within  the  two  Funds  would  be  adjusted  to  accommodate  a 
component for the external dimension of home affairs which will provide funding for actions 
in or in relation to third countries which serve primarily EU needs and interests. They should 
therefore  be  distinguished  from  the  funding  which  will  be  provided  through  the  future  EU 
external  relations  instruments  for  activities  in  third  countries  which  aim  primarily  at 
supporting and strengthening third countries' capacities in the home affairs area according to 
their needs and priorities. Under the AMF, approximately 10% of the available funding would 
be earmarked for actions such as Regional Protection Programmes, the promotion of Mobility 
Partnerships with third countries (for example increased support to circular migration schemes 
which meet the labour needs of the Member States), and the implementation of re-admission 
agreements. A slightly lower share of about 5% would be allocated to the external dimension 
under  the  ISF  to  improve  third  countries'  border  management  capacity  and  cooperate  with 
them  in  the  fight  against  trafficking,  organised  crime  and  terrorism.  These  shares  were 
determined on the basis of the estimated needs as regards those external dimension activities 
that cannot be adequately covered through the external relations instruments. It is considered 
that such needs are higher in the area of asylum and migration; consideration was also given, 
when earmarking funding for these new activities, to the management and absorption capacity 
of potential beneficiaries.  

Due  to  this  shift  to  the  external  dimension,  funding  would  have  to  be  reduced  somewhat 
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. The additional focus on 
the 'external' dimension of these areas (preventive actions, incentives to third countries, early 
assistance  to  refugees  and  asylum  seekers,  etc.)  would  reduce  the  need  to  fund  the 
corresponding 'internal' policies. Under this option, support for integration and return would 
receive around 30% and 23% respectively. Under the ISF, about 75% would be allocated to 
the  management  of  the  external  borders  and  20%  to  internal  security.  The  only  policy  area 
which would see an increase compared to 2013 would be asylum which would be allocated 
36% of the funding available under the AMF.  

A  preliminary  and  indicative  distribution  of  resources  as  described  above  for  each  of  the 
options can be presented as follows (amounts expressed in € million, current prices): 

Home Affairs Funds  

Option 1 – 

Option 2 – 

Option 3 – 

2014-2020 

2013 level 

2007-2013 

Redistribution 
with external 

EN 

33 

   EN 

 
(status quo) 

average 

dimension 

 AMF  

% 

Share 

% 

Share 

% 

Share 

 Asylum incl. resettlement  

24,0% 

929 

30,6% 

1,184 

35,9% 

1,389 

 Irregular immigration & return  

38,0% 

1,470 

30,4% 

1,176 

23,3% 

901 

 Integration (incl. EMN)  

37,6% 

1,455 

38,4% 

1,486 

29,6% 

1,145 

 External dimension  

 Administrative support  

 Total AMF 

 ISF  

0,0% 

0,4% 

- 

0,0% 

- 

10,6% 

15 

0,5% 

19 

0,6% 

410 

23 

100% 

3,869 

100% 

3,869 

100% 

3,869 

% 

Share 

% 

Share 

% 

Share 

 External borders and visa 

76,5% 

3,556 

70,7% 

3,286 

74,7% 

3,472 

 Organised crime & crisis management  

23,2% 

1,078 

28,9% 

1,343 

20,2% 

 External dimension  

 Administrative support  

0,0% 

0,3% 

- 

0,0% 

-  

4,7% 

14 

0,4% 

19  

0,5% 

939 

218 

23 

 Total ISF 

100% 

4,648 

100% 

4,648 

100% 

4,648 

7.2. 

Delivery mechanisms  

7.2.1. 

Issue B – Shared management 

Option B.1 – Annual programming within multiannual framework (status quo) 

This  option  consists  of  maintaining  the  current  system  which  combines  a  common 
multiannual  framework  in  line  with  broadly  defined  political  priorities  set  in  EU  strategic 
guidelines with national annual programmes. Each year, the Member States and, in the case of 
the  External  Borders  Fund,  the  Schengen  associated  states,  would  submit  a  draft  annual 
programme  which  is  subsequently  approved  by  the  Commission.  Substantial  changes  to  the 
programme would require approval by the Commission and amendment of programme. Each 
annual programme would be subject to monitoring, progress reports, pre-financing payments 
and closure.  

Option B.2 – Multiannual programming 

Under this option, there would be multiannual programming only, in line with current practice 
under the Structural Funds. The Member States and, in the case of the External Borders Fund, 
the  Schengen  associated  states,  would  submit  a  draft  multiannual  programme  which  is 
subsequently  approved  by  the  Commission.  Simplification  is  achieved  by  removing  the 
burdensome step of translating the multiannual programme into annual programmes. In order 
to  ensure  sufficient  flexibility  after  approval  of  the  multiannual  programmes,  a  monitoring 
mechanism would be introduced to assess progress regularly, possibly on a yearly basis in the 
context  of  annual  progress  reports  and  payment  requests.  Substantial  changes  to  the 
multiannual  programme  would  require  approval  by  the  Commission  and  the  amendment  of 
the  programme.  Each  programme  would  be  subject  to  monitoring,  progress  reports,  pre-
financing payments and closure. 

EN 

34 

   EN 

 
Option B.3 – Multiannual programming with policy dialogue 

This  option  entails  multiannual  programming  preceded  by  a  policy  dialogue.  At  the  start  of 
the  next  Multiannual  Financial  Framework,  the  Commission  would  initiate  a  senior  level 
policy dialogue on home affairs funding with individual Member States and, in the case of the 
Internal  Security  Fund,  the  Schengen  associated  states,  prior  to  the  negotiations  on  their 
multiannual programmes. This dialogue would  focus  on policy  objectives and  spending  and 
would involve the central responsible authority of each Member State and, in the case of the 
Internal Security Fund, the Schengen associated state. It would thus pave the way for tailor-
made  programming  and  be  the  main  vehicle  for  shaping  the  application  of  the  partnership 
contract principle in the area of home affairs. Taking into account the outcome of the policy 
dialogue  ('agreed  conclusions'),  the  multiannual  programmes  would  describe  the  baseline 
situation, lay down the general objectives Member States are seeking to achieve in the policy 
area  and  the  objectives  that  are  to  be  achieved  using  the  resources  of  the  Fund.  For  those 
objectives,  the  programme  would  identify  targets  and  examples  of  key  actions.  In  order  to 
ensure  sufficient  flexibility  after  approval  of  the  multiannual  programmes,  a  monitoring 
mechanism would be introduced to assess progress regularly, possibly on a yearly basis in the 
context of annual progress reports and payment requests. Member States would also be given 
enough  flexibility  to  support  emergency  actions  or  deal  with  unforeseen  circumstances. 
Although  changes  to  the  national  programmes  are  therefore  less  likely,  the  policy  dialogue 
would be resumed if changes are needed. 

7.2.2. 

Issue C – Centralised management (direct and indirect) 

Option C.1 – Status quo 

Centralised management would be retained for the implementation of a mixture of grants and 
procurement.  In  particular,  centralised  management  would  be  used  to  provide  financial 
support to transnational projects and non-state actors, including through operating grants for 
organisations  pursuing  an  aim  of  general  European  interest,  to  promote  policy-driven 
activities,  to  procure  services  in  relation  to  large-scale  IT  systems,  events  and  studies.  A 
considerable amount would be implemented under centralised management.  

Option C.2 – Procurement only 

This  option  entails  reducing  the  use  of  centralised  management  to  procurement  only.  Such 
procurement  would  include  services  for  the  central  (EU)  components  of  large-scale  IT 
systems and the IT-agency, as well as studies and events in the home affairs area. The use of 
grants would be discontinued. 

Option C.3 – Improved and diversified centralised management 

The  use  of  centralised  management  would  be  maintained  but  diversified  and  improved. 
Procurement  would  be  maintained  mainly  for  services  in  relation  to  the  central  (EU) 
components of large-scale IT systems and the IT-agency, as well as for studies and events. In 
the area of grants, centralised management would not be implemented primarily through calls 
for proposals but by entrusting the implementation of specific tasks to existing EU agencies 
(indirect management), international organisations (contribution agreements) and civil society 
(framework  partnerships).  In  a  limited  number  of  cases,  for  example  to  support  actions  by 
civil  society,  grants  would  still  be  awarded  following  calls  for  proposals.  Ongoing 
simplification efforts will therefore be continued to improve this process such as better timing 

EN 

35 

   EN 

 
calls for proposals, rendering the budget review exercise more efficient by reducing the level 
of  budgetary  detail  required,  the  introduction  of  more  favourable  payment  modalities  (e.g. 
higher pre-financing payments) for starting projects and the closer monitoring of projects in 
order to detect potential problems earlier and take corrective action.  

7.2.3. 

Issue D – Emergency response mechanism 

Option D.1 – Status quo (mechanism for migration under shared management) 

The  current  emergency  response  mechanism  under  shared  management  in  the  area  of 
migration  would  be  continued.  Approval  of  emergency  funding  would  therefore  require  a 
revision  of  the  programme  of  the  Member  State  requesting  assistance.  No  emergency 
response mechanism would exist in the area of internal security. 

Option  D.2  –  Improved  mechanism  extended  to  other  migration-related  crises  and 
security crises 

The  current  emergency  response  mechanism  in  the  area  of  asylum  would  be  brought  under 
centralised management and extended to other migration-related crises (e.g. mixed flows). In 
order  to  allow  for  quick  decision-making  and  flexibility,  the  implementation  of  emergency 
measures  would  be  foreseen  in  an  Annual  Work  Programme  adopted  by  the  Commission 
following consultation of the relevant Committee. Within this Annual Work Programme, an 
envelope would be set aside for emergency actions which could then be implemented by the 
most  appropriate  actors  (national  authorities/agencies,  international  organisations,  civil 
society organisations). In order for this to be done quickly, framework agreements would have 
to be put in place with these actors beforehand. The duration of emergency measures would 
be extended from the current 6 to 18 months. A similar mechanism would be introduced in the 
area of internal security. 

Option  D.3  –  Improved  mechanism  extended  to  other  migration-related  crises  and 
inclusion of security under the EU Solidarity Fund 

The mechanism described under Option D.2 would be introduced in the area of migration but 
without extending it to the internal security area. Instead, crises and emergencies in the field 
of internal security could be included in the scope of the EU Solidarity Fund42, which was set 
up to respond in a rapid, efficient and flexible manner to come to the aid of any Member State 
in the event of a major natural disaster. 

8. 

IMPACTS OF THE POLICY OPTIONS 

The  impacts  of  the  policy  options  are  discussed  below.  No  environmental  impacts  were 
identified. It should also be noted that all activities that will be financed under the two Funds 
must respect the fundamental rights and freedoms of both citizens of the EU and other persons 
for  which  the  Union  has  responsibility.  Based  on  a  qualitative  assessment  of  the  expected 
performance  of  each  option  against  the  specific  objectives  and  the  baseline  scenario,  the 
options have been scored on a 7-point scale in order to identify the preferred option.  

42 

Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  2012/2002  of  11/11/2002  establishing  the  European  Union  Solidarity 
Fund, OJ L 311, p. 3–8 

EN 

36 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(cid:56)(cid:56)(cid:56) 

(cid:56)(cid:56) 

(cid:56) 

0 

√ 

Significant negative impact 

Medium negative impact 

Small negative impact 

No impact 

Small positive impact 

√√ 

Medium positive impact 

√√√ 

Significant positive impact 

Consideration has been given to the anticipated trends and challenges likely to be faced in the 
EU  home  affairs  policy  areas  post  2013,  stakeholder  opinion  and  the  experience  of 
interventions and activities in the home affairs area to date.  

8.1. 

Issue A – Funding priorities 

Option A.1 – 2013 level distribution (status quo) 

(i) Asylum including resettlement: Although funding  would remain  at  the  2013  level,  this 
constitutes  an  overall  reduction  of  7  percentage  points  compared  to  the  average  2007-2013 
level of funding for asylum. Such a decrease in support for the common asylum policy will 
make the creation of a ‘Europe of Asylum’ with common standards more difficult to achieve. 
Funding  levels  may  be  insufficient  to  allow  the  Member  States'  asylum  systems  to  cope 
adequately  with  complex  and  fluctuating  migration  flows  and  some  Member  States  would 
have to bear disproportionate costs for hosting refugees and asylum seekers. Although some 
activities  may  still  be  developed  by  non-governmental  and  international  organisations,  this 
would  likely  be  limited  since  many  such  organisations  benefit  from  EU  funding  for  these 
activities. Funding for resettlement operations would be insufficient. Although EASO would 
play an important role in assisting Member States, there would be insufficient resources for 
additional support to those Member States who have to cope with particular pressures on their 
asylum  systems.  Overall,  an  improvement  in  standards  can  be  expected  which  will  be 
beneficial to those seeking and in need of asylum or international protection. However, these 
effects are likely to fall short of all the needs in this area.  

(ii) Legal migration and integration of legally residing third-country nationals: The level 
of  funding  for  integration  measures  would  remain  constant  at  38%.  The  continuation  of 
funding  for  integration  measures  would  allow  Member  States  to  continue  setting-up 
national/regional strategies for the integration of third-country nationals or to strengthen the 
strategies already in place. Although this support is expected to lead to the better integration 
of third-country nationals into their receiving society and therefore to have positive impacts 
on social cohesion and the EU economy, the added value of funding for capacity building is 
likely to diminish as Member States progress in the implementation of their strategies. 

(iii)  Irregular  immigration  and  return:  Funding  would  remain  at  the  2013  level  and 
represent 38% of the AMF budget, an increase of 8 percentage points compared to the overall 
funding allocated to return operations in the period 2007-2013. EU funding would therefore 
continue  to  be  made  available  to  Member  States  to  build  return  management  capacity.  The 
current  activities  on  voluntary  return  and  forced  return,  assistance  to  the  target  groups, 

EN 

37 

   EN 

 
capacity  building  for  Member  States,  including  through  training  on  EU  return  standards, 
would  be  continued,  whilst  adding  support  for  detention  /  reception  capacity.  Although 
Member States would be better equipped to return the numbers of irregular migrants they are 
currently confronted with, the added value of further / continued capacity building is likely to 
diminish over time.  

(iv) External borders and visa: The maintenance of  the level of funding  at  the 2013 level 
(77%)  represents  an  increase  by  6  percentage  points  compared  to  the  overall  2007-2013 
funding level. This level of funding would allow 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 to be supported 
systematically  from  the  EU  budget  thereby  giving  concrete  expression  to  the  principles  of 
solidarity and responsibility-sharing. Additional activities would consist of financial support 
for the use of new technologies to create an integrated border management system at EU level 
(future  large-scale  IT  systems  such  as  the  Entry/Exit  System  and  Registered  Traveller 
Programme)  that  would  improve  border  security  and  generate  positive  economic  impacts 
because 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 would allow for 
efficiency gains and would have a positive impact on the EU economy. Similar impacts would 
result  from  support  for  local  border  traffic  arrangements  in  particular  border  areas  with 
increased  local  border  traffic  and  trade.  Financial  support  for  the  creation  of  EUROSUR 
would also lead to a reduction in irregular migration and cross-border crime and a decrease in 
the  loss  of  migrants'  lives  at  sea.  The  activities  of  Frontex  would  be  further  boosted  by  its 
capacity to have own equipment and to receive funding to co-operate more actively with third 
countries. 

(v)  Organised  crime,  terrorism  and  other  security-related  threats:  By  maintaining  the 
level of funding in the area of internal security at the 2013 level (23%). Although the level of 
funding would suffice to achieve the main priorities in the area of internal security and would 
therefore improve the security of the EU in the long-term, 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.  Despite  the  important  role  of  Europol,  practical 
cooperation between Member States and between Member States and neighbouring countries 
would not be optimised. 

(vi) External dimension: Although it would still be possible to support the limited types of 
activities in third countries that can be covered by the current financial instruments, such as 
reintegration  assistance  for  returnees  and  resettlement  of  refugees,  and  funding  to  third 
countries  would  still  be  provided  through  external  aid  instruments,  no  substantial  funding 
would be available for the external dimension of home affairs. This lack of adequate funding 
to support activities in third countries serving primary EU interests and needs would therefore 
remain 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.). For example, 
in  the  area  of  asylum,  insufficient  funds  would  be  available  to  provide  substantial  support 
Regional Protection Programmes.  

Option A.1 – 2013 level distribution (status quo) 

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 

Rating 

0 

EN 

38 

   EN 

 
Support the implementation of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) 

Reduce irregular migration and promote voluntary return 

Strengthen EU external borders 

Facilitate mobility across EU external borders 

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

Support  the  external  aspects  of  the  EU's  migration  and  internal  security  policies  (external 
dimension) 

Option A.2 – Average 2007-2013 distribution 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

(i)  Asylum  including  resettlement:  About  31%  of  funding  under  the  AMF  would  be 
allocated to asylum. As this constitutes an increase of 7 percentage points compared to 2013 
funding levels, this would allow the EU and the Member States to improve asylum standards, 
address complex and fluctuating migration flows and deal with disproportionate pressures on 
their  asylum  systems.  However,  it  will  not  be  possible  to  provide  sufficient  support  for 
setting-up  an  EU  resettlement  scheme  and  there  would  still  be  no  additional  financial 
incentive  to  the  Member  States  for  the  intra-EU  transfer  of  beneficiaries  of  international 
protection ('relocation'). Although improvements can therefore be expected for those seeking 
and in need of asylum or international protection, solidarity and responsibility-sharing at EU 
level would not be optimised. 

(ii) Legal migration and integration of legally residing third-country nationals: Support 
for integration measures would receive 38% of the AMF budget, the same as the 2013 level. 
The likely impacts are therefore expected to be similar to those under Option 1.  

(iii) Irregular immigration and return: Actions in the area of return would receive 30% of 
the AMF budget, representing a drop of about 8 percentage points compared to the 2013 level. 
A reduction in EU support for the return of irregular migrants and for the pooling of resources 
at EU level for return operations will increase the cost of these operations for Member States. 
The number of returns is therefore likely to decrease across Europe, resulting in an increased 
number of irregular migrants remaining in the EU. Cuts in EU funding for measures to control 
irregular  migration  flows  would  probably  lead  Member  States  to  cooperate  bilaterally  with 
countries  encountering  similar  challenges  or  with  third  countries  directly,  to  have  some 
leverage over future migrant numbers. Although Member  States  acting  in their own interest 
may reduce migrant flows to their own country, they may divert and increase flows to other 
Member States. Overall, the number of irregular migrants entering the EU could therefore be 
expected to increase as efforts at prevention and return would be less effective when Member 
States act alone. Because irregular immigrants are often employed in the illicit economy, they 
are  particularly  vulnerable  to  exploitation.  This  situation  would  likely  get  worse.  These 
impacts  could  be  mitigated  somewhat  through  increased  support  from  Frontex  for  return 
activities, in particular the pooling of resources. 

(iv) External borders and visa: 71% of the ISF budget would be allocated to support for the 
management of the EU external borders and visa, a reduction of 6 percentage points compared 
to the 2013 level. This reduction will necessitate a shift away from overall capacity building 
efforts  towards  specific  projects  such  as  the  implementation  of  EUROSUR  and/or  the 

EN 

39 

   EN 

 
development of new IT systems (Registered Traveller Programme, Entry/Exit System). This 
would  allow  some  new  developments  and  the  EU  and  Member  States  to  maintain  current 
levels  of  border  security.  However,  it  would  be  insufficient  to  support  the  notion  of  border 
control as a 'public service' carried out by Member States on behalf of and in the interest of 
the EU as a whole. Solidarity and responsibility-sharing would therefore not be optimised. 

(v) Organised crime, terrorism and other security-related threats: Internal security would 
be allocated 29% of the ISF budget, an increase of 6 percentage points compared to the 2013 
level.  By  strengthening  practical  cooperation  between  law  enforcement  authorities  through 
financial  support  for  joint  operations  (including  Joint  Investigation  Teams),  the  pooling  of 
resources,  the  exchange  of  information,  the  development  of  common  risk  analyses  and  the 
greater  use  of  financial  investigation  tools,  IT  systems  and  secure  communication  channels, 
Member States would be able to more effectively combat serious and organised crime in its 
many forms, at national and at EU level. In the area of cybercrime, support for a Cybercrime 
Centre would lead to reducing the incentive for this lucrative type of crime and its impact on 
the  European  economy.  Support  to  victims  of  terrorism  and  to  civil  society  organisations 
would expose and challenge violent extremist acts and propaganda, help de-legitimise and de-
glamorise terrorism and raise awareness about preventing violent radicalisation. EU agencies 
such as Europol and Cepol would be reinforced to play a key role in the implementation of 
practical cooperation measures. 

(vi) External dimension: As under Option 1, the external dimension of home affairs policies 
would  not  be  addressed  except  for  the  very  limited  actions  mentioned  before  that  can  be 
covered by the current financial instruments. The likely impacts are expected to be the same. 

Option A.2 – Average 2007-2013 distribution 

Rating 

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 the implementation of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) 

Reduce irregular migration and promote voluntary return 

Strengthen EU external borders 

Facilitate mobility across EU external borders 

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

Support  the  external  aspects  of  the  EU's  migration  and  internal  security  policies  (external 
dimension) 

A.3 – Re-distribution with external dimension component 

√√ 

√ 

(cid:56)(cid:56) 

(cid:56) 

√ 

√√ 

0 

Under this option, there would be a shift towards support for the external dimension of home 
affairs  policies  which  would  require  a  corresponding  shift  in  the  distribution  of  allocations 
within  the  two  Funds,  with  approximately  10%  earmarked  for  such  actions  under  the  AMF 
and 5% under the ISF. This funding will form part of a single envelope, implemented under 
centralised management, to be spent on the basis of an Annual Work Programme in view of 
policy developments or the situation in third countries. It is therefore not possible to provide a 
breakdown of the allocations for the external dimension per policy area.  

EN 

40 

   EN 

 
(i)  Asylum  including  resettlement:  The  increased  levels  of  funding  for  asylum  (12 
percentage points increase compared to the 2013 level) would not just allow the EU and the 
Member  States  to  improve  asylum  standards,  address  complex  and  fluctuating  migration 
flows and deal with disproportionate pressures on their asylum systems. It would also allow 
for the setting-up an EU resettlement scheme and to provide additional financial incentives to 
the  Member  States  for  the  intra-EU  transfer  of  beneficiaries  of  international  protection 
('relocation').  The  additional  funding  available  for  the  external  dimension  of  asylum  policy 
would  enable  the  EU  to  provide  more  comprehensive  support  for  Regional  Protection 
Programmes aimed at providing assistance to refugees and displaced persons in their region of 
origin, rather than seeking at all cost to come to the EU. Support would also be possible for a 
number of targeted activities in third countries to alleviate the burden on these countries and 
create an equitable sharing between the EU and Member States in finding durable solutions 
within the international refugee protection system such as the joint processing of requests for 
international protection in the regions of origin by Member States. The operational efficiency 
gains  thus  delivered  would  enable  a  more  effective  system  of  responsibility-sharing  for 
receiving and processing asylum seekers among Member States and third countries, and take 
into  account  in  a  more  strategic  manner  Member  States'  reception  capacity  in  allocating 
persons in need of international protection. Hence benefits would be found in the reduction of 
the disproportionate flows of refugees and asylum seekers to some Member States and a fairer 
sharing of responsibility among Member States.  

(ii)  Legal  migration  and  integration  of  third-country  nationals:  Although  the  level  of 
funding  for  integration  would  be  reduced  quite  significantly  compared  to  the  2013  level  (8 
percentage points), sufficient funding would be available to support Member States’ efforts to 
improve the integration of third-country nationals. However, with the reduction in the level of 
funding, there is a need to limit and concentrate funding on the areas where it reaches most 
directly  and  effectively  the  target  population  and  underscores  best  the  added  value  of  EU 
intervention  on  the  ground.  This  means  that,  with  capabilities  having  been  put  in  place  at 
national  level  in  the  period  2007-2013,  focus  would  shift  to  a  more  targeted  approach  in 
support  of  strategies  specifically  designed  to  promote  the  integration  of  third-country 
nationals, including refugees, asylum seekers and beneficiaries of international protection, at 
local level, implemented mainly by local or regional authorities and non-state actors. This will 
lead  to  a  more  effective  integration  of  third-country  nationals  into  their  local  communities. 
Beneficial impacts are expected on social cohesion and the EU economy in general and third-
country  nationals'  employment  opportunities in particular. In relation  to legal migration,  the 
additional  funding  available  for  the  external  dimension  would  allow  a  more  comprehensive 
support  to  the  implementation  of  Mobility  Partnerships.  Coupled  with  strengthened 
collaboration and cooperation of the EU with international organisations (e.g. IOM, ILO), this 
would  help  maximise  the  operational  synergies  between  EU  institutions  and  agencies,  the 
Member  States  and  these  international  organisations,  thereby  leading  to  a  greater 
effectiveness of funding in this area.  

(iii) Irregular immigration and return: The level of funding for return operations would be 
reduced  significantly  compared  to  the  2013  level  (15  percentage  points).  Return  operations 
would therefore have to be focus on assisted voluntary return (although forced return remains 
possible), reintegration measures and improving the detention capacity of Member States. The 
overall aim of this shift would be to concentrate resources on an area of intervention where 
there would be the highest impacts in terms of the size of the migratory flows affected, more 
coherence  between  Member  States  and  a  better  treatment  of  the  target  population.  There 
would  be  a  shift  from  overall  capacity  building  efforts,  including  training  activities  which 

EN 

41 

   EN 

 
were  supported  sufficiently  in  the  period  2008-2013,  towards  a  more  concentrated  effort  in 
favour of substantially improving the quality of case management by Member States, enabling 
Member  States  to  offer  the  means  to  provide  a  meaningful  incentive  for  repatriation  to  all 
potential  returnees  and  ensuring  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 before, during and after their return throughout the EU, in accordance with EU and 
human rights standards. Frontex would complement current return activities by increasing the 
coordination  of  joint  returns.  The  additional,  substantial  funding  for  the  external  dimension 
would support the implementation of readmission agreements to facilitate the swift return of 
irregular migrants and would therefore 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 Member 
States, the incidence of irregular entry into the EU and the need for funding return operations.  

(iv) External borders and visa: The level of funding would remain stable at the 2013 level. 
The  impacts  would  therefore  be  the  same  as  those  described  under  Option  1.  However, 
through  the  external  dimension  component,  EU  funding  would  also  be  available  to  support 
third  countries  to  link  their  systems  and  infrastructures  to  the  EU's  in  order  to  allow  for 
regular  exchange  of  information  and  to  improve  their  capabilities  to  co-operate  with  the 
border guards services of the Member States. These funding activities would complement and 
reinforce the activities of Frontex under its enhanced mandate under the amended Regulation 
to  develop  more  efficient  cooperation  between  Frontex  and  third  countries  on  border 
management.  This  is  likely  to  increase  the  detection  rates  of  irregular  migrants  or  prevent 
their entry into the EU and would therefore enhance the security of the EU's external borders, 
without necessitating additional investments by Member States and Frontex in equipment and 
infrastructure  and  whilst  making  additional  specific  investments  in  enhancing  the  efficiency 
of the integrated border management system as a whole, through the smart border package. 

(v) Organised  crime, terrorism and other security-related threats: The  share of funding 
allocated  to  internal  security  would  decrease  slightly  (3  percentage  points)  compared  to  the 
distribution in 2013. Nevertheless, this would still amount to an overall increase in financial 
resources for internal security compared to the resources allocated on average to security in 
the period 2007-2013. By focusing spending on a more limited number of areas (contrary to 
the current instruments which cover too wide a range of activities), the main priorities in the 
area  of  internal  security  can  be  achieved,  thereby  improving  the  security  of  the  EU  in  the 
long-term.  The  support  available  for  the  external  dimension  of  internal  security  policies, 
notably  the  prevention  of  and  fight  against  serious  and  organised  crime  (cybercrime, 
trafficking, drugs, international criminal networks etc.) and the prevention, preparedness and 
consequence  management  of  terrorism  and  other  security-related  threats  would  lead  to  an 
increased  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 effectiveness of interventions aimed at preventing and detecting potential terrorist 
and organised crime threats.  

Overall,  the  inclusion  of  a  sizeable  external  dimension  component  in  the  Asylum  and 
Migration Fund and Internal Security Fund will ensure a better protection of EU home affairs 
interests outside the EU, notably through support to actions starting in the EU and continuing 
in third countries or vice-versa. This will allow the EU not just to address the consequences of 
migration flows and organised crime and terrorism but seeks also to foster preventive action 
in third countries. The beneficial consequences of such action could include a reduction in the 

EN 

42 

   EN 

 
number  of  persons  entering  the  EU  in  need  of  asylum  or  other  forms  of  international 
protection and in the number of irregular migrants crossing the EU external borders, as well 
as 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, notably as regards 
highly  skilled  migrants,  seasonal  workers,  student  exchanges,  etc.  Such  funding  would  be 
fully coherent with the assistance provided through the external relations instruments which 
serve primarily the development needs and priorities of third countries. 

Option A.3 – Redistribution with external dimension component 

Rating 

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 the implementation of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) 

Reduce irregular migration and promote voluntary return 

Strengthen EU external borders 

Facilitate mobility across EU external borders 

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

Support  the  external  aspects  of  the  EU's  migration  and  internal  security  policies  (external 
dimension) 

8.2. 

Delivery mechanisms  

8.2.1. 

Issue B – Shared management  

√√ 

√√√ 

√√ 

√√ 

√√ 

√√ 

√√√ 

Option B.1 – Annual programming within multiannual framework (status quo) 

Maintaining annual programming within a multiannual framework would allow for the choice 
and implementation of actions aligned more to evolving EU priorities. However, the system is 
extremely  complex,  time-consuming  and  difficult  to  manage.  Due  to  the  reduction  of  the 
number of Funds to two, the number of annual programmes would be reduced by about 50% 
from around 700 in the period 2007-2013 to around 392 for the period 2014-2020. Although 
this constitutes an improvement, the administrative workload in relation to the management of 
these  annual  programmes  (adoption,  monitoring,  revisions,  closure  etc)  for  both  the 
Commission  and  Member  States  will  remain  heavy  because  of  the  accumulation  of 
overlapping programming and reporting obligations under the annual programme cycle, and 
would  be  disproportionate  to  the  volume  of  funding  channelled  through  the  Funds.  This 
option  also  does  not  allow  aligning  the  home  affairs  Funds  with  other  shared  management 
instruments. The closure procedure would also be incompatible with the procedure foreseen in 
the revised version of the Financial Regulation.  

Option B.1 – Annual programming within multiannual framework (status quo) 

Rating 

To improve the flexibility of the home affairs Funds  

To reduce administrative workload for all stakeholders 

0 

0 

EN 

43 

   EN 

 
Option B.2 – Multiannual programming 

Under  this  option,  there  would  be  a  total  of  around  56  multiannual  programmes  to  manage 
(depending  on  the  number  of  Member  States  and  associated  countries  that  will  participate). 
The  use  of  multiannual  programming  only  will  significantly  reduce  the  administrative 
workload  for  both  the  Commission  and  the  Member  States  and  the  Schengen  associated 
countries as they will not have to manage 392 annual programmes. In addition, this approach 
would bring the programming of the two home affairs Funds in line with that of other shared 
management  instruments,  thereby  increasing  coherence  and  clarity  for  all  stakeholders. 
Although  policy  priorities  and  objectives  would  be  set  within  a  more  flexible,  multiannual 
framework, the nature of home affairs policies is often such that there is a continuous need to 
address changes in the situations in the Member States and in third countries (migration flows, 
security  threats),  as  well  as  technological  advances,  increases  in  passengers  flows; 
developments  in  the  Schengen  area.  Despite  the  increased  flexibility  it  offers,  multiannual 
programming does not adequately address the specificities of the home affairs area.  

Option B.2 – Multiannual programming 

To improve the flexibility of the home affairs Funds  

To reduce administrative workload for all stakeholders 

Rating 

√√ 

√√ 

Option B.3 – Multiannual programming with policy dialogue 

As under option B.2, there would be a total of around 56 multiannual programmes, resulting 
in  a  significant  reduction  in  workload  (without  392  annual  programmes  to  manage).  The 
senior  level  policy  dialogue  which  would  take  place  at  the  start  of  the  2014-2020 
programming  period  would  focus  on  policy  priorities,  objectives  and  results  to  be  obtained 
and  would  therefore  constitute  a  type  of  'partnership  contract'  in  the  home  affairs  area.  The 
introduction  of  a  more  results-driven  approach  will  enable  the  Commission  to  drive  the 
process of reviewing with the Member States their objectives and targets in accordance with 
EU priorities and interests whilst taking into account the specific needs and circumstances in 
the  individual  Member  States.  Because  of  the  combination  of  simplification  and  results-
oriented programming, this approach constitutes a major improvement on the status quo.  

Option B.3 – Multiannual programming with policy dialogue 

To improve the flexibility of the home affairs Funds  

To reduce administrative workload for all stakeholders 

8.2.2. 

Issue C – Centralised management (direct and indirect)  

Option C.1 – Status quo 

Rating 

√√√ 

√√√ 

In  view  of  the  net  budget  increase  for  home  affairs  policies  in  the  period  2014-2020, 
maintaining centralised management for the implementation of procurement and grants would 
result in significant amounts being spent this way, in particular in relation to internal security, 
where centralised management would remain the main delivery mechanism. Without efforts 
to simplify rules and streamline procedures, this will generate an even bigger increase in the 
administrative  workload  for  both  the  Commission  and  final  beneficiaries.  This,  in  turn,  is 
likely to result in an increased risk of errors. Cuts in public spending at EU and national level 

EN 

44 

   EN 

 
are expected to compound this situation, as a reduction of human resources to manage these 
funds and may increase this risk further. 

Option C.1 – Status quo 

To improve the flexibility of the home affairs Funds  

To better support specific EU objectives and activities 

To reduce administrative workload for all stakeholders 

Option C.2 – Procurement only 

Rating 

0 

0 

0 

Reducing  centralised  management  to  spending  on  procurement  only  would  decrease  the 
resources  needed  on  the  part  of  the  Commission  to  manage  the  implementation  of  grants. 
Although  funding  for  Member  States'  national  programmes  would  continue  under  shared 
management, there would be no tools to support policy-led, innovative actions (such as pilot 
projects),  to  stimulate  transnational  co-operation  (especially  in  the  area  of  security)  or  to 
directly support and reinforce the role of civil society in implementing home affairs policies 
(especially in the area of migration). This option is therefore incompatible with demands from 
civil  society  organisations  and  international  organisations  for  increased  support  for  their 
interventions.  As  emergency  response  spending  would  be  kept  under  shared  management, 
there would be no improvement in the EU's ability to react quickly and effectively in the case 
of crises.  

Option C.2 – Procurement only 

To improve the flexibility of the home affairs Funds  

To better support specific EU objectives and activities 

To reduce administrative workload for all stakeholders 

Rating 

√√ 

(cid:56)(cid:56) 

√√√ 

Option C.3 – Improved and diversified centralised management 

The use of diversified and improved centralised management would allow the Commission to 
maintain  grants  to  support  innovative,  policy-driven  actions  and  to  ensure  that  these  are 
implemented more effectively and efficiently by the most appropriate actors in the field, be it 
non-governmental  organisations,  agencies,  international  organisations,  Member  States  etc. 
Although this change in approach may initially lead to a moderate increase in administrative 
workload for the Commission because of the need to put in place contribution agreements and 
framework  partnerships,  the  use  of  such  partnerships  and  agreements  will  in  the  long-term 
lead to better relations with key stakeholders and an overall reduction in workload for both the 
Commission and these stakeholders. Using the indirect management mode to enable the home 
affairs agencies to implement specific tasks in accordance with priorities as identified by the 
Commission,  including  in  third  countries,  is  expected  to  improve  synergies  and  coherence. 
Recourse  to  fewer  but  better  organised  open  calls  for  proposals  will  also  considerably 
decrease the administrative workload for the Commission and beneficiaries and speed up the 
grant application process. This option reconciles the need for more sustained support for the 
interventions of international organisations with the need to support the efforts of civil society 
organisations without eliminating competition for funding. 

Option C.3 – Improved and diversified centralised management 

Rating 

EN 

45 

   EN 

 
To improve the flexibility of the home affairs Funds  

To better support specific EU objectives and activities 

To reduce administrative workload for all stakeholders 

8.2.3. 

Issue D – Emergency response mechanism 

√√√ 

√√√ 

√ 

Option D.1 – Status quo (mechanism for migration under shared management) 

The continuation of the current emergency response mechanism under shared management in 
the area of migration would not improve the EU's ability to react quickly and effectively to 
crises. The time needed to release funding would remain too long and the available funding 
would be too limited to have a significant impact. In the absence of an emergency response 
mechanism in the area of internal security, the EU will also not be able to react appropriately 
to  crisis  situations  such  as  terrorist  attacks  or  large-scale  cyber  attacks,  which  require  an 
immediate and flexible response. 

Option D.1 – Status quo (mechanism for migration under shared management) 

Rating 

To improve EU emergency response in the area of migration 

To improve EU emergency response in the area of security 

To reduce administrative workload for all stakeholders 

0 

0 

0 

Option  D.2  –  Improved  mechanism  and  extension  to  other  migration-related  and 
security crises 

Bringing  the  emergency  response  mechanism  in  the  area  of  migration  under  centralised 
management would significantly speed up the time needed to release emergency funding and 
would allow the Commission to choose the most appropriate implementing partner for such 
funding (national authorities/agencies, international organisations, civil society organisations). 
Extending the duration of such emergency measures to 18 months will enable these actors to 
address  more  completely  the  continuing  needs  arising  from  emergency  interventions. 
Extending the mechanism to include migration crises other than those that are asylum-related 
will  allow  the  EU  to  also  respond  to  mixed  flows.  The  inclusion  of  a  similar  emergency 
response mechanism in the Internal Security Fund will enable the EU to also react quickly and 
effectively to crises in the area of internal security. 

Option  D.2  –  Improved  mechanism  and  extension  to  other  migration-related  and 
security crises 

Rating 

To improve EU emergency response in the area of migration 

To improve EU emergency response in the area of security 

To reduce administrative workload for all stakeholders 

√√√ 

√√√ 

√√ 

Option  D.3  –  Improved  mechanism  extended  to  other  migration-related  crises  and 
inclusion of security under the EU Solidarity Fund 

EN 

46 

   EN 

 
The impacts of an improved emergency response mechanism under centralised management 
for migration-related emergencies would be as described under Option D.2. The extension of 
the scope of the EU Solidarity Fund to include emergencies resulting from man-made crises 
in  the  area  of  internal  security  would  avoid  the  need  to  create  a  specific  mechanism  in  the 
Internal  Security  Fund.  Although  this  could  be  expected  to  lead  to  some  initial  savings  in 
terms of administrative workload for the Commission, these are unlikely to be significant. The 
extension of the scope of the existing instrument beyond natural disasters may lead to a loss in 
focus and funding available for such disasters. For this reason, a prior proposal to include also 
man-made disasters in the scope of the EU Solidarity Fund was blocked in Council. 

Option  D.3  –  Improved  mechanism  extended  to  other  migration-related  crises  and 
inclusion of security under the EU Solidarity Fund 

Rating 

To improve EU emergency response in the area of migration 

To improve EU emergency response in the area of security 

To reduce administrative workload for all stakeholders 

9. 

COMPARING THE OPTIONS 

9.1. 

Issue A – Funding priorities 

√√√ 

√√ 

√√ 

The assessment of the distribution of funding within each of the two Funds highlighted that in 
relation  to  asylum,  Option  2  ('average  2007-2013')  constitutes  an  improvement  on  Option  1 
(Status  quo  '2013  level')  but  would  fall  short  of  providing  sufficient  financial  incentive  for 
setting  up  an  EU-resettlement  scheme  and  the  intra-EU  transfer  of  beneficiaries  of 
international protection. Only the distribution proposed under Option 3 ('Redistribution with 
external  dimension  component')  would  enable 
therefore  optimise 
responsibility-sharing and fairness at EU level in this area. 

this  and  would 

The  spending  level  proposed  for  the  fight  against  irregular  immigration  and  return  under 
Option  1  would  allow  Member  States  to  continue  return  management  capacity  building  in 
particular  detention  /  reception  capacity.  Nevertheless,  the  cut  in  spending  proposed  under 
Options  2  and  3  compared  to  2007-2013  levels  would  not  jeopardise  support  for  Member 
States'  basic  return  operations.  Rather,  it  would  encourage  them  to  focus  their  efforts  on 
actions which would have the biggest impact of the size of the migratory flows affected, more 
coherence between Member States and a better treatment of the target population.  

In  relation  to  support  for  integration  of  third-country  nationals,  there  is  no  significant 
difference  in  the  distribution  of  funding  between  Options  1  and  2.  Although  Option  3 
envisages  a  reduction  in  such  support,  due  to  the  reduced  need  for  and  added  value  of 
capacity-building  over  time,  the  proposed  level  would  be  sufficient  to  support  integration 
strategies specifically designed to promote integration at local and regional level.  

All  three  options  would  enable  funding  for  important  new  developments  towards  an 
integrated  border  management  system,  notably  in  relation  to  the  implementation  of 
EUROSUR  and  the  development  of  innovative  IT  systems.  Contrary  to  Options  1  and  3, 
funding under Option 2 would be insufficient to systematically support the notion of border 
control as a 'public service' carried out by Member States for and on behalf of other Member 
States and the EU as a whole.  

EN 

47 

   EN 

 
In relation to the fight against organised crime, terrorism and other security-related risks, the 
level  of  funding  proposed  under  Option  2  is  the  highest  and  would  therefore  allow  for 
comprehensive  support  to  transnational  practical  cooperation  between  law  enforcement 
authorities,  the  pooling  of  resources,  the  exchange  of  information,  the  development  of 
common tools (such as IT systems and secure communication channels) and risk analyses, as 
well  as  preventive  actions  such  as  support  for  victims,  awareness  raising  and  anti-
radicalisation  efforts.  Nevertheless,  the  reduced  support  proposed  under  Options  1  and  3 
would be sufficient to achieve the main priorities in the area of the internal security.  

Options 1 and  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 sizeable external dimension component proposed under Option 3 would have a 
significant  "preventive"  impact  on  all  home  affairs  policies  and  would  therefore  reduce  the 
overall level of funding needed for the internal aspects of these policies.  

The table below presents a comparison of the rating of the options for Issue A: 

Issue A – Funding priorities 

Option 1 – 
Status quo 
'2013 levels' 

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  the  implementation  of  the  Common  European 
Asylum System (CEAS) 

Reduce irregular migration 

Strengthen EU external borders 

Facilitate mobility across EU external borders 

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

To  support  the  external  aspects  of  the  EU's  migration  and 
internal security policies (external dimension) 

Overall rating 

9.2. 

Issues B, C and D – Delivery mechanisms 

Issue B – Shared management  

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Option 2 – 
Status quo 
'average 
2007-2013 
levels' 

Option 3 – 
'Redistribu-
tion with 
external 
dimension' 

√√ 

√√ 

√ 

(cid:56)(cid:56) 

(cid:56) 

√ 

√√ 

0 

√ 

√√√ 

√√ 

√√ 

√√ 

√ 

√√√ 

√√ 

Option  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  2  would  constitute  a  significant  improvement  on  the 
status quo as it would reduce the number of programmes to be managed by the Commission 

EN 

48 

   EN 

 
and the Member States. Alignment with other EU instruments under shared management, in 
particular  the  Funds  covered  by  the  Common  Strategic  Framework,  would  also  increase 
coherence  and  clarity  for  all  stakeholders.  Despite  offering  increased  flexibility,  Option  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  3  would  address  this  need  and  would  also  allow  for  a  more  results-driven  shared 
management.  

Issue B – Shared management 

Option 1 – 
Status quo 

Option 2 – 
Multiannual 
programming 

To improve the flexibility of the home affairs Funds  

To reduce administrative workload for all stakeholders 

Overall rating 

0 

0 

0 

√√ 

√√ 

√√ 

Issue C – Centralised management (direct and indirect) 

Option 3 – 
Multiannual 
programming 
with policy 
dialogue 

√√√ 

√√√ 

√√√ 

Of the three options considered, Option 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  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.  Although  it  would 
carry a higher administrative workload than Option 2, Option 3 would lead to a more targeted, 
to 
less  resource-intensive  and  diversified  centralised  management 
framework  partnerships,  contribution  agreements,  indirect  management  and  a  limited  use  of 
improved open calls for proposals.  

through  recourse 

Issue C – Centralised management 

To improve the flexibility of the home affairs Funds  

To better achieve specific EU objectives and activities 

To reduce administrative workload for all stakeholders 

Overall rating 

Issue D – Emergency response mechanism 

Option 1 – 
Status quo 

Option 2 – 
Procurement 
only 

Option 3 – 
Improved, 
diversified 
centralised 
management 

0 

0 

0 

0 

√√ 

(cid:56)(cid:56) 

√√√ 

√ 

√√√ 

√√√ 

√ 

√√ 

Option 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.  Option  2  would  constitute  a 
marked improvement on the status quo because it would allow for a rapid release of funding 
in  case  of  migration-related  crises  (not  just  asylum)  and  in  addition,  it  would  include  a 
dedicated  response  mechanism  in  the  Internal  Security  Fund.  Although  Option  3  also 
constitutes an improvement on Option 1 because it envisages a faster release of funds under 

EN 

49 

   EN 

 
centralised  management  in  the  area  of  migration,  the  extension  of  the  scope  of  the  EU 
Solidarity Fund to (man-made) 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.  

Issue D – Emergency response mechanism 

Option 1 – 
Status quo 

Option 2 – 
Improved 
mechanism 
(migration) 
+ internal 
security 

Option 3 – 
Improved 
mechanism 
(migration) + 
EU Solidarity 
Fund 

Improve EU emergency response in the area of migration 

Improve EU emergency response in the area of security 

To reduce administrative workload for all stakeholders 

Overall rating 

0 

0 

0 

0 

√√√ 

√√√ 

√√ 

√√√ 

√√√ 

√√ 

√√ 

√√ 

10. 

THE PREFERRED OPTION(S) 

On  the  basis  of  the  above  assessment,  Option  A.3  ('Redistribution  with  external  dimension 
component') emerged as the preferred option for the distribution of resources within the two 
Funds.  

In relation to the delivery mechanisms, the preferred option would consist of a combination of 
Option B.3 ('Multiannual programming with policy dialogue'), Option C.3 ('Procurement and 
indirect management') and D.2 ('Improved mechanism and extension to migration-related and 
security crises'). Their implementation is discussed in more detail below. 

10.1. 

Implementation of the preferred option(s) 

Shared  management  will  be  the  main  management  method  for  delivering  home  affairs 
funding as it would be extended to include internal security. This will be accompanied by a 
move  away  from  the  current  system  of  annual  programming  towards  a  multi-annual 
programming approach with a policy dialogue. This is 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  the Commission,  the Member States 
and the beneficiaries. The procedures and systems that will be set-up for the two home affairs 
Funds will be aligned to the maximum possible extent with the arrangements that will apply 
to the other EU instruments under shared management, in particular the Funds covered by the 
Common Strategic Framework. Ideally, a common Committee will be established for the two 
Funds and each Member State would be obliged to designate a central Responsible Authority 
so as to ensure that there is a single interlocutor for the Commission. This would also allow 
the Member States to focus on an integrated and output-oriented approach.  

Despite  the  increased  use  of  shared  management,  some  types  of  actions  are  usually  best 
implemented  under  direct  management,  such  as  transnational  actions,  innovative  projects, 
support  for  civil  society,  studies  and  events  and  actions  with  an  external  dimension  and/or 
requiring the quick mobilisation of EU funds. Although the overall amount managed by the 
Commission in centralised management would therefore remain quite high, at a time of zero 
growth  in  the  human  and  administrative  resources  available  to  the  Commission,  future 

EN 

50 

   EN 

 
centralised management should not be primarily implemented through calls for proposals but 
in a more flexible and efficient way by delegating tasks to existing EU agencies, international 
organisations  (contribution  agreements)  and  civil  society  (framework  partnerships).  This 
would entail the elaboration and adoption of an Annual Work Programme by the Commission 
which would include the possibility of funding for emergency response, external dimension, 
transnational  and  particularly  innovative  actions.  These  actions  would  then  be  implemented 
by  the  most  appropriate  actor(s)  (agencies,  international  organisations  and  civil  society 
organisations). Access to  funding will  also  be improved  through streamlining of application 
procedures, the introduction of more favourable payment modalities for starting projects and 
the reduction of administrative burden.  

The rules on eligibility of expenditure under shared management closely follow the eligibility 
rules of the Funds covered by the Common Strategic Framework. As such, the eligibility of 
expenditure will be determined on the basis of national rules, subject to a limited number of 
common,  simple  principles.  In  relation  to  the  eligibility  of  expenditure,  these  common 
principles  will  provide  that,  in  addition  to  the  reimbursement  of  eligible  costs  actually 
incurred  and  flat-rate  financing  for  indirect  costs  (already  possible  under  the  current  home 
affairs  instruments),  grants  for  which  the  support  from  the  EU  budget  does  not  exceed 
€50.000 will take the form of standard scales of unit costs and lump sums.  

Moreover, in response to demands from stakeholders, the provisions in relation to the use of 
flat-rates for indirect costs will be expanded to better meet the needs of beneficiaries. Instead 
of capping indirect costs at a maximum of 7% of eligible direct costs, as is currently the case 
under the home affairs Funds, the new rules will allow indirect costs to be calculated as a flat 
rate of up to 20% of eligible direct costs, where the rate is calculated on the basis of a fair, 
equitable  and  verifiable  calculation  method  or  a  method  applied  under  schemes  for  grants 
funded  entirely  by  the  Member  State  for  a  similar  type  of  action/project  or  beneficiary. 
Alternatively, indirect costs can also be calculated as a flat rate of up to 15% of eligible direct 
staff costs (so well adapted to projects where staff costs are the main costs) or as a flat rate 
applied to eligible direct costs based on existing methods and corresponding rates, applicable 
in Union policies for a similar type of action/project and beneficiary. In relation to centralised 
management, similar flexibility will be included in the Financial Regulation and will be used 
as much as possible. 

The role of the home affairs agencies will also be enhanced as they would implement specific 
tasks  in  accordance  with  priorities  and  guidelines  set  by  the  Commission,  as  appropriate. 
Making  more  effective  use  of  the  competences  and  expertise  of  the  home  affairs  agencies, 
will  necessarily  imply  recourse  to  the  indirect  management  mode  which  allows  the 
Commission to entrust the agencies with the implementation of specific operational tasks in 
the  framework  of  their  missions  and  in  complementarity  with  their  work  programmes.  This 
would  be  the  case  for  actions  which  are  of  an  ad  hoc  nature  and  where  their  successful 
implementation  relies  on  the  operational  and  technical  expertise  of  the  agencies.  It  is 
important  to  note  that  funding  would  not  be  automatically  distributed  to  the  agencies  at  the 
beginning of the period 2014-2020, but would only allocated to them to implement specific 
and  ad-hoc  operational  tasks  in  accordance  with  priorities  as  identified  by  the  Commission, 
including in third countries. In combination with a stabilisation of the agencies' core budgets, 
this would give the Commission greater control over their activities (despite their regulatory 
character) and act as an incentive for the agencies to align their activities to EU policies. 

A  more  flexible  emergency  response  mechanism  in  the  area  of  migration  management 
(extension beyond the current mechanism for asylum), the design of an emergency response 

EN 

51 

   EN 

 
mechanism  to  address  specific  border  security  threats  complementary  to  and  beyond  the 
current  models,  and  the  extension  of  the  mechanism  to  emergencies  in  the  area  of  internal 
security in particular will also be important improvements.  

10.2.  Other organisational aspects of the future home affairs Funds 

The  preferred  option  will  be  implemented  in  full  coherence  with  the  decision  to  reduce  the 
number of financial instruments  in the home affairs area to two by creating an Asylum and 
Migration Fund and an Internal Security Fund. Reducing the number of Funds will increase 
the visibility of home affairs funding and make it easier to fund actions which at present are 
on  the  nexus  between  Funds.  For  example,  support  for  the  improvement  of  reception  and 
detention centres is currently spread across the European Refugee Fund and the Return Fund, 
depending  on  the  type  of  target  group  that  will  benefit  from  the  improvements  (asylum 
seekers  or  those  awaiting  return).  By  bringing  support  for  such  measures  together  under  a 
single  Asylum  and  Migration  Fund,  it  will  be  possible  to  create  synergies  and  ultimately, 
economies of scale.  

Care  is  also  taken  to  avoid  overlaps  with  funding  provided  by  other  EU  instruments.  For 
example,  in  relation  to  the  integration  of  third-country  nationals  the  European  Social  Fund 
will support measures on access to the labour market whereas the AMF will support measures 
such as civic orientation courses, participation in social and civic life, equal access to services, 
etc.  In  relation  to  the  external  dimension,  the  home  affairs  Funds  will  provide  support  for 
actions which cater primarily for EU interests and objectives, have a direct impact in the EU 
and its Member States and to ensure continuity with activities implemented in the territory of 
the EU. This funding will be designed and implemented in coherence with EU external action 
and foreign policy. It is not intended to support actions which are development oriented and 
will  complement,  when  appropriate,  the  financial  assistance  provided  through  external  aid 
instruments. While those instruments either support beneficiary countries development needs 
or  support  general  EU  political  interests  with  strategic  partners,  home  affairs  funds  will 
support  specific  actions  in  third  countries  in  the  interest  of  EU  migration  policy  and  EU 
internal  security  objectives.  They  will  therefore  fill  a  specific  gap  and  will  contribute  to 
completing  the  toolbox  at  the  disposal  of  the  Union.  Annex  6  provides  an  overview  of  the 
complementarity of the two home affairs Funds with other future EU financial instruments.  

Another key feature of the future home affairs funding architecture will be the creation of a 
horizontal  instrument,  common  to  both  the  Asylum  and  Migration  Fund  and  the  Internal 
Security  Fund.  This  instrument  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  home  affairs  instrument  their  funding  comes 
from, thereby facilitating their understanding of and access to the Funds. 

Box 1: Legal aspects of the creation of the two new home affairs Funds 

Four legislative proposals are needed to establish, in accordance with the Treaty, two Funds which can cover the 
policy objectives of migration and security in a comprehensive manner, and to properly underpin the operation 
of the two Funds through a common and simple framework.  

The Asylum and Migration Fund will support activities and measures related to (1) asylum; (2) legal migration 
and integration; (3) irregular migration and return. The Fund will be established through a Regulation based on 
Articles 78(2) and 79(2) and (4) TFEU.  

EN 

52 

   EN 

 
The  Internal  Security  Fund  will  support  activities  and  measures  related  to  (1)  border  management  and  the 
common policy on visa; (2) police co-operation, crime prevention and fight against serious cross-border crime, 
crisis  management  and  critical  infrastructure  protection.  Unlike  the  Asylum  and  Migration  Fund,  due  to  the 
Treaty provisions that apply to the home affairs area, in particular different voting rules in the Council stemming 
from  variable  geometry  pursuant  to  Protocols  19  (on  the  Schengen  acquis),  21  (on  the  position  of  the  United 
Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of Freedom, Security and Justice) and 22 (and 22 (on the position of 
Denmark,  including  in relation  to  Title  V, part  three of  the  Treaty),  the  creation  of  the  Internal Security  Fund 
requires the adoption of two separate legislative instruments which jointly establish the ISF:  

• 

• 

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

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

In  line  with  the  general  objective  of  simplification,  the  two  Funds  should  function  as  much  as  possible  with 
identical  delivery  mechanisms  and  have  a  structure  that  resembles  as  closely  as  possible  that  of  other  EU 
financial  instruments  under  shared  management,  in  particular  those  covered  by  the  Common  Strategic 
Framework.  This  is  achieved  through  the  creation  of  a  horizontal  instrument,  common  to  the  Asylum  and 
Migration Fund and the two components of the Internal Security Fund, laying down the principles of assistance, 
programming  and  reporting  mechanisms,  rules  on  financial  management  and  control,  and  the  monitoring  and 
evaluation provisions applicable to both Funds.  

11. 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

Providing  for  a  robust  monitoring  and  evaluation  mechanism  is  crucial  to  ensure  that  the 
provisions  discussed  in  the  preferred  option  are  implemented.  Hence,  the  monitoring  and 
evaluation proposals made here relate to the performance of the preferred option.  

Monitoring  and  evaluation  arrangements  will  need  to  be  provided  for  in  the  legislative 
proposals for the future financial instruments. In view of the duration of the next Multiannual 
Financial Framework (7 years), provisions will need to be made for a mid-term review. The 
timing  of  such  a  review  will  not  be  fixed  in  advance  as  experience  with  the  review  of  the 
Funds  under  the  General  Programme  Solidarity  and  Management  of  Migration  Flows  has 
shown  that  this  may  lead  to  the  results  of  the  review  not  being  available  when  necessary. 
Provision will also  be  made for an  ex-post evaluation. The Commission will be responsible 
for the mid-term review and ex-post evaluation. 

For  the  funds  implemented  under  shared  management,  the  revised  Financial  Regulation 
provides  that  each  Member  State  will  be  required  to  submit  an  annual  management 
declaration  on  the  use  of  EU  funds  for  the  reference  period.  In  order  to  keep  reporting 
requirements  for  the  Member  States  to  a  minimum,  it  is  proposed  that  this  also  be  the 
occasion  on  which  they  will  have  to  report  on  their  progress  in  the  implementation  of  their 
multiannual programmes. The Commission will be responsible for analyzing and following-
up  the  annual  reports  submitted  by  the  Member  States,  if  necessary  through  on-the-spot 
monitoring visits.  

In  relation  to  centralized  management,  the  beneficiaries  (Member  States,  international 
organizations,  non-governmental  organizations  etc.)  will  be  required  to  report  on  the 
implementation  of  the  actions  supported  with  grants  from  the  EU  budget  for  review  by  the 
Commission, including a statement of the expenditure incurred. If deemed necessary, on-the-
spot visits will be carried out to monitor progress. 

EN 

53 

   EN 

 
Although it is important to be able to monitor progress towards the specific objectives set out 
earlier  and  to  measure  the  results  and  impacts  achieved  by  EU  home  affairs  spending, 
migration  and  security  are  areas  which  do  not  lend  themselves  to  the  definition  and  use  of 
precise  indicators  because  they  are  essentially  driven  by  external  factors  or  difficult  to 
monitor.  For  this  reason,  the  evaluation  and  monitoring  arrangements  proposed  for  the  two 
Funds are based on both quantitative and qualitative assessments (including risk assessments) 
which  take  into  account  a  range  of  indicators.  These  indicators  will  be  developed  in 
consultation  with  the  Member  States  to  track  the  performance  of  home  affairs  funding  in 
terms  of  inputs,  outputs  and,  where  possible,  outcomes.  Annex  8  provides  examples  of 
possible indicators. 

As  stated  earlier,  this  impact  assessment  also  constitutes  the  ex-ante  evaluation  required  for 
programmes or activities occasioning expenditure from the EU Budget. Information about the 
volume  of  appropriations,  human  resources  and  other  administrative  expenditure  to  be 
allocated  and  their  respect  of  the  cost-effectiveness  principle  are  included  in  the  legislative 
financial statement which accompanies the legislative proposals. 

EN 

54 

   EN 

 
ANNEX 1 – LIST OF ACRONYMS 

AMF 

CBRN 

CEAS 

Asylum and Migration Fund 

Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear 

Common European Asylum System 

CeCLADM 

Centre de Coordination pour la Lutte Anti-drogue en Méditerranée 

CEPOL 

European Police College 

CIA 

CIPS 

COSI 

DCI  

EASO 

EBF 

EDF 

Committee on Immigration and Asylum 

Prevention,  Preparedness  and  Consequence  Management  of  Terrorism  and 
other Security-related risks (Specific Programme) 

Standing  Committee  on  Operational  Cooperation  on  Internal  Security 
(Council) 

Development and Cooperation Instrument  

European Asylum Support Office 

External Borders Fund 

European Development Fund 

EEAS 

European External Action Service 

EES 

EIF 

Entry-Exit System 

European Fund for the Integration of Third Country Nationals 

EMCDDA 

European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction 

EMN 

EOS 

ERF 

ERDF 

ESF 

European Migration Network 

European Organisation for Security 

European Refugee Fund 

European Regional Development Fund 

European Social Fund 

EUROPOL 

European Law Enforcement Agency 

EU 

European Union 

EUROSUR 

European border surveillance system 

EN 

55 

   EN 

 
FP8 

Eighth  Framework  Programme 
Development 

for  Research  and  Technological 

FRONTEX 

European  agency  for  the  Management  of  Operational  Cooperation  at  the 
External Borders of the Member States of the EU 

GAM 

GDP 

ICT 

ILO 

INTI 

IOM 

ISEC 

ISF 

ISS 

IT 

JHA 

JIT 

JRC 

LIBE 

Global Approach to Migration 

Gross Domestic Product 

Information and Communications Technology 

International Labour Organisation 

Integration of Third-Country Nationals (Preparatory Actions) 

International Organisation for Migration 

Prevention of and Fight against Crime (Specific Programme) 

Internal Security Fund 

Internal Security Strategy 

Information Technology 

Justice and Home Affairs 

Joint Investigation Team 

Joint Research Centre 

Committee  on  Civil  Liberties,  Justice  and  Home  Affairs  (European 
Parliament) 

MAOC-N 

Maritime Analysis and Operation Centre – Narcotics 

MFF 

MS 

NGO 

Multi-Annual Financial Framework 

Member State 

Non-Governmental Organisation 

OCTA 

Organised Crime Threat Assessment 

ODA 

PNR 

RETURN 

Official Development Assistance 

Passenger Name Records 

Financial  Instrument  for  Return  Management  in  the  area  of  Migration 
(Preparatory Action) 

EN 

56 

   EN 

 
RF 

RPP 

RTP 

European Return Fund 

Regional Protection Programme 

Registered Traveller Programme 

SIENA 

Standards and Interoperability for eInfrastructure implemeNtation initiAtive 

SIS 

SURE 

TEU 

TFEU 

TFTS 

UN 

Schengen Information System 

Policy Challenges Committee (European Parliament) 

Treaty on European Union 

Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 

Terrorist Financing Tracking System 

United Nations 

UNHCR 

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees 

VIS 

Visa Information System 

EN 

57 

   EN 

 
ANNEX 2 – GLOSSARY 

Migration 

Third-country  national  means  any  person  who  is  not  a  citizen  of  the  Union  within  the 
meaning of Article 20(1) of the Treaty. 

Irregular immigration means the movement of a person to a new place of residence or transit 
using irregular or illegal means, without valid documents or carrying false documents.  

EU  Global  Approach  to  Migration:  The  EU  Global  Approach  to  Migration  (GAM)  can  be 
defined  as  the  external  dimension  of  the  European  Union's  migration  policy.  It  is  based  on 
genuine  partnership  with  third  countries,  it  is  fully  integrated  into  the  EU's  other  external 
policies,  and  addresses  all  migration  and  asylum  issues  in  a  comprehensive  and  balanced 
manner.  Adopted  in  2005,  it  illustrates  the  ambition  of  the  European  Union  to  establish  an 
inter-sectoral  framework  to  manage  migration  in  a  coherent  way  through  political  dialogue 
and close practical cooperation with third countries. The GAM is build around three essential 
dimensions,  namely  the  management  of  legal  migration,  the  fight  against  irregular 
immigration, and fostering the links between migration and development. Through these three 
pillars the GAM encompasses all the dimensions of the migration agenda, including legal and 
irregular migration, the fight against trafficking in human beings and smuggling of migrants, 
asylum and international protection, enhancing migrant rights and maximizing the development 
impact of migration.  

Mobility  Partnership:  Mobility  Partnerships  (MP)  constitute  the  most  innovative  and 
sophisticated tool of the Global Approach to Migration (GAM) and contribute significantly to 
its operationalisation. Mobility Partnerships aim to be comprehensive and balanced, offering 
actions  in  all  three  major  areas  of  the  GAM:  promotion  of  the  links  between  migration  and 
development,  facilitation  of  legal  migration  and  measures  aiming  at  curbing  irregular 
migration. They take the form of political statements (declarations of intention), signed by the 
Union,  the  Presidency  of  the  EU,  interested  Member  States  and  the  respective  partner  third 
country. These statements are formulated in non-binding terms, which not only facilitates its 
establishment but also ensures that Mobility Partnerships are flexible tools easily adaptable to 
changing  needs.  The  partners  join  on  a  voluntary  basis  and,  once  signed,  the  Mobility 
Partnerships  remain  open  to  the  participation  of  other  interested  Member  States.  These 
Partnerships provide a useful platform for the development of different actions aiming either 
at  informing  potential  migrants  about  legal  migration  opportunities,  supporting  capacity 
building  of  employment  agencies  in  the  partner  country,  promotion  of  circular  migration 
schemes43,  reintegration  of  migrants  in  their  country  of  origin,  engagement  with  migrant 
associations to foster their contribution through actions such as business ventures or training 
activities,  to  the  development  of  their  countries  of  origin,  etc.  Three  Mobility  Partnerships 
have been signed, respectively with Moldova (2008), Cape Verde (2008) and Georgia (2009). 
A  Mobility  Partnership  with  Armenia  is  under  preparation  and  is  expected  to  be  signed  in 
2011.  

43 

Circular  migration  creates  an  opportunity  for  persons  residing  in  a  third  country  to  come  to  the  EU 
temporarily for work, study, training or a combination of these, on the condition that, at the end of the 
period  for  which  they  were  granted  entry,  they  must  re-establish  their  main  residence  and  their  main 
activity in their country of origin.  

EN 

58 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Re-admission agreement means an agreement between the EU and/or Member State with a 
third country, on the basis of reciprocity, establishing rapid and effective procedures for the 
identification  and  safe  and  orderly  return  of  persons  who  do  not,  or  no  longer,  fulfil  the 
conditions for entry to, presence in, or residence on the territories of the third country or one 
of the Member States of the European Union, and to facilitate the transit of such persons in a 
spirit of cooperation. EU readmission agreements have been signed with the following third 
countries/territories:  Hong-Kong,  Macao,  Sri  Lanka,  Albania,  Russian  Federation,  Ukraine, 
FYROM, Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Moldova, Pakistan and Georgia. 

Regional Protection Programmes aim at enhancing the capacity of third countries to ensure 
that asylum-seekers and refugees receive effective protection, assistance and durable solutions 
(return,  local  integration  or  resettlement  in  a  third  country).  So  far,  the  EU  has  supported 
Regional Protection Programmes in Eastern Europe, Tanzania (Africa's Great  Lakes  region) 
and the Horn of Africa.  

Asylum 

Asylum means a form of protection given by a State on its territory based on the principle of 
non-refoulement and internationally or nationally recognised refugee rights. It is granted to a 
person who is unable to seek protection in his/her country of citizenship and/or residence in 
particular for fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of 
a particular social group or political opinion. 

Common  European  Asylum  System  refers  to  the  establishment  of  a  common  asylum 
procedure and a uniform status for those who are granted asylum or subsidiary protection in 
the  EU,  as  well  as  strengthening  practical  cooperation  between  national  asylum 
administrations and the external dimension of asylum. 

Refugee: According to the Geneva Convention, a person who, owing to a well-founded fear 
of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership 
of  a  particular  social  group,  is  outside  the  country  of  nationality  and  is  unable  or,  owing  to 
such  fear,  is  unwilling  to  avail  himself  or  herself  of  the  protection  of  that  country,  or  a 
stateless person, who, being outside of the country of former habitual residence for the same 
reasons as mentioned before, is unable or, owing to such fear, unwilling to return to it. In the 
EU context, a third-country national or stateless person within the meaning of Article 1A of 
the Geneva Convention and authorised to reside as such on the territory of  a  Member State 
and to whom Article 12 (Exclusion) of directive 2004/83/EC does not apply. 

Resettlement  means  the  process  whereby,  on  a  request  from  UNHCR  based  on  a  person’s 
need for international protection, third-country nationals or stateless persons having the status 
defined by the Geneva Convention and who are permitted to reside as refugees in one of the 
Member States are transferred from a third-country and established in a Member State where 
they  are  permitted  to  reside  with  one  of  the  following  statuses:  (i)  refugee  status  within  the 
meaning of Article 2(d) of Directive 2004/83/EC, or (ii) a status which offers similar rights 
and benefits under national and EU law as refugee status44. 

Relocation  means  the  process  whereby,  persons  referred  to  in  Article  4(1)(a)  and  (b)  are 
transferred  from  the  Member  State  which  granted  them  international  protection  to  another 

44 

Definition for the purpose of Decision No 573/2007/EC establishing the ERF for the period 2008-2013.  

EN 

59 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Member State where they will be granted equivalent protection, or persons falling within the 
category  referred  to  in  Article  4(1)(c)  are  transferred  from  the  Member  State  which  is 
responsible for examining their application to another Member State where their application 
for international protection will be examined45. 

Unaccompanied minor means any third-country national or stateless persons below the age 
of 18 years, who arrives or arrived on the territory of the Member States unaccompanied by 
an adult responsible for him/her whether by law or the national practice of the Member State 
concerned, and for as long as he/she is not effectively taken into the care of such a person; it 
includes  a  minor  who  is  left  unaccompanied  after  he/she  has  entered  the  territory  of  the 
Member States. 

Return 

Return: In the context of the Return Directive (2008/115/EC), this means the process of going 
back - whether in voluntary compliance with an obligation to return, or enforced to: i) one's 
country  of  origin;  or  ii)  a  country  of  transit  in  accordance  with  Community  or  bilateral 
readmission  agreements  or  other  arrangements;  or  iii)  another  third  country,  to  which  the 
third-country  national  concerned  voluntarily  decides  to  return  and  in  which  he/she  will  be 
accepted. 

Forced return means the compulsory return of an individual to the country of origin, transit 
or third country, on the basis of an administrative or judicial act. 

Voluntary return means the assisted (in which case it would be Assisted Voluntary Return) or 
independent return to the country of origin, transit or third country, based on the free will of 
the returnee. 

Borders 

External  borders  means  the  Member  States'  land  borders,  including  river  and  lake  borders, 
sea borders and their airports, river ports, sea ports and lake ports to which the provisions of 
Union law on the crossing of external borders apply, whether these borders are temporary or 
not. 

Schengen Agreement and Convention: By the Schengen Agreement signed on 14 June 1985, 
Belgium,  France,  Germany,  Luxembourg  and  the  Netherlands  agreed  that  they  would 
gradually remove controls at their common borders and introduce freedom of movement for 
all  nationals  of  the  signatory  Member  States,  other  Member  States  or  third  countries.  The 
Schengen  Convention  supplements  the  Agreement  and  lays  down  the  arrangements  and 
safeguards for implementing freedom of movement. The Agreement and the Convention, the 
rules adopted on that basis and the related agreements together form the "Schengen acquis". 
Since  1999,  this  has  formed  part  of  the  institutional  and  legal  framework  of  the  European 
Union by virtue of a protocol to the Treaty of Amsterdam. As of January 2010, EU Member 
States which are part of the Schengen Area are Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, 
Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, 
Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden. This 
means  that  the  other  EU  Member  States  (i.e.  Bulgaria,  Cyprus,  Ireland,  Romania  and  the 
United  Kingdom)  are  not  part  of  Schengen.  Whilst  Iceland,  Liechtenstein,  Norway  and 

45 

Definition for the purpose of Decision No 573/2007/EC establishing the ERF for the period 2008-2013.  

EN 

60 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Switzerland  are  not  EU  Member  States,  they  have  signed  an  Agreement  on  Association  in 
order to be associated with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen 
acquis. 

Local  Border  Traffic  means  the  regular  crossing  of  an  external  land  border  by  border 
residents  in  order  to  stay  in  a  border  area,  for  example  for  social,  cultural  or  substantiated 
economic reasons, or for family reasons, for a period not exceeding three months. 

Eurodac means the system which enables EU countries to help identify asylum applicants and 
persons who have been apprehended in connection with an irregular crossing of an external 
border  of  the  Union.  By  comparing  fingerprints,  EU  countries  can  determine  whether  an 
asylum  applicant  or  a  foreign  national  found  illegally  present  within  an  EU  country  has 
previously claimed asylum in another EU country or whether an asylum applicant entered the 
Union territory unlawfully. 

Schengen Information System means the joint (EU plus Member States) information system 
that enables the relevant authorities in each Member State, by means of an automated search 
procedure, to have access to alerts on persons and property for the purposes of border checks 
and  other  police  and  customs  checks  carried  out  within  the  country  in  accordance  with 
national  law  and,  for  some  specific  categories  of  alerts  (Article  96),  for  the  purposes  of 
issuing visas, residence permits and the administration of legislation on aliens in the context 
of the application of the provisions of the Schengen Convention relating to the movement of 
persons. 

Visa Information System means the system for the exchange of visa data between Member 
States,  which  enables  authorised  national  authorities  to  enter  and  update  visa  data  and  to 
consult these data electronically. 

Internal security 

Radicalisation commonly refers to individuals or groups becoming intolerant with regard to 
basic  democratic  values  like  equality  and  diversity.  As  well,  the  term  relates  to  a  rising 
propensity towards using means of force to reach political goals that negate and/or undermine 
democracy.  “Violent  radicalisation”  is  defined  in  COM(2005)313  as  “the  phenomenon  of 
people embracing opinions, views and ideas which could lead to acts of terrorism as defined 
in Article 1 of the Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA on Combating Terrorism.”  

Crime prevention means all measures that are intended to reduce or otherwise contribute to 
reducing  crime  and  citizens'  feeling  of  insecurity,  as  defined  in  Council  Decision 
2009/902/JHA of 30 November 2009 setting-up a European Crime Prevention Network. 

Organised  crime  means  a  punishable  conduct  committed  by  a  structured  group  of  three  or 
more persons, existing for a period of time and acting in concert in order to obtain, directly or 
indirectly, a financial or other material benefit. 

Terrorism means any of the intentional acts and offences as defined in Framework Decision 
2002/475/JHA of 13 June 2002 on combating terrorism, as amended by Framework Decision 
2008/919/JHA of 28 November 2008. 

Risk  and  crisis  management  means  any  measure  relating  to  the  assessment,  prevention, 
preparedness  and  consequence  management  of  terrorism  and  other  security-related  risks; 

EN 

61 

   EN 

 
'prevention and preparedness' means any measure aimed at preventing and/or reducing risks 
linked to possible terrorist attacks or other security related incidents. 

Consequence  management  means  the  effective  coordination  of  measures  taken  in  order  to 
react  to  and  to  reduce  the  impact  of  the  effects  of  a  terrorist  attack  or  any  other  security 
related incident in order to ensure an effective coordination of actions at national and/or EU 
level. 

Critical  infrastructure  means  any  physical  resources,  services,  information  technology 
facilities,  networks  and  infrastructure  assets  which,  if  disrupted  or  destroyed,  would  have  a 
serious  impact  on  critical  societal  functions,  including  the  supply  chain,  health,  safety, 
security,  economic  or  social  well-being  of  people  or  of  the  functioning  of  the  Union  or  its 
Member States. 

Terrorist Financing Tracking System: On 28 June 2010, the European Union and the United 
States of America signed the agreement on the processing and transfer of financial messaging 
data  for  the  purpose  of  the  Terrorist  Financing  Tracking  Programme  (EU-US  TFTP 
Agreement).  At  the  same  time,  the  Council  of  the  EU  asked  the  European  Commission  to 
propose, by 1 August 2011, "a legal and technical framework for the extraction of data on EU 
territory". The Commission has since worked on the possible introduction of such a system. 
Developing an EU TFTS is part of a wider agenda to prevent terrorism and protect European 
citizens. 

EN 

62 

   EN 

 
ANNEX 3 – OVERVIEW OF HOME AFFAIRS FUNDING (2007-2013) 

General overview 

The  share  of  funding  for  home  affairs  in  the  EU  budget  is  relatively  small  but  has  been 
growing  steadily.  According  to  the  latest  figures  available  (budget  amendments  and  budget 
2011),  the  budget  for  home  affairs  policies  in  the  period  2007-2013  amounts  to  €6 449 
million46. Home affairs policies are considered internal policies and are funded under Heading 
3a  "Freedom,  Security  and  Justice"  of  the  EU  budget,  representing  0.77%  of  the  total  EU 
budget for the period 2007-2013 (ceilings of the current financial framework).  

These figures cover not only home affairs financial programmes, but also funding for large-
scale IT systems (VIS, SIS, Eurodac) and agencies.  

Overview of Home Affairs funding (2007-2013)

7% 1%

18%

12%

General Programme Solidarity
and Management of Migration
Flow s

General Programme Security and
Safeguarding Liberties

Agencies

62%

Large-scale IT Sytems

Other (European Migration
Netw ork, Pilot Projects)

The external dimension of home affairs policies is currently covered through geographic and 
thematic  external  instruments  under  budget  heading  4  "EU  as  global  player".  Funding  to 
support third countries in home affairs policy areas is channelled mainly through the Thematic 
Programme "Cooperation with Third Countries in the Area of Migration and Asylum" which 
is  relatively  small  (€55  million  annually).  Although  additional  funding  is  also  available 
through  geographic  and  other  thematic  programmes,  the  amounts  actually  allocated  vary 
depending  on  the  programming  needs  of  the  beneficiary  countries  (roughly  estimated  at 
approximately €135 million per year). 

46 

Figures provided are commitment appropriations expressed in current prices and based on latest figures 
available (including all budget amendments 2007-2010 and 2011 budget).  

EN 

63 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
General Programme Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows 
European Refugee Fund (1) 

Overview of funding managed by DG Home Affairs (2007-2013) - figures in million euro, current prices 
2012 
2007 
104,03 
78,3 

2011 
104,03 

2009 
107,79 

2010 
102,65 

2008 
82 

External Borders Fund 

European Fund for the Integration of Third-country Nationals 

European Return Fund 

Total 
General Programme Security and Safeguarding Liberties 
Prevention, preparedness & consequence management of terrorism 

170,3 

65 

0 

313,6 
2007 
12,84 

170 

78 

56 

186 

98 

67 

208 

111 

88 

386  458,79  509,65 
2010 
20,52 

2009 
19,77 

2008 
15,38 

Prevention of and fight against crime 

45,16 

53,62 

72,86 

86,38 

Total 
Agencies 
FRONTEX 

58 
2007 
38,75 

69 
2008 
68 

92,63 
2009 
78 

254 

132 

114 

604,03 
2011 

24,4 

109,6 

134 

349,6 

163 

163 

779,63 
2012 

23,68 

118,32 

142 

2013 
122,83 

481,7 

183 

193 

980,53 
2013 

25,58 

121,42 

147 

106,9 
2010 
83 

0 

5,25 

79,72 

7,8 

14,8 

0 

0 

0 

7,8 

14,15 

99,95  190,57 
2010 
2009 
0 
0 

Agency for the operational management of large-scale IT Systems 

EASO 

Europol 

European Police College 

European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction 

Total 
Pilot Projects 
Preparatory action — Migration management — Solidarity in action 

0 

0 

0 

7,44 

13 

59,18 
2007 
15 

0 

0 

0 

8,7 

13,4 

90,1 
2008 
0 

Creation of network of contact & discussion between municipalities 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Total 
Large-scale IT Sytems 
Schengen information system 

Visa information system (VIS) 

Eurodac 

Total 
Other 
European Migration Network 

Prince — Area of freedom, security and justice (communication) 

Evaluation and impact assessment 

15 
2007 
20 

43,23 

2 

65,23 
2007 
3 

2,2 

0,5 

0 
2008 
26,62 

20 

8 

54,62 
2008 
6,5 

3,91 

0,5 

0 
2009 
39,28 

35,70 

2 

76,98 
2009 
8,8 

2,5 

0,45 

0 
2010 
35 

21 

2 

58 
2010 
7,5 

2,6 

0,45 

2011 

2012 

2013 

78 

5,45 

8 

83,47 

8 

78 

54,5 

12 

84 

8,8 

78 

39,4 

15 

85 

9,2 

15,17 

15,75 

16,1 

0 

1,5 

1,5 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2011 

2012 

2013 

30 

21,2 

1,5 

52,7 

(2) 

54,5 

(2) 

54,5 

(2) 

82,6 

(2) 

82,6 

2011 

2012 

2013 

7,5 

2,7 

0,55 

8 

2,8 

0,6 

8 

2,9 

0,6 

Total 
TOTAL DG HOME AFFAIRS 
(1) Includes "Emergency measures in the event of mass influxes of refugees" for €  69,9 million for 2007-2013. 2007 figures refer to ERF II. (2) Covered by the VIS budget line 

10,55 
516,72  610,63  740,10  875,67 

10,75 
1001,07 

11,4 
1240,58 

11,5 
1464,33 

10,91 

11,75 

5,7 

Total 
701,63 

1819,6 

830 

681 

4032,23 
Total 
142,17 

607,36 

749,53 
Total 
501,75 

99,35 

40,25 

332,19 

57,74 

102,37 

15 

1,5 

16,5 

Total 

150,9 

278,23 

15,5 

444,63 
Total 

49,3 

19,61 

3,65 

72,56 
6449,09 

198,09 
2011 

253,05 
2012 

242,7 
2013 

1133,65 
Total 

EN 

64 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Financial programmes 

(1) 

General Programme "Solidarity and management of migration flows" 

The  main  instrument  in  support  of  home  affairs  activities  is  the  General  Programme 
"Solidarity and management of migration flows" which comprises four Funds, each with its 
own  legal  basis:  the  European  Fund  for  the  Integration  of  Third  Country  Nationals,  the 
European Refugee Fund (III), the External Borders Fund and the European Return Fund. The 
table  below  provides  an  overview  of  the  amounts  allocated  to  each  Fund  and  the  types  of 
actions that can be supported by the Funds. After a brief explanation of the implementation 
arrangements common to the four Funds, each Fund is subsequently described in more detail 
below. 

Solidarity and migration Flows 

Total m €  Type of actions funded 

External Borders Fund 

1,819.6 

Infrastructure  and  equipment  for  EU  external  borders  and 
visa policy, national components of SIS/VIS 

European Return Fund 

681 

European Refugee Fund (III) 

701.63 

European  Fund  for  the  Integration 
of Third-country Nationals 

Total 

830 

4,032.23 

Voluntary  & 
operations, cooperation between return agencies 

including 

return, 

forced 

joint 

return 

building 

Capacity 
infrastructure), 
emergency measures 

(asylum 
integration  of 

procedures, 
refugees, 

reception 
resettlement, 

Provision of integration measures such as language courses, 
courses of civic orientation, pre-departure measures in third 
countries 

Implementation under the shared management mode 

The  four  Funds  are  implemented  mainly  (93  to  96%)  under  the  shared  management  mode. 
Through annual programmes from Member States, the EU budget seeks to support structured 
intervention (capacity building) in Member States, as well as activities specific to the national 
or local circumstances in the policy area concerned pursuant to the scope set out in the basic 
acts. Although the Member States are in charge of the management of the Funds and select 
the  actions  that  will  receive  financial  support,  the  Commission  bears  ultimate  responsibility 
for the overall legal framework and for the implementation of the budget.  

In accordance with the requirements set out in the basic acts, the Member States designate a 
Responsible  Authority,  responsible  for  the  management  of  the  multiannual  programme  and 
annual programmes supported by the Funds, an Audit Authority, responsible for verifying the 
effective  functioning  of  the  management  and  control  system  and  a  Certifying  Authority  in 
charge of certifying the declarations of expenditure before they are sent to the Commission. 

Annual programmes within a multi-annual framework 

In terms of programming, the General Programme currently combines a common multiannual 
framework in line with broadly defined political priorities set in EU strategic guidelines with 
annual programmes. Each year, the Member States submit a draft annual programme which is 
subsequently approved by the Commission. With four Funds, there are therefore around 100 

EN 

65 

   EN 

 
 
annual  programmes  to  manage  on  a  yearly  basis  (approval  and  amendment  of  programmes, 
monitoring, progress reports, pre-financings and closure).  

The closure of the first annual programmes under the current financial framework started at 
the end of 2010 with the receipt of the first final reports from the Member States. So far, this 
concerns the two Funds which started in 2007 (EBF and EIF). However, in the first quarter of 
2011 the start of the closure of the 2008 annual programmes will concern all four Funds. With 
the closure of the first annual programmes, the implementation of the four Funds has reached 
"cruising speed". 

Annual distribution of allocations 

For  each  Fund  the  annual  distribution  of  the  available  EU  financial  resources  among  the 
Member  States  is  based  on  specific  and  objective  criteria  which  reflect  the  situation  of  the 
Member State with regard to the obligations undertaken on behalf of or for the overall benefit 
of the Union in the policy area concerned: e.g. the size of the external borders to be protected 
and  the  number  of  persons  crossing  them;  the  number  of  legally  staying  third-country 
nationals to be integrated into society; the number of return decisions to be implemented. The 
definition  of  the  criteria  is  the  most  concrete  expression  of  the  principle  of  solidarity  in  the 
sense  that  those  Member  States  most  affected  by  the  management  of  migration  flows  are 
meant  to  benefit  the  most  from  EU  funding.  Moreover,  because  the  criteria  reflect  the 
evolution in migratory trends in previous years; it is based on retro-active solidarity. 

The criteria and the procedure to apply these criteria are laid down in detail in the basic acts 
of  the  Funds.  Each  year,  the  Commission  draws  upon  both  EU  statistics  from  EUROSTAT 
and ad hoc data supplied by Member States to perform the calculations. Once the calculations 
are communicated to the Member States in the year N-147, the EU contribution to the annual 
programme  is  known  to  the  Member  States  and  they  can  start  drafting  their  annual 
programmes for the year N. These are indicative amounts ("provisional allocations") that are 
subsequently confirmed or modified once the Budgetary Authority has adopted the EU budget 
in the year N-1. The Commission takes a decision establishing the final allocations. 

Financial control 

Three authorities are in charge of assuring sound financial management of the funds allocated 
to the Member  State. The first level of control is represented by the Responsible Authority, 
which  performs  management  verification  throughout  the  implementation  period  of  actions. 
The next level of control is represented by the Audit Authority, which has the responsibility to 
perform  audits  of  the  management  and  control  systems  and  audits  of  operations.  The  Audit 
Authority reports the results of its checks to the Commission in its audit report as part of the 
annual  closure  of  programmes,  including  an  annual  audit  opinion  on  the  functioning  of  the 
systems.  Finally,  the  Certifying  Authority  takes  steps  to  satisfy  itself  that  adequate  controls 
have been carried out by the Responsible Authority and that the results of the controls of the 
checks  performed  by  the  Audit  Authority  were  duly  taken  into  account.  If  considered 
necessary, the Certifying Authority can also carry out its own checks. 

47 

The allocations are indicative as the total Fund's appropriations are subject to the approval of the final 
budget of the European Union by its budgetary authority by the end of the year. Furthermore, they are 
also provisional as subject to formal approval by the Commission. 

EN 

66 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The Commission monitors the operational and financial implementation of the Funds closely, 
inter  alia  by  carrying  out  monitoring  visits  and  maintaining  in  regular  contact  with  the 
Responsible  Authorities.  These  checks  are  complemented  by  a  second  layer  of  checks 
consisting  of  desk  reviews  of  the  management  and  control  systems,  compliance  audit 
missions, reviews of the Member States' audit strategies and annual audit reports.  

Implementation under the centralised direct management mode 

A small part of the four Funds (between 4 and 5% of the annual allocation) is implemented by 
the  Commission  under  the  centralised  direct  management  mode  (so  called  "Community 
Actions"). This includes,  for  the External  Borders  Fund,  the  "Specific  actions"  (€10  million 
annually) which seek to address weaknesses at specific border sections in the EU. 

(a) 

External Borders Fund 

The External Borders Fund48 was established for the period 2007-2013, as part of the General 
Programme Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows, with a total envelope of €1,820 
million.  This  amount  is  supplemented  by  the  contributions  from  the  Associated  States, 
Norway, Iceland, Switzerland and Lichtenstein, participating in the Fund as of 2010. 

The  general  objective  of  the  Fund  is  to  help  Schengen  States  comply  with  one  of  the  key 
obligations  under  the  Schengen  acquis,  namely  to  ensure  efficient,  high  level  and  uniform 
controls at the external borders. In addition, it contributes to the development of the common 
visa policy while tackling irregular immigration on one hand, and facilitating legitimate travel 
to  the  Member  States,  on  the  other  hand.  Since  all  Schengen  participating  Member  States 
benefit from the principle of free movement of persons, every Member State in the Schengen 
area  has  an  interest  in  the  effectiveness  with  which  others  control  the  external  borders  for 
which they are responsible. Consequently, a high level control of the external borders is the 
necessary corollary to the free movement of persons within the EU. 

The External Borders Fund entered into force in the new geopolitical context which arose in 
the aftermath of the enlargement of the European Union in 2004 and with the decision to lift 
the internal borders and extend the Schengen area with 9 Member States in December 2007, 
which left only a few Member States with a physical external border to guard on behalf of the 
other Schengen States. The External Borders Fund addresses the issues arising from this new 
context  and  puts  in  place  a  mechanism  for  sharing  responsibility  for  border  management 
among  all  participating  Member  States  in  accordance  with  the  principle  of  solidarity. 
Accordingly, the Fund contributes to achieving the key EU policy objectives in the area of 
border management and visa:  

• 

• 

Achievement  of  efficient,  high  level  and  uniform  controls  at  the  external  borders 
through reinforcement of the integrated border management system;  

Support  for  the  development,  preparation,  implementation,  management  and 
coordination  of  large-scale  IT  systems,  needed  for  effective  border  checks, 
migration  control  and  visa  procedures,  notably  the  second  generation  Schengen 
Information System (SIS II) and the Visa Information System (VIS), including their 
biometric aspects; 

48 

Decision No 574/2007/EC, OJ L144, 6.6.2007, p.22 

EN 

67 

   EN 

 
                                                 
• 

Further development of the common visa policy, to facilitate legitimate travel, tackle 
illegal immigration, fight against visa fraud and improve local consular cooperation. 

In  the  period  2007-2009,  23  Member  States  participated  in  the  Fund.  The  United  Kingdom 
and Ireland do not participate in the Fund. In accordance with its Protocol, Denmark opted in 
the  Fund.  In  the  period  2007-2009,  Bulgaria  and  Romania,  on  the  basis  of  the  Act  of 
Accession  to  the  EU,  benefited  from  the  Schengen  Facility  II  (Schengen  part  of  the  Cash 
Flow  and  Schengen  Facility),  in  preparation  of  these  countries'  joining  the  area  without 
internal  borders.  The  nature  of  expenditure  under  this  Facility  principally  coincided  with 
eligible expenditure under the Fund. Hence, Bulgaria and Romania began to participate in the 
Fund only after its expiry, i.e. as of 2010. Also, three Associated States, Norway, Iceland and 
Switzerland, take part in the Fund as of 2010 only. 

Actions  implemented  by  Member  States  are  co-financed  by  the  Fund  within  the  five 
priorities laid down in these EU guidelines49: (1) the gradual establishment of the common 
integrated  border  management  system  (infrastructure  and  equipment,  border  control);  (2) 
national  components  of  a  European  Surveillance  system  for  the  external  borders  and  a 
permanent European Patrol network at the Southern maritime borders; (3) the issuing of visas 
and  the  tackling  of  illegal  immigration  (consular  offices  and  consular  cooperation);  (4)  IT 
systems  required  for  the  implementation  of  EU  legal  instruments  (SIS  II,  VIS)  and  (5)  the 
effective  and  efficient  application  of  EU  acquis  on  external  borders  and  visas  (Schengen 
Code, Visa Code, training, risk analysis, core curriculum). 

The  Fund's  contribution  to  projects  in  Member  States  is  set  at  50%  of  the  total  costs  of  an 
action and at 75% for Member States covered by the Cohesion Fund and for actions reflecting 
specific priorities mentioned in the strategic guidelines. 

As  part  of  the  programmes  for  Lithuania,  support  is  provided  to  the  implementation  by 
Lithuania of the Special Transit Scheme (STS) for Russian Federation citizens travelling on 
EU territory to and from the Kaliningrad region. The STS provides support to compensate for 
foregone  fees  from  transit  fees  and  additional cost  involved  in  implementing  the  scheme  in 
accordance with Protocols of the Act of Accession into the EU and the specific priorities in 
the  basic  act.  In  the  period  2007-2010,  each  year  €15  million  was  made  available.  In  the 
period 2011-2013, €16 million is available each year. The Fund is the successor instrument to 
the Special Kaliningrad Transit Programme (2004-2006), which endowed Lithuania with €40 
million to implement the scheme.  

Besides  the  contribution  to  the  national  programmes,  up  to  6%  of  the  Fund's  available 
resources may be reserved for Community Actions (CA), essentially to support visa policy 
and  emergency  situations  at  external  borders.  The  projects  are  carried  out  in  the  direct 
management  method  and  the  Fund's  contribution  may  amount  to  80%  of  the  total  eligible 
costs of an action.  

In  addition,  up  to  €10  million  each  year  is  available  under  the  Specific  Actions  (SA) 
addressing  weaknesses  at  strategic  border  crossing  points.  The  Fund's  contribution  may 
amount to 90% of the total eligible costs of an action. The measures are meant to complement 
the  activities  carried  out  under  the  national  annual  programmes.  Whereas  the  programmes 
allow  for  more  strategic  interventions,  the  specific  actions  are  reserved  for  needs  arising  at 

49 

OJ L233, 5.09.2007, p.3 

EN 

68 

   EN 

 
                                                 
specific border sections of particular interest to the EU and projects are implemented within a 
period of maximum 6 months.  

(b) 

European Return Fund 

The European Return Fund was established for the period 2008-2013, as part of the General 
Programme  Solidarity  and  Management  of  Migration  Flows,  with  a  total  envelope  of  €676 
million.  The  objective  of  the  Fund  is  to  support  the  efforts  made  by  Member  States  to 
improve  the  management  of  return  in  all  its  dimensions  ("integrated  return  management"), 
including through cooperation between Member States for the purpose of economies of scale.  

The target groups under the Fund include third-country nationals having received a negative 
decision  in  asylum  or  immigration  procedures  and  irregular  migrants  apprehended  at  the 
border or in the territory of Member States. To enhance efficiency in return management at 
national  level,  the  Fund  also  covers  the  voluntary  return  of  those  who  are  not  under  an 
obligation  to  leave  the  territory,  such  as  applicants  for  asylum  who  have  not  yet  received  a 
negative decision or beneficiaries of international protection. Here the Fund has taken over a 
category of action which was supported by the European Refugee Fund till 200750.  

The Fund also aims to support the correct and harmonised application of the EU acquis on 
return, in particular the Directive 2008/115 on common standards and procedures in Member 
States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals ("Return directive")51.  

The Fund is mainly implemented by the Member States, in the shared management method. 
Through annual programmes from Member States, the EU budget seeks to support in Member 
States  a  structured  intervention  (capacity  building),  as  well  as  activities  specific  to  the 
national or local circumstances in the field of return. These actions are co-financed within an 
EU strategic framework of four priorities on return52. The priorities are (1) the development 
of a strategic approach; (2) co-operation between Member States; (3) specific innovative tools 
and (4) EU standards and best practices. Member States have to implement at least three out 
of four priorities but many Member States have chosen to implement all four of them.  

The  resources  are  distributed  among  26  Member  States  as,  in  accordance  with  its  Protocol, 
Denmark  is  not  participating  in  the  Fund.  The  Fund's  contribution  to  projects  in  Member 
States is set at 50% of the total costs of an action and at 75% for Member States covered by 
the  Cohesion  Fund  and  for  actions  reflecting  specific  priorities  mentioned  in  the  strategic 
guidelines.  

Besides  the  programmes,  annually  up  to  7%  of  the  EU  available  resources  can  be 
implemented directly by the Commission for transnational projects, studies or other types of 
action  of  EU  interest  through  the  "Community  actions"  concerning  return  policy  and 
measures applicable to the target groups.  

For  the  budgetary  years  2005-2007  there  were  preparatory  actions  under  the  EU  budget, 
namely the "Return Preparatory Actions" 2005-2006 and, the "Preparatory Action – Migration 
Management,  Solidarity  in  Action  2007  –  return  and  reintegration  of  returnees".  The 

50 

51 
52 

See  inter  alia  the  final  evaluation  of  the  European  Refugee  Fund  for  the  period  2005-2007, 
COM(2011)2 final  
OJ L348, 24.12.2008, p.98 
OJ L330, 15.12.2007, p.48 

EN 

69 

   EN 

 
                                                 
instruments created first-hand practical experience with transnational projects and thus helped 
Member States prepare for the launch of the Return Fund in 200853.  

(c) 

European Refugee Fund 

The  European  Refugee  Fund54  was  established  for  the  period  2008-2013,  as  part  of  the 
General Programme Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows, with an indicative total 
envelope of €614 million. 

The general objective of the Fund is to support and encourage the efforts made by Member 
States  in  receiving,  and  bearing  the  consequences  of  receiving,  refugees  and  displaced 
persons,  taking  account  of  EU  legislation  on  those  matters  by  co-financing  the  actions.  The 
Fund contributes to achieving the key EU policy objectives in the area of asylum: 

• 

• 

To put in place a common policy on asylum as set out in Article 78 TFEU, in line 
with the renewed commitments contained in the European Pact on Immigration and 
Asylum,  in  the  Stockholm  Programme  and its  Action  Plan  and  in  the  Europe  2020 
strategy. 

To  contribute  to  the  completion  of  the  Common  European  Asylum  System  by 
adopting  higher  common  standards  of  international  protection,  supporting  practical 
cooperation  and  increasing  solidarity  within  the  EU  and  between  the  EU  and  third 
countries affected by refugee flows 

The target groups under the Fund include refugees (Geneva Convention), persons enjoying a 
form  of  subsidiary  protection  within  the  meaning  of  Directive  2004/83/EC,  asylum  seekers 
and persons enjoying temporary protection within the meaning of Directive 2001/55/EC.The 
Fund  is  mainly  implemented  by  the  Member  States,  in  the  shared  management  method. 
Through annual programmes submitted by the Member States, the actions are co-financed in 
compliance  with  Strategic  Guidelines  of  the  Commission55,  which  provide  for  three 
priorities:  (1)  implementation  of  the  principles  and  measures  set  out  in  the  Community 
acquis in the field of asylum, including those related to integration objectives;(2)development 
of  reference  tools  and  evaluation  methodologies  to  assess  and  improve  the  quality  of 
procedures and to underpin administrative structures by enhanced practical cooperation with 
other Member; (3) actions helping to enhance responsibility sharing between Member States 
and third-countries (transfer and resettlement of refugees. 

The  Fund  also  provides  additional  financial  incentive  of  €4,000  to  Member  States  for  each 
resettled  refugee  according  to  specific  categories  (vulnerable  groups  and  persons  from 
countries and regions designated for the implementation of a Regional Protection Programme) 
on the basis of a pledging exercise. 

The  resources  are  distributed  among  26  Member  States  as,  in  accordance  with  its  Protocol, 
Denmark does not participate in the Fund.  

53 

54 
55 

EN 

the 

evaluation  of 

The 
affairs/funding/2004_2007/solidarity/funding_solidarity_en.htm 
Decision No 573/2007/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, OJ L144, 6.6.2007, p.1. 
Commission Decision 2007/815/EC, OJ L326, 12.12.2007, p. 29. 

preparatory 

available 

actions 

http://ec.europa.eu/home-

at 

is 

70 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The Fund also includes an annual reserve of €9.8 million to support emergency measures in 
Member States facing situations of particular migratory pressure, characterised by the sudden 
arrival  at  particular  points  on  the  borders  of  a  large  number  of  third-country  nationals  who 
may be in need of international protection. 

Besides the national programmes, up to 4% of the EU available resources can be implemented 
directly  by  the  Commission  on  an  annual  basis  for  transnational  projects,  studies  or  other 
types of action of EU interest through the so-called "Community actions".  

(d) 

European Fund for the Integration of Third-Country Nationals 

The  European  Fund  for  the  Integration  of  third-country  nationals56  was  established  for  the 
period  2007-2013,  as  part  of  the  General  Programme  Solidarity  and  Management  of 
Migration Flows, with an indicative total envelope of €825 million.  

The  general  objective  of  the  Fund  is  to  support  the  efforts  made  by  the  Member  States  in 
enabling  third-country  nationals  of  different  economic,  social,  cultural,  religious,  linguistic 
and ethnic backgrounds to fulfil the conditions of residence and to facilitate their integration 
into the European societies. The Fund focuses primarily on actions relating to the integration 
of  newly  arrived  third-country  nationals.  In  order  to  further  this  objective,  the  Fund 
contributes to the development and implementation of national integration strategies for third-
country nationals in all aspects of society, in particular taking into account the principle that 
integration  is  a  two-way  dynamic  process  of  mutual  accommodation  by  all  immigrants  and 
residents of Member States.  

The Fund’s scope encompasses legally residing third-country nationals, i.e. any person who is 
not  a  citizen  of  the  Union  within  the  meaning  of  Article  17(1)  of  the  Treaty,  but  does  not 
include the European Refugee Fund’s target group. 

The Fund contributes to the following specific objectives: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Facilitation of the development and implementation of admission procedures relevant 
to and supportive of the integration process of third-country nationals; 

Development and implementation of the integration process of newly-arrived third-
country nationals in Member States; 

Increasing  of  the  capacity  of  Member  States  to  develop,  implement,  monitor  and 
evaluate policies and measures for the integration of third-country nationals; 

Exchange  of  information,  best  practices  and  cooperation  in  and  between  Member 
States in developing, implementing, monitoring and evaluating policies and measures 
for the integration of third-country nationals. 

The Fund is mainly implemented by the Member States, in the shared management method. 
Through annual programmes submitted by the Member States, the EU budget seeks to support 
in Member States activities in the field of integration of third-country nationals specific to the 
national  or  local  circumstances,  as  well  as  capacity  building  in  public  and  private  services 
dealing  with  third-country  nationals.  The  actions  are  co-financed  in  compliance  with 

56 

Decision 2007/435/EC, OJ L168, 28.6.2007, p.18 

EN 

71 

   EN 

 
                                                 
for 

the  Commission57,  which  provide 

Strategic  Guidelines  of 
four  Priorities: 
(1) Implementation  of  actions  designed  to  put  the  'Common  Basic  Principles  for  immigrant 
integration  policy  in  the  European  Union'  into  practice;  (2)  Development  of  indicators  and 
evaluation methodologies to assess progress, adjust policies and measures and to facilitate co-
ordination  of  comparative  learning;  (3)  Policy  capacity  building,  co-ordination  and 
intercultural  competence  building  in  the  Member  States  across  the  different  levels  and 
departments of government and (4) Exchange of experience, good practice and information on 
integration between the Member States. Member States have to implement at least three of the 
aforementioned priorities, among which priorities 1 and 2 are mandatory, but many Member 
States have chosen to implement all four of them. 

In addition, the Strategic Guidelines set out five Specific Priorities, applicable under any of 
the  aforementioned  Priorities.  Any  project  implementing  one  or  several  of  the  Specific 
Priorities  may  receive  an  increased  EU  funding  rate.  The  Specific  Priorities  are:  (1) 
Participation  as  a  means  of  promoting  the  integration  of  third-country  nationals  in  society 
(Actions  involving  the  participation  of  third-country  nationals  in  the  formulation  and 
implementation of integration policies and measures); (2) Specific target groups (e.g. women, 
youth and children, the elderly, illiterate persons and persons with disabilities); (3) Innovative 
introduction programmes and activities (e.g. part-time courses, fast-track modules, distance or 
e-learning systems); (4) Intercultural dialogue and (5) Involvement of the host society in the 
integration process (e.g. awareness raising). 

Besides  the  national  programmes,  annually  up  to  7%  of  the  EU  available  resources  can  be 
implemented directly by the Commission for transnational projects, studies or other types of 
action of EU interest through the "Community actions".  

For the budget years 2003-2006, there were preparatory actions under the EU budget, namely 
the  ‘INTI  Preparatory  actions  promoting  the  integration  of  third-country  nationals’.  This 
instrument created first hand practical experience with transnational projects and thus helped 
organisations of various types in Member States prepare for the launch of the Fund in 200758.  

It  should  be  noted  that  the  EIF  does  not  support  integration  measures  on  access  to  and 
integration into the labour market which are funded under the European Social Fund. Instead, 
the EIF complements such actions by financing measures such as reception and introductory 
schemes, participation in social and civic life, equal access to services, etc. Similarly, whereas 
the  ERDF  can  support  a  large  range  of  integration  measures  in  the  context  of  regional 
development, the objectives which guide the choice of actions funded in each region are very 
different  from  those  of  the  EIF  (contribution  to  regional  development  in  the  context  of 
convergence, 
territorial 
cooperation).  

regional  competitiveness  and  employment,  and  European 

(2) 

General Programme "Security and Safeguarding Liberties 

In  the  area  of  internal  security,  the  General  Programme  on  "Security  and  Safeguarding 
Liberties"  is  the  main  instrument  for  funding.  It  is  administered  under  the  centralised  direct 
management  mode  and  consists  of  two  smaller  Specific  Programmes:  ISEC  (Prevention  of 

57 
58 

EN 

Commission Decision C(2007) 3926 final of 21.8.2007 
The  evaluation  of 
affairs/funding/integration/funding_integration_en.htm. 

INTI  preparatory  actions 

the 

is  available  at  http://ec.europa.eu/home-

72 

   EN 

 
                                                 
and  the  fight  against  Crime)  and  CIPS  (Prevention,  Preparedness  and  consequence 
management of Terrorism and other Security-related risks).  

Security 
Liberties 

and 

Safeguarding 

Total m €  Type of actions funded 

Prevention, preparedness & 
consequence management of 
terrorism 

142,17 

Critical  infrastructure  protection,  reducing  CBRN  threats: 
risk assessment, development of security standards 

Prevention of and fight against 
crime 

Total 

607,36 

749,53 

Development of horizontal approaches, cooperation between 
law  enforcement  authorities,  development  &  exchange  of 
best practice 

The  Programmes  are  implemented  through  Annual  Work  Programmes  which  set  thematic 
and/or  sector  priorities  and  are  administered  directly  by  the  Commission  through  calls  for 
proposals and the conclusion of grant agreements with final beneficiaries. Funding is provided 
primarily for action grants following open calls for proposals although some action grants are 
also  through  restricted  calls  for  proposals  reserved  for  public  sector  entities  with  which 
"framework partnership agreements" are concluded. Beneficiaries are mostly law enforcement 
and  customs  authorities,  justice  and  home  affairs  ministries  and  agencies,  and  to  a  lesser 
extent  non-governmental  organisations,  academia  and  profit-making  organisations  active  in 
the field of internal security. The ISEC programme provides operating grants to support non-
governmental organisations with a European dimension and both Programmes support public 
procurement  contracts,  for  example  for  studies  to  inform  policy  making.  Funding  is  also 
provided to the Joint Research Centre (JRC) via administrative arrangements. 

In  the  period  from  2007  to  2009,  the  General  Programme  on  "Security  and  Safeguarding 
Liberties" cumulatively supported 400 projects and financed some 150 procurement contracts 
(accounting for about 10% of funds), worth a total of €167 million. These actions complement 
the  actions  financed  by  other  EU  instruments  in  the  area  of  security  research,  IT  systems, 
transport security etc. 

Nature of Activities 

Given the broad areas covered, the Programmes 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%), (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. 

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 

EN 

73 

   EN 

 
 
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%. 

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. 

Geographic coverage 

In  general,  the  geographic  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. 

European Migration Network 

The European Migration Network (EMN) consists inter alia of national contact points in each 
Member  State  financed  from  the  EU  Budget  (2007-2013:  €49.3  million).  Its  mission  is  to 
provide up-to-date, objective, reliable and comparable information on asylum and migration 
to support policymakers, and to provide this information also to the wider public.  

The external dimension of home affairs 

The  geographic  and  thematic  external  instruments  which  support  the  external  dimension  of 
home  affairs  policies  under  budget  heading  4  "EU  as  global  player"  are  programmed  and 

EN 

74 

   EN 

 
managed  under  the  centralised  direct  management  mode59.  Although  funding  for  third 
countries  in  home  affairs  policy  areas  is  increasingly  being  channelled  through  geographic 
programmes,  the  Thematic  Programme  "Cooperation  with  Third  Countries  in  the  Area  of 
Migration  and  Asylum"  under  the  Development  Cooperation  Instrument  (DCI)  remains  the 
main instrument in support of the external dimension of migration and asylum policies. This 
programme  is  relatively  small,  with  an  average  annual  budget  of  €55  million  (period  2007-
2013: €384 million).  

the  Programme's  objectives  encompass 

the  different  facets  of  migration 
Although 
management  policy,  it  is  increasingly  seen  as  a  development  oriented  instrument  because  it 
has its legal basis in the Development Co-operation Instrument. As such, these funds make a 
very  limited  contribution  to  home  affairs  policy  priorities  because  they  do  not  provide  any 
leverage  in  areas  such  as  readmission  and  return  negotiations,  where  the  Commission  is 
nonetheless expected to deliver. Of special interest is also the Instrument for Stability, which 
supports  actions  in  third  countries  in  policy  areas  such  as  crisis  management,  counter-
terrorism, the fight against organised crime and police cooperation.  

Home affairs agencies 

Various regulatory agencies have been created in the home affairs area: the European Police 
College  (CEPOL),  the  European  Police  Office  (EUROPOL),  the  European  Agency  for  the 
Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders (FRONTEX), the European 
Monitoring  Centre  for  Drugs  and  Drug  Addictions  (EMCDDA)  and  the  European  Asylum 
Support Office (EASO) and the future IT Agency, whose legal basis is currently negotiated). 
These  agencies  represent  approximately  18%  of  the  home  affairs  budget  and  play  an 
important role in fostering practical cooperation between the Member States. 

Home affairs agencies 

Total m €  Type of actions funded 

FRONTEX  

501,75 

Coordination  of  external  borders 
operations) 

(including 

joint 

European  Asylum  Support  Office 
(EASO) 

Transnational cooperation on asylum, common portal on 
Country  of  Origin  information,  support  Member  States 
under particular pressure 

40,25 

Europol 

European  Monitoring  Centre 
Drugs 
(EMCDDA) 

Drug 

for 
Addiction 

and 

Support  and  strengthen  actions  of  competent  public 
authorities  in  MS  in  their  fight  against  organised  crime 
and terrorism 

332,19 

Provide reliable information at EU level on drugs, drug 
addition  and  its  consequences;  collect,  register  and 
analyse 
trends;  facilitate 
exchange of best practices 

information  on  emerging 

102,37 

European Police College 

57,74  Training for police officers 

IT-Agency  

Total 

99,35  Operational management of SIS, VIS and Eurodac 

1 133,65 

59 

Instrument  for  Pre-Accession  Assistance;  the  European  Neighbourhood  and  Partnership  Instrument; 
European Development Fund; Development Cooperation Instrument; Instrument for Stability. 

EN 

75 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Large-scale IT systems  

Large-scale  IT  systems  account  for  a  reasonably  large  share  of  the  Home  Affairs  budget 
(approximately  7%).  Although  these  systems  are  currently  being  managed  by  the 
Commission, their management will be gradually transferred to the future IT-Agency which 
will  begin  operations  in  2012.  The  IT-Agency  will  also  be  responsible  for  developing  and 
managing  future  IT  systems  such  as  the  Entry/Exit  System  and  the  Registered  Traveller 
Programme. 

Large-scale IT systems 

Total m €  Type of actions funded 

Schengen Information system (SIS) 

150,9  Development SIS (EU component) 

Visa Information system (VIS) 

278,23  Development VIS (EU component) 

Eurodac IT system 

15,5 

Implementation of Dublin II Regulation 

Total 

444,63 

EN 

76 

   EN 

 
 
ANNEX 4 – SUMMARY ASSESSMENT OF THE HOME AFFAIRS PROGRAMMES 2007-2013 

Home affairs programmes 

(1) 

General Programme "Security and Safeguarding Liberties" 

In the area of internal security, the mid-term evaluation of the General Programme Security 
and Safeguarding Liberties60 provides information on the implementation of the two Specific 
Programmes (ISEC and CIPS) and identifies areas for improvement. First conclusions show 
that the Specific Programmes achieve their objectives and should be continued. The mid-term 
evaluation also identifies areas for improvement. In particular, the Programmes are considered 
to  cover  too  wide  a  range  of  activities  and  should  be  used  more  strategically  by  focussing 
more on political priorities as listed e.g. in the Internal Security Strategy. At the same time, 
important  policy  aspects  such  as  the  growingly  important  external  dimension  of  the  EU's 
internal security policy and emergency and crisis situations are not covered. In addition, more 
efforts  should  be  made  to  streamline  procedures  (better  timing  of  calls  for  proposals, 
amending the budget review exercise to increase efficiency, discontinuing the use of operating 
grants  (ISEC),  implementing  a  project  monitoring  system,  enhancing  the  framework 
partnership concept) and stepping-up simplification efforts (use of flat-rates, lump sums etc) 
in order to reduce administrative burden. 

(2) 

General Programme "Solidarity and management of migration flows" 

Due  to  the  timing  imposed  by  the  legal  bases  of  the  Funds  under  the  General  Programme 
"Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows", the results of the mid-term evaluations of 
the European Fund for the Integration of third-country nationals, the External Borders Fund 
and the Return Fund are not yet available. However, the national evaluation reports from the 
Member States on the implementation of actions co-financed by these Funds are available and 
serve  as  basis  for  formulating  preliminary  conclusions  on  the  qualitative  and  quantitative 
aspects of the management and implementation of these three Funds. No mid-term evaluation 
was required for the European Refugee Fund (2008-2013) because the ex-post evaluation of 
the implementation of the Fund during the previous programming period (2005-2007) was on-
going and has meanwhile become available. 

(a) 

European Refugee Fund II 

The ex-post evaluation of the European Refugee Fund II (2005-2007) demonstrates that that it 
directly benefitted more than 350,000 persons (asylum seekers, refugees and persons enjoying 
other  forms  or  protection)61.  In  addition,  more  than  6,500  persons  belonging  to  the  project 
implementing organisations received support from the Fund, in particular for training or as a 
result of additional  recruitment. It  was  instrumental in driving  improvements  in asylum  and 
subsidiary protection in EU Member States and in particular in supporting the Member States 
that  joined  the  EU  since  2004  to  quickly  and  effectively  upgrade  asylum  seekers’  reception 
conditions and the asylum procedure to EU standards; this was a major contribution to their 
compliance  with  the  EU  acquis  of  the  Common  European  Asylum  System.  Of  particular 

60 

61 

COM(2011)318 final of 16 June 2011: Communication on the mid-term evaluation of the Framework 
Programme "Security and Safeguarding Liberties" (2007-2013) 
COM(2011)2 final of 14 January 2011: Communication on the results achieved and on qualitative and 
quantitative aspects of implementation of the European Refugee Fund for the period 2005-2007. 

EN 

77 

   EN 

 
                                                 
importance in this context was the emphasis put on vulnerable groups which account for an 
increasing proportion of asylum seekers. In the other Member States, the Fund supplemented 
national  resources  to  support  operations  with  genuine  added-value,  often  innovative 
operations,  to  improve  the  reception  conditions  of  asylum  seekers  and  the  integration  of 
refugees  over  and  above  the  minimal  conditions.  From  2005  to  2007,  actions  regarding 
voluntary return of asylum seekers, refugees and beneficiaries of international protection were 
also supported through ERF II, with 26,200 persons returned to their country of origin under 
these  schemes.  The  Fund’s  assessment  is  therefore  positive  in  all  Member  States.  Overall, 
these achievements can be considered remarkable given the ERF’s relatively limited resources 
(some €50 million per annum for the 2005-2007 programming period). 

(b) 

European Fund for the Integration of Third-Country Nationals 

In  the  2007-2009  period  the  EIF  supported  about  1,950  projects,  with  an  average  EU 
contribution  of  €  76,000.  As  a  rule,  the  projects  were  selected  following  open  calls  for 
proposals and beneficiaries belong to all organisation types (non-governmental organisations, 
local authorities, state bodies, etc). In line with the EIF's priority, implementation focussed on 
the  integration  process  of  newly  arrived  third-country  nationals  (70%  of  all  projects), 
implementing  the  ‘Common  Basic  Principles  for  Immigrant  Integration  Policy  in  the  EU’, 
with a wide range of operations, the most represented being participation is civic and social 
life, practical information and civic orientation, and language training. 

Feedback from the Member States in the context of the mid-term review of the EIF indicates 
that it provides a rather flexible framework for supporting the efforts made by Member States 
to  implement  their  integration  strategies.  In  all  but  two  Member  States  it  is  perceived  as 
having  a  genuine  added  value  that  could  not  have  been  obtained  through  national 
programmes, policies, budgets and other EU financial instruments in the area of integration. 
The EIF enabled several Member States to set up, for the first time, a comprehensive policy 
framework  for  the  integration  of  third-country  nationals  encompassing  all  of  the  Common 
Basic  Principles.  In  more  experienced  Member  States,  the  EIF  was  targeted  in  particular  at 
specific  or  vulnerable  groups,  which  were  difficult  or  even  impossible  to  reach  with  other 
funding instruments. It brought about substantial effects in areas such as the improvement of 
linguistic  skills,  promoting  meaningful  contact  and  constructive  dialogue  between  third-
country nationals and the receiving society, and addressing health problems. Although the EIF 
can co-finance actions in third countries such as pre-travel measures, little use has been made 
of this possibility by Member States so far because this practice is not widely established in 
the Member States.  

The  overall  consumption  of  appropriations  by  Member  States  for  the  first  years  has  been 
fairly high (around 82% for 2007 and 83% for 2008). Six Member States reported a budget 
use close to 100 % for the first year and four in 2008. Because the EIF is implemented mainly 
through open calls for proposals, programme implementation for 2007 and 2008 was delayed 
by  the  late  approval  of  the  national  programmes  near  the  end  of  2008,  but  most  Member 
States have caught up since.  

(c) 

Return Fund 

Since  its  creation  in  2008,  the  Return  Fund  (RF)  (2008-2013:  €676  million)  has  supported 
both  forced  and  voluntary  returns,  as  well  as  the  development  of  wider  return  management 
approaches and a specific focus on vulnerable persons.  

EN 

78 

   EN 

 
In  2008-2009,  the  Return  Fund  supported  measures  aimed  at  capacity  building  of  staff, 
investments  in  infrastructure  and  tools,  research  and  identification  of  best  practice  and 
networking  between  Member  States  and  with  third  countries.  The  most  significant  budgets 
were  allocated  to  concrete  return  operations  with  a  focus  on  assisted  voluntary  return, 
addressing  the  specific  situation  of  vulnerable  groups  as  well  as  support  for  specific 
innovative  tools  for  return  management  such  as  tailor-made  pre-departure  counselling  and 
reintegration  projects  with  the  goal  to  improve  sustainability  of  returns.  Numerous  smaller 
projects  are  also  implemented  with  the  aim  of  supporting  Community  standards  and  best 
practices.  

On  the  basis  of  the  reporting  for  the  mid-term  review,  most  Member  States  gave  a  (partly) 
positive overall assessment of the results achieved through actions co-financed by the Fund. 
In some Member States, the Fund has facilitated the initiation or development of previously 
quasi-non-existent  policies  in  assisted  voluntary  return  and  reintegration  aid,  and  appears 
slowly  to  lead  to  a  shift  from  forced  return  to  associated  voluntary  return.  Moreover,  other 
Member  States  were  able  to  offer  more  or  higher  financial  incentives  and/or  support  to 
returnees  for  setting  up  income-generating  activities,  thus  resulting  in  sustainable  returns. 
Besides improvements in assisted voluntary return and reintegration measures, outreach and 
counselling, activities co-financed by the Fund have led to increases in voluntary return in a 
number  of  Member  States  while  co-operation  projects  between  Member  States  and  third 
countries  have  resulted  in  more  removals  by  improving  working  arrangements  with  these 
countries on identification and the issuing of travel documents. Other positive results include 
increased exchange of information and best practices between Member States, improved data 
management,  more  sophisticated  return  operations  and  more  flexibility  in  the  reintegration 
assistance extended to returnees: instead of a lump-sum policy for all returnees, projects now 
also  consider  offering  assistance  in  the  form  of  training,  individual  guidance  with  business 
plans, purchase of necessary equipment for enterprises, rent and schooling charges etc. 

According reports submitted in the course of 2010, the overall consumption of appropriations 
by the Member States for the first years has been fairly high (around 85% for 2008 and 80% 
for 2009). Several main beneficiary Member States, such as Spain and the United Kingdom, 
have consistently committed their entire allocation.  

A study was published in March 2011 by the European Migration Network's on "Programmes 
and  Strategies  in  the  EU  Member  States  fostering  Assisted  Return  to  and  Reintegration  in 
Third Countries"62. The study maps the different forms of Assisted Return that are in place in 
the  EU  Member  States  in  order  to  identify  lessons  learned,  best  practices  and  possible 
synergies to further develop and improve Assisted Return programmes in the EU. Overall, the 
report  concludes  that  Assisted  Return  is  increasingly  seen  by  Member  States  as  a  valid  and 
often preferable alternative to Forced Return. As a result, Member States are taking steps to 
make  this  a  credible  and  feasible  return  option,  including  by  measures  to  overcome  the 
various obstacles persons who wish to return may face during the different phases of return 
(i.e.  pre-return,  transportation  and  post-return).  Furthermore,  in  several  Member  States,  the 
focus  has  also  shifted  from  organising  Assisted Return  measures  (solely)  regarding  the  pre-
return and transportation phases, to the post-return phase. 

62 

Available from http://www.emn.europa.eu under "EMN studies" 

EN 

79 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(d) 

External Borders Fund 

In  the  2007-2009  period  Member  States  put  a  noticeable  emphasis  on  actions  aiming  at 
improvement of the border infrastructure and equipment as well as investments related to the 
implementation  of  the  necessary  IT-systems  such  as  VIS  and  SIS  II.  According  to  the 
approved programmes, between 70-75% is allocated to these two priorities, with support for 
visa  policy  amounting  to  15-20%.  In  terms  of  results,  Member  States  have  flagged  the 
following  achievements:  significant  technical  improvements  in  border  infrastructure, 
reduction  of  time  needed  for  passenger  checks,  possibility  of  implementing  innovative 
projects,  strengthening  and  modernisation  of  the  systems  of  surveillance  of  the  external 
maritime  borders,  increase  in  the  effectiveness  and  mobility  of  services,  increase  in  the 
capacity and efficiency of the IT systems and improvements in the visa issuing process.  

Most  Member  States  gave  a  positive  overall  assessment  of  the  results  achieved  through 
actions  co-financed  by  the  EBF,  classifying  the  possibilities  under  the  EBF  for  projects  as 
effective  and  useful.  The  Member  States  observed  the  following  positive  impacts  (among 
others): significant technical improvements in border infrastructure, reduction of time needed 
for  passenger  checks,  possibility  of  implementing  of  innovative  projects,  strengthening  and 
modernisation of the systems of surveillance of the external maritime borders, increase in the 
effectiveness and mobility of services, increase in capacity and efficiency of the IT-systems 
and improvements in the visa issuing process. 

The overall consumption of appropriations by Member States for the first years has been high 
(around 90% for 2007 and 2008). The rate for 2009 is at 70% but reporting did not cover the 
entire  implementation  period.  Several  main  beneficiary  Member  States,  such  as  Spain, 
Lithuania, Malta, have consistently committed the entire allocation although lower rates have 
been reported for Italy (90%) and Greece (between 60-70%). 

Report  on  the  application  of  the  criteria  for  allocating  to  the  Member  States  the 
resources available under the four Funds 

A report on  the  application  of  the criteria for allocating to  the Member  States the  resources 
available under the four Funds has been elaborated and is expected to be available by autumn 
2011.  The  report  describes  the  approach,  procedures  and  tools  put  in  place  to  carry  out  the 
annual calculations for the allocations and the implementation challenges encountered during 
the  period  2007-2011.  Preliminary  conclusions  indicate  that  the  systems  set  up  for  the 
collection of the data on the basis of which funding is distributed are adequate. However, the 
amount  and  the  complexity  of  the  data  to  be  collected  and  verified  each  year  imposes  a 
significant recurring burden on the Member States and the Commission; there may therefore 
be more cost-effective distribution keys to express the principle of solidarity at the heart of the 
Funds.  

European Migration Network 

Whilst the evaluation of the EMN was not completed at the time of this impact assessment, 
one element identified for the EMN's further development was for it to evolve into a true EU 
advisory  council  for  migration  gathering  together  representatives  of  Member  States, 
academia, civil society, think-tanks and other EU/international entities.  

EN 

80 

   EN 

 
External dimension of home affairs policies 

(1) 

Thematic  Programme  for  Cooperation  with  Third  Countries  in  the  Areas  of 
Migration and Asylum 

The mid-term review of the Thematic Programme for Cooperation with Third Countries in the 
Areas of Migration and Asylum63 carried out in 2009/2010 gave a positive overall assessment 
of the Thematic Programme and highlighted the high quality of the technical assistance and 
capacity building provided through the projects. However, the evaluators also noted that the 
Thematic Programme did not manage to effectively involve governments from third countries 
as active stakeholders and therefore did not succeed in stimulating broad policy dialogue with 
third  countries,  which  obviously  limits  considerably  its  impact.  The  over-dispersion  of  the 
Programme's rather limited resources is also a problem that should be tackled in the future if it 
is  to  become  a  real  strategic  tool  in  EU  cooperation  with  third  countries  on  migration  and 
asylum.  As  a  Programme  under  the  Development  Cooperation  Instrument,  the  mid-term 
review also recommended to take more in consideration migration flows between developing 
countries and to other destinations than the EU. It was also recommended to better coordinate 
between the Thematic Programme and the geographical instruments, to provide more support 
to  local  civil  society  organizations  and  local  authorities,  to  strengthen  the  Programme’s 
mainstreaming  of  human  rights  and  democratic  principles  and  to  ensure  that  third  country 
governments are fully informed at the highest level of the projects being implemented in the 
country, so as to increase the Programme's visibility and facilitate the political dialogue. 

(2) 

Regional Protection Programmes (RPP) 

A  2009  external  evaluation  of  pilot  Regional  Protection  Programmes  (RPP)  concluded  that 
the concept of RPP constitutes a first successful step towards establishing a mechanism for an 
increase of the capacity of areas which are close to regions of origin,  or which are areas of 
transit, to protect refugees through the three durable solutions: repatriation, local integration 
and  /or  resettlement  and  that  the  RPP  pilot  projects  have  clearly  contributed  to  achieving 
some of the objectives of the RPP Communication from 2005. The evaluation also noted that 
the  fact  that  RPP  were  not  funded  through  a  dedicated  funding  stream  but  through  several 
funding programmes with a more general, broader outlook, resulted in the diminution of the 
possible  achievements  of  RPP,  in  particular  in  terms  of  visibility  and  understanding  of  the 
overall  RPP  concept  and  RPP  awareness  in  the  beneficiary  countries.  It  recommends  an 
earlier  involvement  of  third  country  authorities,  a  higher  degree  of  involvement  of  Member 
States and the integration in a more comprehensive way of a resettlement component in RPP 
by  developing  a  participatory  approach  involving  both  Member  States  and  third  country 
authorities.  The  evaluation  also  recommends  that  the  selection  of  RPP  regions  should 
continue  to  be  based  primarily  on  the  assessment  of  the  particular  refugee  situation  in  third 
countries, in particular the needs analyses undertaken by UNHCR, and that adequate funding 
be allocated to ensure that a truly regional intervention can be carried out and that the regional 
character is ensured, thus enhancing the effectiveness of the intervention. 

63 

Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/what/migration-asylum/index_en.htm  

EN 

81 

   EN 

 
                                                 
ANNEX 5 – POLICY CHALLENGES IN THE HOME AFFAIRS AREA  

(1) 

Asylum 

The Common European Asylum System (CEAS) requires that regardless of where they enter 
the EU, asylum seekers should receive minimum standards of treatment. In order to meet this 
obligation,  Member  States  provide  reception  facilities  and  services  and  process  asylum 
applications in line with these standards. This also implies identifying key areas for improving 
compliance  with  EU  standards  and  developing  capacity-building  actions, 
including 
recruitment  and  training  of  staff  and  support  to  legislative  and  administrative  transposition 
processes, as well as investment in infrastructure. 

Asylum  seeker  and  refugee  flows  are  driven  by  military  conflicts  in  third  countries  and 
political risk factors such as oppressive or autocratic regimes and human rights abuses. These 
often  lead  initially  to  increased  emigration  from  the  country  concerned  to  neighbouring 
countries, with flows extending to countries further afield over a longer period. Those seeking 
asylum are also drawn by the relative high economic growth, employment, religious tolerance 
and cultural freedom enjoyed in the EU compared to some third countries.  

Dealing with these flows of people seeking asylum or some form of international protection 
requires  substantial  resources  and  capabilities  from  Member  States.  Some  Member  States 
receive higher numbers of asylum seekers than the capacity of their system to process, support 
(through the provision of reception, health and social services) and protect asylum applicants. 
This  is  reflected  in  the  difference  in  numbers  of  those  seeking  asylum  or  international 
protection  relative  to  the  population  and  wealth  of  the  Member  States.  In  the  decade  1998-
2007  there  were  each  year  on  average  661  asylum  applications  in  the  EU  per  million 
population, with very marked variations between Member States in the rates of applications 
per million population (from 5,159 in Cyprus to 48 in Romania). These differences can to a 
large  extent  be  explained  by  the  geographical  characteristics  of  the  Member  States  such  as 
proximity  to  third  countries  (e.g.  Greece,  Cyprus,  Italy,  Malta  and  Spain),  the  nature  and 
number  of  border  crossing  points,  but  are  also  linked  to  the  maturity  and  standards  of  the 
asylum systems (some Member States have less experience than others, and some may adopt 
higher standards than required by the CEAS). 

The  number  of  asylum  applications  can  also  fluctuate  significantly.  For  example,  in  2007 
applications  in  Greece  were  three  times  the  annual  average  in  the  preceding  decade. 
Moreover,  flows  of  migrants  seeking  asylum  or  international  protection  are  composed  of 
many  different  groups  with  different  needs  and  motivations,  some  of  which  are  particularly 
vulnerable  such  as  unaccompanied  minors,  women,  and  victims  of  violence  (including 
torture) and of trafficking in human beings.  

In  2007,  asylum-related  costs  were  estimated  at  €4,160  million  in  the  EU  (i.e.  on  average 
€155  million  per  Member  State).  The  estimated  costs  of  dealing  with  asylum  seekers  on 
arrival and providing reception facilities during their application and possible returns process 
as  a  proportion  of  Gross  Domestic  Product  (GDP)  vary  markedly  between  Member  States. 
Amongst  the  countries  where  data  are  available,  the  proportion  is  highest  in  Malta  (0.26%) 

EN 

82 

   EN 

 
and lowest in Slovakia (0.005%)64. Although the number of asylum seekers received by each 
Member State is the main driver of this variation in costs, the complexity of and fluctuation in 
migration flows are also factors which increase the costs of asylum procedures and systems.  

Although there was a marked reduction in applications for asylum within the EU from circa 
425,000  in  2001  to  circa  250,000  in  2010,  this  was  driven  primarily  by  a  reduction  in  the 
number  of  applications  motivated  by  economic  factors  and  more  effective  border  controls. 
There is a strong likelihood that the drivers that give rise to bona fide asylum applications in 
the  EU  (war,  repressive  regimes,  political  instability  etc.)  will  continue  and  even  that  new 
factors  (such  as  water  shortages  and  environmental  disasters)  emerge  to  contribute  to  the 
‘push’  factors  that  in  turn  lead  to  the  seeking  of  asylum.  On  the  other  hand,  the  number  of 
those seeking protection in the EU may be reduced through enlargement and neighbourhood 
policies, the adoption of EU rights and standards of governance in third countries so that they 
become  ‘safe’  and  improvement  of  third  countries'  systems  providing  support  for  asylum 
seekers and those seeking international protection.  

(2) 

Legal migration and integration 

A  forward-looking  and  comprehensive  EU  labour  migration  policy  can  help  the  EU's 
economy to meet the demographic challenge it is currently facing. The EU 2020 Strategy has 
recognised this need and the fact that better integration of migrants allows them to take full 
advantage  of  their  potential  and  can  help  the  EU  reach  its  objective  of  increasing  the 
employment rate of the population aged 20-64 from the current 69% to at least 75% by 2020. 
The  Stockholm  Programme  states  that  integration  policies  should  be  supported  through  the 
further  development  of  structures  and  tools  for  knowledge  exchange  and  coordination  with 
other relevant policy areas, such as employment, education and social inclusion. 

According to Eurostat, an estimated 1.8 million third-country nationals immigrated to the EU 
in  200865,  following  a  steady  increase  between  2000  and  2007.  The  stock  of  third-country 
nationals in the EU in 2010 was 20.2 million, i.e. 4% of the total population66. According to 
Eurostat, in 2009 there were 570,000 long-term migrants (those who have legally resided in a 
Member  State  for  at  least  five  years)67.  Apart  from  those  granted  refugee  or  other  forms  of 
international protection, who account for 15% of residency permits issued in 2008, there are 
three main groups of legal migrants: first, those seeking employment in the EU thereby filling 
labour  gaps  and  addressing  skills  shortages  (economic  migrants,  28%);  second,  those  who 
come to the EU to complete education courses and training and research in the EU (student 
and researcher migrants, 15%); and third, those that relocate with an economic migrant to the 
EU or join them at a later date (non-economic or family migrants, 35%). 

64 

65 

66 

67

Directorate-General for Home Affairs (2010): “What system of burden-sharing between Member States 
for the reception of asylum seekers?” 
Eurostat.  Data  are  residence  permit  data  in  accordance  with  the  Migration  Statistics  Regulation. 
Immigration means an action by which a person establishes his or her usual residence in the territory of 
a  country  for  a  period  that  is,  or  is  expected  to  be,  at  least  twelve  months,  having  previously  been 
usually  resident  in  another  country.  Immigrant  means  a  person  undertaking  immigration.  See  also: 
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-SF-11-001/EN/KS-SF-11-001-EN.PDF  
Eurostat.  See  also:  http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-SF-11-034/EN/KS-SF-11-
034-EN.PDF 
These migrants are also required to fulfil a set of other conditions, as specified under Council Directive 
2003/109/EC, to qualify for ‘long-term’ resident status 

EN 

83 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
The integration of these migrants is a key challenge for the EU and Member States, ensuring 
that they take active part in their new society and enjoy the same benefits, freedoms and rights 
as  EU  citizens,  thus  enabling  the  EU  to  benefit  fully  from  their  skills.  Currently,  some 
migrants experience lower labour market participation rates, poorer than average educational 
attainment and reduced social mobility compared to EU citizens. The lack of integration can 
lead to social difficulties, the cost of which is ultimately borne by society as a whole.  

Moreover,  there  are  marked  variations  in  the  proportions  of  third-country  nationals  in  the 
workforces  of  Member  States,  ranging  from  18%  in  Latvia  to  only  0.1%  in  Poland  (EU  27 
average  was  5%).  In  addition,  the  need  for  integration  is  often  more  localised  as  particular 
migrant  groups  may  choose  to  cluster  in  a  particular  neighbourhood,  city  or  region.  Such 
concentrations  may  lead  to  pressures  on  housing,  health,  social  and  education  services  and 
provoke social tensions which, in turn, may increase the need for integration measures. There 
are also gaps in employment rates between EU nationals and third-country nationals. In 2009, 
the  average  gap  across  the  EU-27  was  9  percentage  points  (12pp  for  women)  with  the  gap 
being largest in the Netherlands (23pp) and lowest in Malta (1pp)68. 

There is also  a  cost to the EU if, as  a result  of the lack of integration or other factors, new 
potential migrants who would have the potential to make an economic contribution to the EU 
chose  not  to  migrate.  This  is  best  expressed  in  lost  economic  output  or  the  costs  to  society 
from  an  otherwise  increasing  dependency  rate.  For  example,  the  nearly  5  million  legally 
resident  foreign  nationals  in  Italy  (now  accounting  for  about  7%  of  the  population)  play  an 
important  role  in  supporting  demographics  and  the  economy  of  the  country,  contributing 
11.1% to national gross domestic product69.  

In terms of future developments, the level of legal migration from third countries to the EU 
for the purposes of employment post 2014 will depend upon the demand for employment and 
the supply of EU nationals but overall it is anticipated that certain categories of third-country 
nationals will specifically be encouraged to migrate (e.g. highly skilled, seasonal workers) and 
that  there  will  be  an  increase  in  annual  net  inflows  (net  difference  in  numbers  entering  and 
exiting the EU) of migrants to the EU for the purpose of remunerated activities to 5.45 million 
in  2014  and  6.99  million  in  2020.  It  is  estimated  that  the  number  of  third  country  migrants 
entering the EU for family reunification purpose will be 4.76 million in 2014 and 4.86 million 
in 202070 and student migration will is expected to remain relatively stable at around half a 
million in both 2014 and 2020. Overall, based on the aggregation of each type of migration, 
the annual inflow of legal migrants is expected to increase to 11 million in  2014  and 12.77 
million in 2020. As a consequence, the effective integration of migrants from outside the EU 
is likely to be increasingly important to maintaining labour productivity and living standards 
in the EU71.  

68 

69 

70 
71 

(2010):  Dossier  Statistico 

Lodovici, M. S. (2010): ‘Making a success of integrating immigrants in the labour market’, Discussion 
Paper 
at: 
Caritas 
http://www.caritasitaliana.it/materiali/Pubblicazioni/Libri_2010/dossier_immigrazione2010/scheda_sint
esi.pdf  
European Migration Network: Study on Family Reunification (January 2008) 
Another  report,  commissioned  by  the  OECD  and  published  in  2007,  suggests  that,  in  the  absence  of 
immigration and at constant labour force participation rates, the European labour force would shrink to 
201 million in 2025 and to 160 million in 2050. 

Immigrazione  Caritas-Migrantes  2010, 

available 

EN 

84 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(3) 

Irregular migration and return 

An EU policy on legal migration can be credible only if the EU simultaneously takes effective 
action against irregular immigration. Irregular migration occurs when migrants gain entry into 
the  EU  illegally,  for  example  by  crossing  the  borders  of  a  Member  State  via  smuggling  or 
trafficking, by using false documents or a fraudulent statement of the purpose of stay. In other 
cases,  migrants  who  entered  the  EU  legally  become  irregular  migrants  by  overstaying  their 
visa  or  by  violating  the  conditions  of  their  visa,  work  permit  or  permit  to  stay.  Similarly, 
asylum seekers who do not leave the EU when having received a (final) negative decision on 
their application for international protection or who abscond the application process without 
leaving the EU become irregular migrants. Critically, due to the free movement of persons in 
the Schengen area, the burden of dealing with irregular immigration does not necessarily fall 
on the country of entry but rather on the destination Member State targeted by the migrant. 

The ‘push’ factors underlying asylum flows are also the main drivers of irregular migration, 
as are the extent to which effective controls at borders prevent illegal entry and the fact that it 
is difficult for Member States to detect and effectively remove those staying on their territory 
irregularly. On the other hand, structural ‘pull’ factors significantly influence the distribution 
of  irregular  migrants  across  Member  States,  such  as  historical  ties  between  destination  and 
source countries which tend to encourage irregular migrants to prefer specific countries over 
others as destinations, wage differentials and employment opportunities which tend to attract 
more irregular migrants and geographic proximity between source and destination countries.  

Estimates of irregular immigration in the EU 27 vary, with estimates of between 4.5 million72 
and  8  million73  irregular  migrants  living  in  the  EU  in  2009  being  cited  frequently. 
Approximately  500,000  of  these  are  apprehended  annually,  the  majority  of  whom  are 
overstayers  choosing  to  remain  in  a  Member  State  for  economic  reasons74.  Due  to  their 
geographic  situation  or  attractive  economic  profile,  some  Member  States  face  greater 
challenges  in  the  area  of  irregular  migration,  receiving  numbers  of  irregular  migrants 
disproportionate to their capacity to detect, regularise or return such migrants. According to 
Eurostat, the estimated number of persons found to be illegally present is unevenly distributed 
across the EU 27, ranging from around 100 individuals per million population in Denmark in 
2009,  Latvia  and  Poland  to  over  9,000  in  Cyprus  and  Greece.  Moreover,  the  numbers  of 
return orders served annually, on average, significantly exceeded the number of third-country 
nationals actually returned following such orders in most Member States. 

As  a  result  of  the  above,  the  costs  incurred  in  meeting  the  challenge  of  irregular  migration 
also vary considerably between Member States, depending on the number and cost of forced 
removals,  the  degree  of  development  and  use  of  the  assisted  voluntary  return  schemes  and 
reintegration  packages  and  the  scope  of  other  enforcement  measures  (such  as  reception  and 
detention facilities for irregular migrants).  

Irregular  immigration  is  costly  not  only  for  the  ‘target’  Member  States  which  spend 
considerable  sums  on  enforcement  measures,  including  detention,  identification,  return  and 

72 

73 

74 

European  Commission,  Directorate  General  for  Communication  (2009):  ‘Migration  in  the  European 
Union: An opportunity and a challenge’, ‘Europe on the move’ document completed in May 2009 
Lodovici, M. S. (2010): ‘Making a success of integrating immigrants in the labour market’, Discussion 
Paper 
European  Commission,  Directorate  General  for  Communication  (2009):  ‘Migration  in  the  European 
Union: An opportunity and a challenge’, ‘Europe on the move’ document completed in May 2009 

EN 

85 

   EN 

 
                                                 
reintegration  operations,  but  also  for  the  migrants  involved.  Europol  estimates  that  recent 
migration  flows  from  Iraq  into  the  EU  were  exploited  by  organised  crime  groups,  which 
facilitated  irregular  immigration  for  fees  of  €10,000  per  individual  or  more75.  Irregular 
immigration  provides  finance  to  organised  criminal  gangs  through  activities  such  as  travel 
document misuse or falsification (acquisition of visas or residence permits on false grounds). 
Moreover, in terms of development of harmonious relations between the host population and 
migrant communities, continued irregular stay may give rise to hostility, prejudice and social 
division.  This  prejudice  tends  to  be  reinforced  by  the  association  of  irregular  immigration 
with criminal activities in general.  

The number of ‘new’ irregular migrants in the EU is likely to decrease in future years, largely 
as a result of the implementation of policy measures and practices to prevent, detect and take 
care  of  irregular  migrants.  However,  the  stock  of  irregular  migrants  is  unlikely  to  reduce 
markedly  even  if  there  were  significant  improvements  in  detection  and  removal  rates  of 
existing irregular migrants but some reduction can be anticipated. The EU's attractive labour 
market and high living standards are the main factors encouraging irregular migration and it is 
very likely that this will remain the case after 201476. Through assisted voluntary return and 
reintegration programmes, readmission agreements, migration partnerships and other forms of 
cooperation with third countries, the EU may seek to reduce the flows of irregular migration 
to end the incidence of irregular stay in its territory.  

(4) 

Management of the EU's external borders 

About  240  million  individuals  cross  the  external  land  borders  and  80  million  the  external 
maritime  borders  of  the  Schengen  area,  including  Cyprus,  Bulgaria  and  Romania  (2010 
figures). These Member States registered about 364 million passengers arriving by air in the 
same year. The number of visas issued by the Schengen States in 2010 amounted to nearly 12 
million  (including  airport-transit,  transit  and  short  term  stay  visas).  The  drivers  of  cross-
border movements are the same as those linked to migration (legal and irregular). In addition 
to these drivers, changes to economic activity and disposable incomes in the emerging BRIC 
economies77  and  in  other  developed  economies  (i.e.  Japan,  US,  Canada)  have  an  impact  on 
the number of people passing through European borders for business or recreational purposes.  

The external land border of the EU is nearly 8,000 km long and the maritime border almost 
80,000 km long78. There are 1,802 border crossing points in the EU Member States, of which 
nearly half (810) are along the maritime borders, 667 comprise airports and the remaining 325 
are  land  border  points.  The  external  Schengen  land  border  is  8,826  km  long,  while  the 
maritime Schengen border is nearly 43,000 km long and accounts for over half (53%) of the 
EU-27 maritime borders. Integrating the management and surveillance of borders is therefore 
a  complex  and  costly  exercise,  but  necessary  to  maintain  effective  border  control.  The 
resources  required  to  deploy  around  11,500  border  guards  on  the  external  border  was 

75 
76

77 

78

Europol (2008): ‘Facilitated irregular migration into the European Union’ 
Duvell,  F.  (COMPAS)  Irregular  Migration  in  Northern  Europe:  Overview  and  Comparison 
Clandestino Project Conference, London, 27/3/2009 
Commonly refers to Brazil, Russia, India and China, and in some cases South Korea and South Africa 
(BRICKS) 
UK House of Lords, European Union Committee (2008): ‘FRONTEX: the EU external borders agency 
– report with evidence’, 9th Report of Session 2007-08 

EN 

86 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
 
estimated  at  approximately  €400  million  in  200879,  or  around  €35,000  per  border  guard  on 
average.  

Effective  border  control  is  an  important  pre-condition  for  the  development  of  the  Schengen 
area without internal borders and for the accomplishment of all of the objectives in the areas 
of migration and security. Once an individual has entered at a particular point he or she can 
then move virtually without restriction to other Member States, irrespective of his/her right to 
reside elsewhere. In consequence, every Member State in the Schengen area has an interest in 
the  effectiveness  with  which  others  control  the  external  borders  for  which  they  are 
responsible, since they stand to be adversely affected through an unwanted influx of irregular 
migrants  if  this  task  is  performed  inefficiently.  This  is  a  compelling  argument  for  common 
standards and some means of ensuring the effective application of these standards, despite the 
fact  that  the  ultimate  responsibility  remains  with  the  Member  States  concerned,  and  it  has 
been the basis for the development of the Schengen acquis in this area. Effective, efficient and 
secure  border  control  is  essential  for  the  free  movement  of  legally  residing  third-country 
nationals  and  EU  citizens,  as  well  as  to  maintain  internal  security.  Information  sharing 
between different law enforcement authorities, training of border staff and the development of 
shared competencies are therefore also important.  

The  responsibilities  for  border  control  differ  considerably  from  Member  State  to  Member 
State,  resulting  in  them  bearing  a  disproportionate  share  of  the  associated  costs.  Member 
States  at  the  periphery  of  the  EU  with  long  borders  and  many  border  crossing  points  have 
larger responsibilities than other Member States to prevent irregular migration, facilitate bona 
fide cross-border movements and provide security. For example, Romania accounts for 24% 
of the EU's Eastern external borders, whereas Hungary and Slovakia account for only 2% and 
1% respectively. In terms of the EU's Southern  maritime  borders,  Greece  accounts  for  40% 
and  Slovenia  for  0.1%.  The  length  of  external  border  therefore  varies  widely  between 
Member States, as does the associated cost of protecting it.  

A  number  of  border  control  characteristics  also  contribute  to  the  rationale  for  EU  action, 
namely the workload in terms of the checks on persons  depends largely on migration  flows 
and  the  location  of  key  entry  points  which  are  the  first  points  of  entry  for  passengers  and 
goods. Another indicator of the variation in the burden borne annually by different Member 
States  in  this  area  is  the  number  of  visa  applications  received  per  consular  office  in  each 
Member  State.  In  2009,  an  average  of  22,741  visa  applications  was  received  per  consular 
office in Finland against on average 1,374 per consular office in Luxemburg. 

To ensure adequate control, two crucial large-scale IT systems are being established for the 
management  of  the  external  borders:  the  Visa  Information  System  (VIS)  and  the  Schengen 
Information System (SIS II). Sufficient financial support is needed to ensure the maintenance 
of these systems and the functioning of a future IT Agency which will gradually take over the 
management  and  development  of  these  systems.  Sufficient  financial  assistance  will  also  be 
needed for the development and maintenance of any future IT-systems, such as the Entry/Exit 
System and the Registered Traveller Programme.  

Frontex supports the efficient implementation of the acquis on border control and coordinates 
joint  operations,  including  the  pooling  of  human  and  technical  resources  made  available  by 

79

European Commission (2008): ‘Impact assessment: Preparing the next steps in border management in 
the European Union’, SEC(2008) 153 

EN 

87 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
Member  States  at  European  level  in  order  to  provide  short-term  assistance  in  order  to 
safeguard the integrity of the EU's border security system in case of urgent and exceptional 
migratory  pressures.  For  example,  in  response  to  the  detection  of  massive  illegal  border 
crossings  (some  75,000)  at  the  Greek/Turkish  border  in  2010,  Frontex  coordinated  the 
deployment  of  a  Rapid  Border  Intervention  Team  ("RABIT")  and  in  2011,  following  the 
influx  of  migrants  and  asylum  seekers  from  northern  African  countries  witnessed  in  the 
Pelagic Islands (in particular, Lampedusa), Italy made a formal request for a Frontex-led Joint 
Operation to strengthen border surveillance.  

The  further  development  of  the  EU  common  visa  policy  is  another  priority  with  a  view  to 
facilitating  legitimate  travel,  tackling  irregular  immigration,  improving  local  consular 
cooperation  and  to  fight  against  visa  fraud.  In the  Schengen  area,  persons  holding  a  visa  or 
residence permit from a Member State can move freely to other countries. Member States are 
therefore issuing visas not only in their own interest. There is a common interest that all visas 
are  issued  under  common  standards  so  as  to  ensure  that  the  beneficiaries  are  bona  fide 
travellers  and  do  not  pose  an  unnecessary  additional  burden  on  border  controls  of  other 
Member  States  at  the  time  of  their  arrival  at  the  borders.  The  further  development  of  the 
common  visa  policy  would  benefit  from  reinforced  co-operation  and  information  sharing 
between the Member States' consulates.  

The  aforementioned  passenger  flows  and  movements  of  persons  crossing  the  EU  external 
borders are part of a rising trend which is expected to persist in the coming years. Assuming a 
continuing  average  growth  rate  of  around  2%  in  the  number  of  trips  made  by  EU  residents 
going abroad for holidays or business purposes (Eurostat), the number of crossings of the EU 
external borders is expected to rise to around 324 million in 2014 and 350 million in 2020. It 
is  also  reasonable  to  assume  that  the  Schengen  area  will  be  extended  and  some  candidate 
countries will accede to the EU between 2014 and 2020. The challenge of managing the EU 
borders  is  thus  likely  to  increase.  At  the  same  time,  the  application  of  new  technologies 
should ease the border crossing process for bone fide travellers. In addition, more information 
will be known about those crossing borders and the envisaged entry/exit system will facilitate 
the  identification  of  ‘over-stayers’  who  entered  the  EU  legally.  Further  harmonisation  of 
approaches to border controls is also expected. 

(5) 

Prevention of and fight against organised crime 

Organised  crime  in  its  various  forms  (e.g.  drug  trafficking,  trafficking  in  human  beings, 
crimes  by  itinerant  criminal  gangs,  money  laundering,  fraud,  cybercrime,  corruption, 
counterfeited  products  and  firearms,  sexual  exploitation  of  children,  and  various 
environmental  crimes)  poses  major  problems  for  the  EU.  There  is  a  continued  need  to 
effectively prevent such crime and, when it does occur, to convict its perpetrators in order to 
ensure that "crime does not pay" and in order to bring justice for victims. However, organised 
crime  is  increasingly  cross-border  in  nature.  This  reduces  the  effectiveness  of  national  law 
enforcement activities and encourages criminals to evade law enforcement bodies by crossing 
over European borders and jurisdictions.  

Data  on  levels  of  ‘organised  crime’  are  not  available  but  according  to  Eurostat  crime  rates 
have been fairly stable in the EU; typically in the 28 to 30 million recorded crimes per annum 

EN 

88 

   EN 

 
range over the 2000 to 2007 period, with a slight decline to just over 27 million in 200880. The 
aggregate  impact  of  cybercrime,  counterfeiting,  organised  road  cargo/freight  theft,  drug 
trafficking, payment card fraud and trafficking in human beings in terms of annual costs to the 
EU economy is roughly estimated to be close to €233 billion. Organised crime in all its forms 
could therefore cost the EU over €250 billion per year (if other organised crime is included, 
such  as  money  laundering,  trafficking  in  firearms  and  environmental  crime81).  The  annual 
costs of cybercrime, organised theft of road cargo or freight and drug trafficking to the EU are 
the largest in monetary terms, with the costs of internet crime alone estimated at €220 billion 
in 201082. The direct costs of addressing these crimes are high. For instance, €4,179 was spent 
on  protecting  the  average  victim  of  trafficking  in  human  beings  in  200983,  which  could  be 
avoided through better crime prevention.  

Whilst the total number of crimes committed has remained relatively stable, their composition 
has  changed  significantly,  with  more  sophisticated  crimes  such  as  cybercrime  and  payment 
card fraud growing in importance. As knowledge of these crimes is limited and evolving with 
changes  to  technology  and  increased  internet  activity,  this  is  also  an  area  where  law 
enforcement  authorities  benefit  most  from  information  sharing  and  greater  cooperation.  In 
addition,  some  Member  States  are  more  "sensitive"  to  some  forms  of  organised  crime  than 
others. For example, in relation to incidents of organised road cargo or freight crime, the loss 
rates documented across Member States vary substantially with the UK and the Netherlands 
facing significantly higher risks of losses incurred than Cyprus and Slovenia84.  

In the  coming  years, the nature of crime  is expected to change. Cross-border and organised 
crime can be expected to increase and it is likely that the costs of this crime will increase, as it 
becomes more sophisticated and international in nature. Some types of organised crime such 
as drug trafficking and trafficking in human beings are anticipated to remain at current levels 
or  decline  through  targeted  legislation  and  improvements  in  border  controls.  By  contrast,  it 
can be expected that other types of crime (e.g. fraud, money laundering and cybercrime) will 
grow as technology develops and criminals involved become more sophisticated. The costs of 
these  crimes  are  very  high.  For  example,  the  overall  annual  EU-level  costs  of  cybercrime 
were estimated to be €750 billion in 201085  or  1%  of  world  GDP.  On the other  hand, there 
will be improved measures to facilitate information sharing and cooperation between Member 
State  law  enforcement  authorities.  This  should  make  it  easier  to  combat  organised  crime 
which is often cross-border in nature. 

(6) 

Prevention of and fight against terrorism and other security-related risks 

Terrorism and other security-related risks including their assessment and management present 
a major challenge to internal security in the EU. Following the 9/11 attack and the subsequent 

80 

81

82 
83

84 
85

However,  these  estimates  do  not  differentiate  between  organised  crime  and  other  types  of  crime  (for 
instance, the figures include petty robberies and burglaries). 
The heading ‘environmental crime’ encompasses crime pertaining to pollution (in particular, hazardous 
waste dumping and the trade in ozone-depleting substances) and illicit harvesting of natural resources 
(in particular, threatened animal species, fish and timber) 
Office of Cyber Security & Information Assurance, UK and Detica (2011): “The Cost of Cyber Crime” 
European  Commission  (2009):  “Impact  assessment  of  a  Council  Framework  Decision  on  preventing 
and  combating  trafficking  in  human  beings,  and  protecting  victims,  repealing  Framework  Decision 
2002/629/JHA”, SEC(2009) 358 
Europol (2009): ‘Cargo Theft Report: Applying the Brakes to Road Cargo Crime in Europe’ 
EurActiv 
agency’, 
to 
http://www.euractiv.com/en/infosociety/eu-establish-cybercrime-agency-news-486715 

cybercrime 

available 

establish 

(2010): 

update 

‘EU 

at 

EN 

89 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
 
 
bombings  in  Madrid  and  London,  the  EU  has  developed  a  coherent  counter-terrorism 
approach  by  way  of  the  2005  EU  Counter-Terrorism  Strategy  and  the  strategic  priorities 
identified  by  the  2010  Internal  Security  Strategy.  Terrorism  presents  unique  threats  in 
comparison to organised crime owing to the sporadic and transnational nature of offences, the 
potential for generating fear across Member States and the longer term fear perceptions that 
tend to be created. The latter is highlighted by qualitative survey evidence86 which indicates 
that terrorist offences constitute an area of increasing concern for the EU public.  

In 2010, nine EU Member States reported that 249 terrorist attacks had failed, foiled or been 
successfully  undertaken  on  their  territory87,  representing  a  20%  fall  relative  to  the 
corresponding  statistic  for  2009  (319  attacks).  The  overall  number  of  arrests  for  terrorism-
related  offences  remained  almost  unchanged,  decreasing  slightly  from  623  (2009)  to  611 
individuals (2010), and comprise both individuals linked to Islamist terrorism and individuals 
arrested for terrorist offences related to violent separatist activities. In relation to the latter, the 
majority of arrests were made in France (123 individuals) and Spain (104 individuals), given 
the  preponderance  of  separatist  attacks  in  these  countries.  However,  the  fact that  the  arrests 
were made across fifteen Member States while attacks were actually carried out in only nine 
Member  States  in  2010  highlights  the  transnational  character  of  the  threat,  and  the 
significance of an EU-level strategy and coordination between national authorities.  

Data on the costs of terrorism are extremely limited88. The costs of financing terrorist attacks 
are often low89. The Madrid bombings, for instance, are estimated to have cost the terrorists 
involved  about  €8,00090.  The  consequences  of  such  attacks  are  much  more  important.  The 
Madrid bombings, blasting several commuter trains, caused the death of 191 people and left 
1,841  injured.  The  immediate  material  damages  of  the  attack  were  estimated  at  €17.62 
million, and minimum direct economic cost has been estimated at more than €211.58m91. 

It  can  be  anticipated  that  the  continued  efforts  of  Member  States  and  EU  legislative  action 
will  reduce  terrorist  activities  and  their  consequent  harm  through  improvements  in  the 
cooperation  of  law  enforcement  authorities,  targeted  legislation  and  action  plans  as  well  as 
practices  that  restrict  the  opportunities  of  would-be  terrorists  to  access  and  use  explosive 
precursors  and  CBRN  materials.  However,  there  is  little  prospect  of  the  threat  of  terrorism 
reducing substantially in the foreseeable future: Irrespective of the death of Osama Bin Laden, 
islamist  terrorism  is  expected  to  continue  to  be  a  threat,  the  connections  between  terrorism 
and  organised  criminal  activities  appear  to  be  growing,  separatist  and  ethno-nationalist 
terrorist groups continue to be active and single-issue extremism (e.g. animal rights activists) 
is on the increase and the internet continues to be used as a tool for facilitating terrorism. 

86

87
88 

89

90

91 

See  for  instance  European  Commission  (2007):  “Eurobarometer  67:  Public  opinion  in  the  European 
Union”, available at http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/eb/eb67/eb67_es_exec.pdf 
Europol (2011): “TE-SAT 2011: EU Terrorism Situation and Trend Report”  
See e.g. the EP commissioned study on estimated costs of EU Counter-Terrorism measures (June 2011), 
available 
at 
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/activities/committees/studies/download.do?language=fr&file=36811; 
Europol (2010): “TE-SAT 2010: EU Terrorism Situation and Trend Report” 
UK House of Lords, European Union Committee (2005): ‘After Madrid: the EU’s response to terrorism 
– Report with Evidence’ 
The economic costs of March 11: Measuring the direct economic costs of the terrorist attacks on March 
11, 2004 in Madrid. Mikel Buesa, Aurelia Valiño, Joost Theijs, Thomas Baumert and Javier González 
Gomez 

EN 

90 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX  6  –  COMPLEMENTARITY  OF  THE  ASYLUM  AND  MIGRATION  FUND  AND  INTERNAL 

SECURITY FUND WITH OTHER EU INSTRUMENTS 

A number of other EU instruments will provide support to activities which are complementary 
to the activities that will be financed under the Asylum and Migration Fund and the Internal 
Security Fund: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

European  Social  Fund:  The  European  Social  Fund  currently  supports  integration 
measures  on  access  to  the  labour  market  whereas  the  Integration  Fund  finances 
measures such as civic orientation courses, participation in social and civic life, equal 
access to services, etc. The complementarity between both instruments is considered 
to work. Integration measures will therefore continue to be supported along the same 
lines under the Asylum and Migration Fund and the future European Social Fund.  

Civil  Protection  Financial  Instrument:  The  dividing  line  to  the  civil  protection 
financial  instrument  will  not  change  and  remain  as  described  in  Article  3  of  the 
current  CIPS  programme:  natural  disasters  as  well  as  unintentional  man-made 
disasters are for civil protection (accidents), whereas intentional, man-made disasters 
are security-relevant and will therefore for covered by the Internal Security Fund.  

EU  Solidarity  Fund:  Terrorist  attacks  or  other  security-related  incidents  are 
currently not covered by the EU Solidarity Fund. In 2005, the Commission proposed 
to broaden the EU Solidarity Fund. This proposal was welcomed by Parliament but 
rejected  by  Council.  As  there  has  been  no  change  in  the  position  of  the  Council, 
emergency funding possibilities in case of a major terrorist attack or other security-
relevant incidents need to be included in the Internal Security Fund.  

8th  Framework  Programme:  The  gap  between  security  research  and  the  practical 
application of the results of such research will be closed under the next Multiannual 
Financial Framework. The Internal Security Fund will foresee specific objectives and 
eligible  actions  to  allow  for  the  funding  of  testing  and  validating  of  scientific 
research  results  ("prototypes")  with  a  view  to  their  serial  application  in  practice 
("pre-commercial procurement").  

Justice Programme: The currently six programmes in the area of justice, rights and 
equality  will  be  merged  into  two  programmes:  a  Justice  programme  and  a 
Citizenship programme. The Justice programme is closely linked and complementary 
to the Internal Security Fund, especially its criminal justice component but is more 
focussed  on  judicial  cooperation,  procedural  harmonisation  and  mutual  recognition 
which in practise prevent substantial overlaps. 

The  external  dimension  components  of  the  Asylum  and  Migration  Fund  and  the  Internal 
Security Fund will support actions in and 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 will be 
designed and implemented in coherence with EU external action and foreign policy. It is not 
intended  to  support  actions  which  are  development  oriented  and  will  complement,  when 
appropriate,  the  financial  assistance  provided  through  external  aid  instruments.  While  those 
instruments  either  support  beneficiary  countries  development  needs  or  support  general  EU 

EN 

91 

   EN 

 
political  interests  with  strategic  partners,  home  affairs  funds  will  support  specific  actions  in 
third  countries  in  the  interest  of  EU  migration  policy  and  EU  internal  security  objectives. 
They  will  therefore  fill  a  specific  gap  and  will  contribute  to  completing  the  toolbox  at  the 
disposal of the Union.  

Home  affairs  policies  should  be  strongly  embedded  in  EU  external  action  and  this  should 
logically  be  translated into  more  financial  assistance  to third  countries  in  those  policy  areas 
both  through  geographic  (which  constitute  the  main  source  of  funding)  and  thematic 
instruments.  

In  this  context,  the  following  thematic  instruments  would  be  of  particular  interest  for  the 
home affairs area: 

• 

• 

The successor to the Thematic Programme "Migration & Asylum": in principle, 
four  of  the  thematic  programmes  included  in  the  current  DCI  Regulation 
(Environment, Food Security, Investing in People and Migration & Asylum) will be 
merged under the future DCI Regulation into a single thematic programme dedicated 
to global public goods. Migration and asylum should be one of the main focuses of 
such an instrument. 

Instrument for Stability: The main focus of the future Instrument for Stability (IfS) 
is the response to situations of crisis or emerging crises (peace building, support to 
interim  administrations,  support  to  the  development  of  pluralistic  and  democratic 
international  criminal  courts,  demobilisation  and 
institutions,  support 
reintegration, anti-personnel land mines, etc.). However, it will also support security-
related actions, mainly through its long-term component, such as actions addressing 
sudden  population  movements,  the  fight  against  terrorism  and  organised  crime, 
support to law enforcement authorities, border management, fight against trafficking 
in human beings, etc.). 

for 

EN 

92 

   EN 

 
ANNEX  7  –  SUMMARY  RESULTS  OF  THE  PUBLIC  CONSULTATION  ON  THE  FUTURE  OF  EU 

FUNDING FOR HOME AFFAIRS AFTER 2013 

(1) 

General information 

The  public  consultation  ran  from  5  January  to  20  March  2011.  An  on-line  questionnaire, 
hosted by the European Union’s Europa website, was open to all stakeholders interested. The 
questionnaire had 32 questions covering both general questions about the future needs of the 
home affairs policy area, and more detailed questions about specific policy fields and delivery 
mechanisms.  

The  exercise  was  open  to  all  stakeholders,  both  within  the  EU  and  third  countries  and  all 
citizens  and  organisations  were  therefore  welcome  to  contribute.  Contributions  were  sought 
from  persons,  Member  States,  EU  Institutions,  local,  regional  and  national  authorities, 
international organisations, intergovernmental and non-governmental organisations, academic 
institutions,  third  countries,  social  partners  and  civil  society,  and  in  particular  organisations 
with experience of the programmes in support of home affairs policies.  

In  order  to  receive  as  many  responses  as  possible  the  questionnaire  was  produced  in  22 
different languages and could be printed off and submitted separately by post, fax or email. 
Additionally,  some  stakeholders  provided  position  papers  expressing  their  views  as  an 
organisation or individual. These are also included in the following summary. 

The  consultation  documents  and  full  results  are  available  at  the  DG  Home  Affairs  website: 
http://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/news/consulting_public/consulting_0020_en.htm  

(2) 

Responses to the questionnaire 

At the end of the consultation exercise, 115 responses were received from individuals and on 
behalf of organisations, including 8 position papers92. Omitting any duplicates and accounting 
for missing responses to some questions, most questions achieved a response rate above 100 
(i.e. over 100 responses).  

78%  of  responses  were  received  on  behalf  of  organisations  and  22%  from  individuals93.  A 
breakdown  of  responses  by  organisation  type  shows  that  51%  of  responses  were  received 
from  national  public  administrations,  17%  from  Non-governmental  organisations  and  10% 
from  regional  and  local  public  bodies.  Additionally,  responses  were  received  from 
international  organisations  (6%),  research  institutes  (4%)  and  business  organisations  (3%), 
including private companies (4%). Of these responses, most were received from respondents 
in  Spain  (11%)  and  Belgium94  (12%),  Cyprus,  Finland,  Hungary  and  Italy  (6%  each). 
Respondents  from  all  Member  States  however  contributed  to  the  consultation  as  well  as 
respondents in some third countries (4%). Overall, the sample is deemed to be representative 
of the organisations benefiting and managing EU funds in the home affairs area. However, it 
was found that many organisations that gave a no opinion response to many of the questions 
did so due to the unfamiliarity of the topic under discussion. For example, many national law 

92 
93 

94 

A number of responses were found to be incomplete or submitted in duplicate.  
Comments  presented  in  this  document  are  aggregated  from  individuals  and  organisations,  comments 
attributed to individuals are however indicated where appropriate.  
Many international and European organisations are located in Belgium 

EN 

93 

   EN 

 
                                                 
enforcement authorities did not respond or gave a no opinion response to questions relating to 
migration  management  and  borders.  Equally,  non-governmental  organisations  in  the 
migration field provided similar responses to internal security questions. 

(3) 

Main results and conclusions 

In general, respondents strongly support the need for simplification in the delivery of home 
affairs  policies,  the  need  for  greater  flexibility  (specifically  in  relation  to  the  ability  to  deal 
with migration and security related crises), and the need for increased funding and support in 
areas  with  a  strong  burden  sharing  (asylum  and  borders)  and/or  cooperative  dimension 
(internal security, agencies). Responses demonstrate that only through these measures can EU 
added  value  be  enhanced  and  the  effectiveness  and  efficiency  of  instruments  improved. 
Greater  home  affairs  policy  leverage  in  third  countries  was  also  shown  to  be  important  and 
desired by stakeholders.  

The headline results of the stakeholder consultation exercise are: 

•  EU Value Added: Was judged to be greatest by respondents in areas of prevention and 
fight  against  terrorism  and  organised  crime,  law  enforcement,  legal  migration  and 
integration  of  third  country  nationals,  and  in  building  a  Common  European  Asylum 
System (CEAS). This reflects the added value to be gained in the newer areas of the EU's 
competency.  

•  Funding  Sources:  Responses  on  behalf  of  organisations  clearly  identified  EU  level 
funding  as  an  important  source  of  funding  in  all  policy  areas.  However,  individual 
respondents demonstrated a much higher preference for national funding sources.  

•  Future Level of Financial support: A lack of consensus appeared to exist in many areas 
as to whether current spending levels of the EU should be maintained or increased. Calls 
for  funding  to  be  reduced  were  however  strongest  in  relation  to  the  visa,  returns  and 
integrated border management policy areas. 

•  Future  needs  in  Immigration  and  Asylum:  Future  needs  were  found  to  be  greatest  in 
capacity building for asylum systems and integration of refugees, integration policies and 
best  practice,  and  in  the  prevention  and  control  of  irregular  migration  and  criminal 
activities.  This  highlights the important need to  support  cooperation across policy areas, 
the  need  to  support  Member  States  dealing  with  disproportionate  inflows  of  asylum 
seekers and to share the responsibility of building and maintaining necessary capabilities 
to deal with influxes of third country nationals (legal and irregular). 

•  Future  needs  in  Migration  and  Border  Control:  A  clear  preference  for  preventive 
action  was  highlighted  by  respondents,  as  opposed  to  control  measures,  indicating  the 
potential importance of the external dimension to improve the efficiency and effectiveness 
of border systems, through actions in third countries. 

•  Future needs in Internal Security: The need to support crisis management, fund training 
of  law  enforcement  officials  and  provide  assistance  in  the  development  of  new  security 
solutions were all highlighted as important needs in the internal security field.  

EN 

94 

   EN 

 
•  Future  needs  in  the  External  Dimension:  Strong  support  was  indicated  for  a  more 
comprehensive approach to internal and external aspects of home affairs policies as well 
as for operations in third countries with a direct impact on EU internal security.  

•  Practical Cooperation: The scope for greater practical cooperation across all policy areas 

between Member States was clearly evident in stakeholder responses. 

•  Agencies:  The  majority  of  respondents  indicated  that  agencies  positively  contributed  to 
the achievement of Home Affairs policies. However they also agreed that agencies do not 
currently  receive  sufficient  funding  to  carry  out  their  tasks.  Again,  greater  scope  for 
cooperation  and  more  synergies  between  agencies,  the  Commission,  and  Member  States 
was highlighted as an important need in the future.  

•  Simplification  of  Delivery  Mechanisms:  Respondents  unanimously  identified  the  need 
for simplification in the delivery of Home Affairs policies. The most popular suggestions 
for how this could be achieved included: 1) Allowing for an increase in the levels of EU 
co-financing  percentages  to  underpin  performance,  to  promote  strategic  priorities  or  to 
address specific needs of Member States; 2) Replacing the combination of a multiannual 
strategy  and  annual  programmes  with  a  multiannual  programming  document  and  annual 
reporting on progress made, and 3) Supporting strategic programming in Member States 
by  defining  common  targets  at  EU  level.  Proposals  for  reducing  the  number  of  Funds, 
establishing a performance reserve and increasing the use of the shared management mode 
also found strong support. 

•  Flexibility:  Respondents  highlighted  the  fact  that  crises  such  as  a  terrorist  attack,  the 
sudden arrival of asylum seekers or irregular migrants in large numbers at the borders of 
the EU are representative of situations where an emergency response could be triggered 
and where Member States could need EU support. The need for an emergency response 
mechanism  is  therefore  clearly  identified.  Many  respondents  indicated  that  the  current 
mechanisms  are  not  adequate  and  that  an  improved  emergency  mechanism  should  be 
incorporated under the next Multi-annual Financial Framework. 

EN 

95 

   EN 

 
ANNEX 8 – EXAMPLES OF INDICATIVE INDICATORS 

Specific objectives 

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

of 

support 

the 
To 
of 
implementation 
the 
Common 
European  Asylum 
System (CEAS) 

Examples of key output indicators 

Examples of key result and impact indicators 

•  Number  of  third-country  nationals  who  benefited  from  social  and/or  legal  services  or 
specific assistance within the framework of related administrative procedures (by gender) 

• 

Improved  capacity  in  providing  third-country  nationals 
with  services  and  specific  assistance  within 
the 
framework of related administrative procedures  

•  Number  of  third-country  nationals  who  benefited  from  orientation,  language  and  other 

support furthering their integration into society (by gender) 

•  Number of persons reached with a two-way process integration activity (by gender) 

• 

Improved  integration  of  third-country  nationals  in  the 
receiving society 

•  Consistent strategies for the integration of third-country 

•  Number of integration professionals, including from non-profit organisations, benefitting 

nationals at regional and local level 

from capacity building measures 

•  Number  of  target  group  persons  (asylum  seekers,  refugees  etc.)  who  benefited  from 

•  Development of an EU resettlement programme 

social and/or legal services or specific assistance (by gender) 

•  Number of reception infrastructure and services added or improved for the benefit of the 

target-population 

•  Number of refugees resettled into the EU (by gender) 

•  Number of beneficiaries of and/or applicants for international protection relocated from 

one Member State to another Member State (by gender) 

•  Number of asylum procedures improved 

•  Number of cooperation activities between national asylum administrations 

• 

• 

Improved facilities and services for asylum seekers 

Improved capacity in asylum processing  

•  Speeding-up  the  full  implementation  of  the  EU  acquis 

in Member State(s) joining the EU 

To  reduce  irregular 
and 
migration 
voluntary 
promote 
return 

•  Number  of  third-country  nationals  who  benefited  from  social  and/or  legal  services  or 
specific  assistance  within  the  framework  of  administrative  (removal)  procedures  (by 
gender) 

• 

• 

Improved facilities and services for returnees  

Increase  in  numbers  of  third-country  nationals  having 
returned,  voluntarily  or  not,  as  a  results  of  measures 

•  Number  of  third-country  nationals  who  availed  themselves  of  assisted  voluntary  return 

EN 

96 

EN 

 
  
programmes (where appropriate including reintegration measures) 

improving capacity in return management 

•  Number  of  reception  and/or  detention  places  added  or  improved  for  the  benefit  of  the 

target population 

•  Number of return management professionals, including from non-profit, benefiting from 

training and exchange programmes 

•  Number  of  measures  improving  the  practical  co-operation  with  third  countries  in  the 

identification and readmission of third-country nationals  

To 
the 
support 
external  aspects  of 
the  EU's  migration 
policy  

•  Number of third-country nationals who benefited from a Mobility Partnership supported 

• 

by the EU (by gender) 

Improved  cooperation  with 
management of migration flows 

third-countries  on 

the 

•  Number  of  refugees  resettled  into  the  EU  in  the  context  of  Regional  Protection 

•  Speed  of  operations: 

time  between 

request 

for 

Programmes supported by the EU (by gender) 

resettlement /return operation and completing it 

•  Number  of  third-country  nationals  who  were  returned  under  readmission  arrangements 

•  Speed  of  operations: 

time  between 

request 

for 

supported by the EU (by gender) 

identification and readmission of the person concerned 

To  strengthen  EU 
external borders 

•  Number of border crossing points equipped, secured and/or enhanced with state-of the-

• 

Improved resources deployment at external borders 

art technology facilitating smooth and secure border checks 

•  Number  of  operating  equipment  and/or  systems  allowing  optimal  documentary  checks 

purchased, replaced and/or upgraded 

•  Number of third-country nationals benefiting from local border traffic agreements 

•  Reduced permeability of external borders 

•  Number of travellers affected by EU entry/exit system  

• 

Increased  size  of  the  external  borders  affected  covered 
by the EUROSUR  

•  Number  of  border  surveillance  systems  introduced  and/or  upgraded  within  the 

framework of EUROSUR 

• 

Increased border security 

•  Number  of  means  of  transport  (air,  sea  or  land  borne)  purchased,  replaced  and/or 

•  Uniform  and  correct  application  of  EU  acquis  on 

upgraded for border surveillance 

borders 

•  Number  of  communication  tools  and  systems  purchased,  replaced  and/or  upgraded  for 
co-operation  between  border  guards,  migration  and  law  enforcement  authorities  within 

• 

EN 

97 

Increased 
interagency co-operation at the borders 

internal  security 

through  an 

improved 

EN 

 
  
the framework of an integrated border management 

•  Number of third-country nationals apprehended at the external border 

•  Number  of  border  guards  and  related  staff  benefiting  from  training  and  exchange 

programmes 

To 
facilitate 
mobility  across  EU 
external borders 

•  Number of third-country nationals benefiting from consular services abroad 

•  Facilitated access for third-country nationals to the EU 

•  Number of regional consular co-operation activities carried out 

•  Number  of  passengers  affected  by  an  EU  registered 

traveller programme 

•  Number  of  immigration  liaison  officers  stationed  in  third  countries  supporting  the  visa 

issuing process and the prevention of irregular entry 

•  Uniform and correct application of EU acquis on visa 

To reduce the risk of 
increase 
and 
and 
detection 
successful 
prosecution of cross-
border and organised 
crime,  terrorism  and 
serious 
other 
security-related 
threats 

•  Number  of  consular  posts  equipped,  secured  and/or  enhanced  to  provide  quality  of 

• 

Improved capacity in visa issuing 

service to visa applicants 

•  Number of consular staff benefiting from training and exchange programmes 

•  Number of networks , exchange of information and/or operational co-operation activities 

(e.g. JITs) established between Member States/EU and Agencies 

•  Number of policemen trained by Member States and relevant EU agencies 

•  Number of acquired interoperable technologies, equipment and/or infrastructure 

•  Enhanced  sharing  of  information,  co-ordination  and/or 
in  crime, 

co-operation  between  Member  States 
terrorism and other security-related threats 

•  Enhanced administrative and operational capabilities 

•  Coherent EU policy on risk management linking threat 

•  Number  of  secure  links  and  cooperation  channels  between  crisis  coordination  actors  at 

and risk assessments to policy making 

EU and national level 

•  Number of threat and risk assessments produced 

•  Number of economic sectors covered by Directive 2008/114 

•  Number of networks, exchange of information and/or operational co-operation activities 

established between Member States/EU and Agencies 

•  Effective and coordinated EU response to crisis, linking 

up existing capabilities and expertise 

EN 

98 

EN 

 
  
the 
support 
To 
external  aspects  of 
the  EU's 
internal 
security policy  

•  Number of networks, exchange of information and/or operational co-operation activities 

established between Member States/EU, Agencies and third countries 

•  Enhanced  sharing  of  information,  co-ordination  and/or 
third 

co-operation  between  Member  States  and 
countries 

EN 

99 

EN