REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS on the results achieved and on qualitative and quantitative aspects of implementation of the External Borders Fund for the period 2007-2009 (report submitted in accordance with Article 52 (3) (b) of Decision No 574/2007/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 23 May 2007)
Date: 2011-12-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, EU visa policy, distribution of EU funding, external border of the EU, fund (EU), migration control

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 11.5.2012  
COM(2011) 857 final/2 

CORRIGENDUM: 
Annule et remplace le document COM(2011)857 final du 9/12/2011 
Concerne toutes les versions linguistiques  
(correction d'une erreur dans le titre ainsi que deux fautes de grammaire dans le texte) 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE 
COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE 
COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 

on the results achieved and on qualitative and quantitative aspects of implementation of 
the External Borders Fund for the period 2007-2009 (report submitted in accordance 
with Article 52 (3) (b) of Decision No 574/2007/EC of the European Parliament and the 
Council of 23 May 2007) 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE 
COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE 
COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 

on the results achieved and on qualitative and quantitative aspects of implementation of 
the External Borders Fund for the period 2007-2009 (report submitted in accordance 
with Article 52 (3) (b) of Decision No 574/2007/EC of the European Parliament and the 
Council of 23 May 2007) 

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

For the period 2007-2013 the European Union established the General Programme Solidarity 
and  Management  of  Migration  Flows  with  a  total  allocation  of  4.032,  23  million  Euros,  as 
currently  programmed.  It  consists  of  four  Funds  and  its  aim  is  a  fair  share  of  the 
responsibilities  between  Member  States  as  concerns  the  financial  burden  arising  from  the 
introduction  of  an  integrated  management  of  the  Union's  external  borders  and  from  the 
implementation of common policies on asylum and immigration1. 

One of the four Funds is the External Borders Fund2, established for the period 2007 – 2013 
with  a  total  envelope  of  1.820  million  Euros.  This  amount  is  supplemented  by  the 
contributions  from  the  Schengen  Associated  States,  Norway,  Iceland,  Switzerland  and 
Lichtenstein, participating in the Fund as of 2010. 

Table 1: External Borders Fund - EU budget 2007-2013  

Budget 
in '000 €  

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013** 

Total 

EU budget 

170.000 

169.500 

185.500 

207.500 

253.500 

349.100 

481.200 

1.816.300 

Contributions 
Associated 
States 

- 

- 

- 

23.417* 

16.262 

21.018 

28.971 

88.668 

Total 

170.000 

169.500 

185.500 

230.917 

268.762 

370.118 

510.171 

1.904.968 

* The amount includes the 2009 and 2010 contributions 

** The 2013 figures are estimates 

The basic act establishing the Fund requires the Commission to submit an intermediate report 
on the results achieved and on qualitative and quantitative aspects  of the  implementation of 
the Fund3.  

The report presents results achieved by the annual programmes 2007-2009 as collected on the 
basis of reports from Member States in the second half of 20104, completed with information 

1 
2 
3 
4 

EN 

COM(2005)123 final 
Decision No 574/2007/EC, OJ L144, 6.6.2007, p.22 
Article 52(3)(b) of Decision No 574/2007/EC 
A 
and 
affairs/funding/borders/funding_borders_en.htm 

compilation 

country 

reports 

the 

are 

available 

at 

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

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
available  with  the  Commission  in  the  first  quarter  of  2011.  These  results  are  intermediate 
pending the approval of the final reports on the implementation of the programmes5.  

The report also provided input in the reflection process on the future instruments.  

2. 

THE PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE FUND 

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 shifted the location of the external borders, suppressing part the external land borders 
(mainly in Germany and Austria) and introducing new 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; 

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 

5 

Article 51 of the basic act  

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
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. 

The  Fund  is  mainly  implemented  by  the  Member  States6,  in  the  shared  management 
method. On the basis of EU strategic guidelines and in dialogue with the Commission, each 
beneficiary state developed a multi-annual programming strategy on the use of the resources 
allocated  to  them  under  the  Fund.  The  strategy  constitutes  a  framework  for  the 
implementation  of  actions  through  annual  programmes.  The  annual  programmes  set  out  the 
measures  to  be  implemented  in  the  Member  States,  defining  their  purpose  and  scope,  the 
beneficiaries, the expected  results  and the financial  envelope.  The  annual  programmes  must 
be coherent with the strategy set out in the multiannual programme. 

Actions implemented by Member States are co-financed by the Fund within the five priorities 
laid  down  in  these  EU  guidelines7:  (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, VIS) and (5) the effective and 
efficient  application  of  EU  acquis  on  external  borders  and  visas  (Schengen  Borders  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 M€ 
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  90%  of  the  total  eligible 
costs of an action.  

6 

7 

This term when used in general hereafter for this Fund applies to both Member States and Associated 
States 
OJ L233, 5.09.2007, p.3 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
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  not 
exceed 80% 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 specific 
border  sections  identified  in  a  risk  analysis  carried  out  by  the  Frontex  Agency.  The  EU 
financial assistance is limited to a period of maximum 6 months. 

3. 

THE INPUTS FROM THE UNION IN 2007 – 2009 

3.1. 

EU resources made available to Member States and matched national funding  

The total envelope for the annual programme of each Member State is defined on the basis of 
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.  To  apply  the  criteria,  quantitative  data  is  used  which  reflects  the  efforts 
undertaken by each Member State such as the size of the external borders to be protected and 
the number of persons crossing them, number of consular offices and workload necessary for 
visa management8. 

The resources available for the Fund are increasing every (see table 1). In the reporting period 
nearly 30% of the overall envelope for the Fund was made available for actions implemented 
under both shared and direct management, amounting to 525 M€. 

Table 2: EU budget EBF 2007-2009 

EBF allocations in '000 €  

2007 

2008 

2009 

Member States  
totals  

Special Transit Scheme  

Community Actions 

Specific Actions 

TOTAL 

Total 2007-2009 

% of total 2007-2013 

144.800 

15.000 

10.200 

0 

170.000 

134.330 

15.000 

10.170 

10.000 

169.500 

525.000 

28% 

154.872 

15.000 

5.628 

10.000 

185.500 

For the first three years, 69 annual programmes were approved, committing EU resources of 
over 434 M€. 

8 

For further information see COM (2011)448 and SEC (2011)0940 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 Fund  

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Graph 1: 2007-2009 EU resources for national programmes  

Slovenia
4%

Slovakia
1%

Portugal
2%

Poland
5%

Netherlands
2%

Malta
5%

Luxembourg
0,03%

Latvia
1%

Lithuania*
2%

Spain
22%

Sweden
1%

Austria
1%

Belgium
1%

Cyprus
2%

Czech Republic
1%

Denmark
0,5%

Estonia
2%

Finland
4%

France
7%

Italy
14%

Hungary
4%

Greece
12%

Germany
6%

• 

• 

• 

• 

Main beneficiaries were Spain (94,4 M€), Italy (59,8 M€) and Greece (50,7 M€). 
Their aggregate allocation amounted to nearly 50% of the total for all participating 
Member States. 

If the amounts allocated for the Special Transit Scheme are taken into account, the 
overall allocation to Lithuania for the period 2007-2009 amounted to 55,4 M €, thus 
making Lithuania the third most important beneficiary of the Fund, before Greece. 

In  terms  of  financial  resources  allocated,  the  following  seven  Member  States 
received  between  3%  and  7%  of  the  total  2007-2009  allocations  and  can  be 
considered  medium  range  beneficiaries:  France  (30,3  M€),  Germany  (24,5  M€), 
Poland  (23,8  M€),  Malta  (22,8  M€),  Hungary  (19,4  M€),  Finland  (16,4  M€)  and 
Slovenia (16,1 M€).  

The  remainder  of  Member  States  received  between  0,03%  and  2%  and  may  be 
classified as small range beneficiaries: Austria (4,5 M€), Belgium (5,2 M€), Cyprus 
(7,5  M€),  Czech  Republic  (5,6  M  €),  Denmark  (2,1  M€),  Estonia  (8,8  M€),  Latvia 
(5,3  M€),  Luxembourg  (0,14  M€),  The  Netherlands  (9,8  M€),  Portugal  (9,3  M€), 
Slovakia (3,4 M€) and Sweden (4,1 M€).  

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
 
Graph 2: EU resources and matched national funding 2007-2009 

P
A
r
e
p
t
n
u
o
m
a
al
t
o
T

300.000.000,00

250.000.000,00

200.000.000,00

150.000.000,00

100.000.000,00

50.000.000,00

0,00

MS contribution

EU resources

2007

2008

2009

Annual Program m e s  (AP)

For  2007,  2008  and  2009,  Member  States  planned  matched  funding  for  respectively  125,9 
M€,  68,3  million  €  and  111,7  M€.  The  resources  allocated  to  technical  assistance  for  the 
management of the Fund in the Member States amounted respectively to 6 M€, 6,5 M€ and 
6,6 M€. 

As  for  the  spending  rate  as  reported  in  the  course  of  2010,  the  overall  consumption  of  the 
appropriations by the 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. For Italy and Greece there have been lower rates 
(90% and between 60-70%). 

3.2. 

EU resources reserved for Community actions and Specific actions 

13.591.710 € has been committed for the implementation of the Community Actions during 
the reporting period. This amount covers 14 projects on cooperation between Member States 
on  immigration  liaison  officers  and  4  on  setting  up  common  application  centres  in  third 
countries. These actions were designed with a view to ensuring coordinated implementation 
of  common  visa  policy  at  local  level,  while  sharing  responsibilities  and  pooling  resources 
available.  One  example  of  improved  collaboration  in  this  area  is  the  "Schengen  House" 
project in Kinshasa by Belgium together with Portugal. This enabled resources to be shared 
resulting in a decrease in the costs of visa handling. Such projects facilitate and improve the 
implementation of European visa policy and pave the way for other Member States to direct 
their  policies  towards  reaching  the  objectives  of  the  Stockholm  programme  on  the 
intensification of regional consular cooperation. They prevent the fraudulent issuing on visas 
and  create  momentum  for  moving  to  a  new  stage  in  the  development  of  the  common  visa 
policy, while taking into account Member States' competences in this area. 

Moreover, studies were carried out on concepts for border surveillance infrastructure, a secure 
communication  network  and  a  pre-frontier  intelligence  picture  within  the  framework  of  a 
European Border Surveillance System (EUROSUR), cooperation between border guards and 
customs  administrations  working  at  the  external  borders  of  the  EU  and  an  EU  Electronic 
System for Travel Authorization (ESTA). 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
In  the  period  2008-2009,  18.397.314  €  was  committed  for  Specific  Actions  co-financed  at 
border sections in Italy, Greece, Malta and Spain indicated as at maximum risk in the Frontex 
assessments.  The  measures  reinforce  the  capacities  of  Member  States  faced  with  increased 
migratory pressures. For example, in Italy, to decrease the pressure at maritime borders, inter 
alia  multidisciplinary  teams  (including  linguists  and  psychologists)  and  equipment  were 
deployed  in  order  to  improve  identification  of  migrants.  In  Greece,  patrolling  motorcycles 
were  purchased  to  enhance  the  surveillance  capacity  of  the  Hellenic  Coast  Guard  along  the 
shores of the eastern Aegean Sea. Greece has also planned to implement a project aiming at 
establishment  of  an  integrated  surveillance  system  at  a  particular  stretch  of  the  border  with 
Turkey. 

4. 

PREPARING IMPLEMENTATION IN THE MEMBER STATES 

4.1. 

Launching the Fund  

The Commission adopted  implementing  rules for  the  Fund9,  common to all four Funds, in 
order to ensure  a harmonised application and establish common templates for  programming 
and reporting. The rules set out selection procedures and criteria for eligibility of expenditure 
incurred under the Fund. Another important part of the guidance consisted in the preparation, 
in close cooperation with Member States, of a manual on eligibility, with practical examples 
and best practices on project management. Information sessions on the rules on eligibility of 
expenditure were organised and the manual was regularly updated. Further general guidance 
was provided at meetings of the "SOLID Committee" and in three conferences on the Funds 
(in 2008 on the Funds in general and in 2009 for audit authorities and on programming and 
evaluation).  

4.2. 

Putting in place assurances on the regularity and legality of spending  

While Member States are in charge of the management of the funds under the programmes, 
the  Commission  bears  ultimate  responsibility  for  the  overall  legal  framework  and  for  the 
implementation of the EU budget. This responsibility is exercised by delegating certain tasks 
to  the  Member  States,  subject  to  the  necessary  supervision  and  reporting.  To  that  end, 
Member  States  are  responsible  for  setting  up  a  management  and  control  system  in 
accordance with the requirements set out in the basic act.  

Member States designated a (1) Responsible Authority, responsible for the management of the 
programme,  where  appropriate  supported  by  a  delegated  authority,  (2)  an  Audit  Authority, 
responsible for verifying the effective functioning of the management and control system and 
(3) a Certifying Authority in charge of certifying the declarations of expenditure before they 
are sent to the Commission. Jointly, these authorities are in charge of assuring sound financial 
management of the funds allocated to the Member State.  

As  a  general  rule,  Member  States  have  chosen  to  place  the  Responsible  Authority  and  the 
Certifying Authority within one body and the Audit Authority in another body. This choice 
stems  from  the  fact that the Fund,  due to its scope  and nature, is primarily  implemented  by 
public  bodies  which  are  often  placed  in  the  same  entity  as  or  under  the  aegis  of  those 

9 

Decision No 458/2008/EC, OJ L167, 27.06.2008, p.135 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
managing the Fund. In such cases, the Implementing Rules require that independence of the 
Audit Authority is reinforced: placing it outside constitutes best practice.  

Usually Member States placed the Responsible Authority within the Ministry of the Interior 
(all MS except FR, EL and NL, DE, DK, LU and SE). 9 Member States have nominated an 
authority responsible exclusively for the implementation of the External Borders Fund and 14 
Member  States  decided  to  establish  an  authority  common  for  two  or  more  Funds  of  the 
General Programme.  

The descriptions of the systems were examined on compliance with the basic act before the 
first  payments  were  made.  From  the  examination  of  the  descriptions,  the  system  audits  and 
the other available information on the implementation of the Fund, it emerges that most of the 
Member  States  have  robust  systems  in  place.  "Unqualified  opinions"  were  issued  for  15 
descriptions  of  the  systems  whereas  8  Member  States  received  a  "qualified  opinion  with 
limitations"  and  were  invited  to  revise  some  parts  of  the  description.  The  identified 
weaknesses  were  considered  to  have  a  limited  impact.  This  concerned  in  particular  the 
assurance  of  independence  of  the  audit  authority  when  the  Fund  was  implemented  in  the 
"executing body method" (when characteristics of an  action  leave no choice  as  to who may 
implement it or because of a de jure or de facto monopoly of a potential beneficiary).  

Moreover, between 2008 and 2010, system audits were carried out in 14 Member States. Most 
systems  appeared  to  function  adequately,  but  for  some  improvements  were  necessary. 
Member  States  were  requested  in  particular  to  formalise  the  designation  of  authorities,  to 
reinforce  the  documentation  practices  for  project  selection  procedures  and  undertake  timely 
signature of agreements with individual project beneficiaries.  

A number of missions were carried out by the Commission in order to verify compliance and 
execution of programme objectives. Activities related to monitoring were effectively started 
in 2009. These activities have been further pursued in the subsequent years. 

4.3. 

Defining national strategies for using EU resources 

In  the  multiannual  programmes  Member  States  defined  the  national  situations  in  terms  of 
institutional  set-up,  policies  as  well  as  national  requirements  and  challenges  for  the  future. 
This  multiannual  programming  exercise  helped  to  define  in  a  systematic  manner  how  to 
satisfy  these  requirements.  It  encouraged  forward  planning  of  multiannual  investments  at 
Member  States  level  and  brought  together  the  key  public  authorities  in  a  combined  and 
integrated effort to identify the long and mid-term strategic goals. 

Member States pointed out that in the context of constantly shifting migratory pressures and 
evolving technological and security demands, to adequately meet EU requirements for border 
control and visa management kept posing a challenge given the available national resources 
and structures. Bearing in mind these demands, the EU projects on two large scale IT systems 
and  the  need  for  compliance  with  new  EU  legislation  in  this  area,  the  multiannual 
programmes identified the following objectives: 

Priority 

Key objectives / Amount scheduled / Member States concerned 

gradual 
1: 
establishment  of  the 
common  integrated 

• 

enhancement  of  border  control:  modernisation  of 
infrastructure, means of transport and equipment for checks 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
border  management 
system 

and surveillance 

• 

• 

improvement of the coordination at national level and with 
other  Member  States  through  ICT  systems  enabling  real 
time exchange of information 

means  of 
operational cooperation with Frontex  

transport  and  equipment 

to  be  used  for 

Amount: 543.697.746,36 € 

All Member States concerned (23) 

2: 
national 
components  of  a 
European 
Surveillance  System 
for 
external 
the 
borders  

• 

• 

• 

improvement  of  border  surveillance  capacities  in  terms  of 
infrastructure and equipment  

interlinking  and  integrating  the  existing  communication 
systems into one comprehensive surveillance system 

establishment  of  National  Coordination  Centres  as  the 
future nodes of the Eurosur network 

Amount: 797.829.115,38 € 

Member States concerned: BE, EE, FR, EL, HU, IT, LV, MT, NL, 
PL, PT, SI, ES, SE (14) 

3: visas and tackling 
of 
illegal 
immigration 

• 

improvements  in  the  visa  handling  process:  investments 
into  infrastructure  and  equipment,  in  particular  biometric 
data  capturing  devices, 
the  visa 
examination process and increasing the effectiveness in the 
fight against abuse and misuse of visas 

facilitating 

thus 

• 

• 

• 

• 

improved  security  in  the  consulates  through  investments 
into infrastructure and equipment 

more efficient fight against documentary fraud by means of 
modern  detection  equipment  and  deployment  of  document 
advisers  

improved consular cooperation with other MS, sharing and 
pooling  of  resources,  including  through  the  establishment 
of Common Application Centres 

improved management of migratory flows of third country 
nationals  into  the  Schengen  area  through  deployment  of 
Information Liaison Officers (ILO) and enhancement of the 
ILO network in cooperation with other MS 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
4:  IT  systems  in  the 
field 
external 
of 
borders and visas 

Amount: 64.868.225,91 € 

Member  States  concerned: AT, BE,  CY,  CZ,  DE,  DK,  EL,  ES,  FI, 
IT, LU, HU, MT, NL, PL, SE, SI (17) 

• 

• 

• 

• 

development, testing and adjustments of the national part of 
the Visa Information System (NVIS) including installing a 
secure connection between the consular authorities, border 
crossing points and the central unit of the VIS 

development  of  the  transitory  system  SISone4all  followed 
by testing and installation of the national part of the second 
generation  Schengen  Information  System  (NSIS  II)  and 
migration from SISI / SISone4all towards the SIS II 

further  development  of  systems  for  automatic  transfer  of 
passenger data 

improvement  of  the  coordination  of  the  information  flows 
through modern communication technology 

Amount: 191.379.999,30 € 

All Member States concerned (23) 

5: 
and 
effective 
efficient  application 
of  EC  acquis  on 
external 
borders 
and visas 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

training  and  seminars  for  border  guards  and  consular 
officers to improve their operational capacity, expertise and 
knowledge  on  EU  standards  (Schengen  Borders  Code  and 
the Visa Code) and best practices 

exchange and/or secondment programmes 

establishing  networks 
information  and 
experiences  among  the  MS  and  development  of  new 
working methods 

sharing 

for 

increased  ability  of  border  guards  to  execute  border 
innovative 
technology 
controls  using  new 
educational materials and methods, simulators etc. 

through 

more  efficient  assessment  and  management  of  migration 
flows through improved risk analysis 

Amount: 41.552.119,94 € 

Member  States  concerned:  AT,  BE,  CY,  CZ,  DE,  EE,  EL,  ES,  FI, 
FR, IT, HU, LT, LU, LV, NL, PL, SE, SI (19) 

For the entire period of the Fund Member States envisage apportioning the highest amounts to 
reinforcing border control activities per se (priorities 1 and 2), covering 81% of the estimated 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
 
available  appropriations.  Considerable  EU  resources,  however,  are  also  being  scheduled  to 
realise the IT systems supporting these activities (priority 4).  

The  relevance  of  the  priorities,  irrespective  of  the  allocated  funds,  can  be  measured  by  the 
number of Member States who chose to carry out actions under each of them:  

• 

• 

• 

All Member States decided to implement activities under Priorities 1 and 4.  

Priorities 3 and 5, even though less significant in terms of the total amount, are still 
deemed  as  important  as  respectively  17  and  19  Member  States  envisage  activities 
under those two priorities.  

Priority  2,  which  alone  is  planned  to  cover  nearly  half  of  the  estimated  funds, 
concerns initially Member States participating in the first stage of development of the 
EUROSUR,  i.e.  countries  of  the  Mediterranean  region  and  its  Atlantic  approaches 
and  countries  at  the  eastern  external  border  of  the  European  Union.  Some  other 
countries  would  join  the  system  at  a  later  stage.  Only  14  Member  States  have 
foreseen activities under this priority in their multiannual strategies, some of which 
decided to schedule them for the later years.  

Graph 3: Multiannual programming by priority  

Priority 2
48% - 14 MS

Priority 3
4% - 17 MS

Priority 1
33% - 23 MS

Priority 4
12% - 23 MS

Priority 5 
3% -  19 MS

Examples of strategic programming as presented in the multiannual programmes  

• 

Spain  

85%  of  the  indicative  2007-2013  budget  has  been  programmed  for  surveillance  capability 
under priority 2. These investments cover mainly  the  deployment of the Integrated External 
Borders  Surveillance  System  (SIVE)  in  the  Canary  and  Balearic  Islands,  and  Levante  (the 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
 
eastern  Mediterranean  coastal  region  of  Spain).  Each  SIVE  deployment  consists  of  several 
stations  equipped  with  radar  and  optical  sensors  to  detect  and  identify  small  boats  (motor 
boats and small fishing boats) before they reach the coast. The general information gathered 
by  each  station  is  transmitted  to  and  held  centrally  at  a  command  and  control  centre.  Thus 
necessary steps can be undertaken at an early stage to secure the maritime border and avoid 
incidents with tragic consequences.  

• 

France  

An important strategic objective for France is the enhancement of the maritime surveillance 
system  "Spationav".  The  system  of  warning  and  information  aims  to  provide  maritime  and 
territorial  prefects  but  also  all  centres  for  coordination  and  surveillance  of  external  borders 
with  information  on  movements  towards  the  coastline  in  nearly  real  time.  The  envisaged 
investments should cover the state-of-the-art equipment like high frequency radars, unmanned 
aerial  and  ground  vehicles,  geostationary  satellites,  sensors  etc  as  well  as  development  and 
interlinking  of  relevant  IT  tools.  The  most  advanced  stage  of  the  development  will  include 
ensuring interoperability with the surveillance systems of other Member States 

• 

Italy  

Italy set as one of its main objectives enhancement of the efficiency and interoperability of the 
existing information systems for border management. Its communication network systems and 
structures  will  be  enhanced  and  new  tools  developed.  For  instance  the  future  Border 
Information  System  will  facilitate  front-line  document  checks  by  integrating  traditional  and 
electronic technologies for travel document reading.  

• 

Germany  

Given  its  geographical  location  (limited  physical  external  borders),  the  added  value  of  the 
German  strategy  lies  in  support  for  pre-frontier  measures  in  third  countries.  The  Fund  will 
extend  substantially  the  network  of  Immigration  Liaison  Officers  and  document  and  visa 
advisers in migrants' countries  of origin tackling  the documentary fraud as well  as  ensuring 
that compliance with the entry conditions into the Schengen area is verified already before the 
migrants arrive at the border.  

• 

Finland 

Since  an  operationally  capable  fleet  of  patrol  boats  is  an  essential  element  in  maintaining 
credible  border  surveillance  and  fighting 
the 
modernisation of this fleet as one of its key objectives under the Fund. All patrol boats will be 
replaced on the basis of a model fully adapted to the Baltic sea environment and the standards 
for  Frontex  joint  operations.  The  boats  will  have  new  onboard  surveillance  technology 

irregular  migration,  Finland  defined 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
including heat-sensitive cameras, night-vision equipment and telecommunications solutions to 
make use of registers and situational awareness at sea. 

• 

Poland 

Following Poland's accession to the EU and the Schengen area, the borders with the Russian 
Federation,  the  Republic  of  Belarus  and  the  Ukraine,  as  well  as  the  Baltic  Sea  and 
international airports, became external borders of the European Union. The land border of ca. 
1,185 km is one of the longest sections guarded by one Member State. 70% of the indicative 
2007-2013  budget  has  been  programmed  for  modernization  of  border  infrastructure  and 
upgrading  of  ICT  systems  necessary  for  border  checks  and  surveillance  at  this  border.  This 
includes  the  modernization  of  existing  premises  and  the  construction  of  new  Border  Guard 
posts, the construction of new radio towers to streamline the communication systems, an area 
for  border  guard  dogs,  the  construction  of  helicopter  landing  pads,  the  construction  and 
alteration of road lanes etc.  

• 

Slovenia  

At the end of the "Balkan route", Slovenia is faced with human smuggling, illegal migration 
and  other  cross-border  crimes.  The  Fund  is  used  to  build  on  the  investments  made  with  the 
Phare  programme  and  the  Schengen  Facility  for  the  effective  control  of  the  external  border 
with  Croatia.  Investments  include  infrastructure  at  20  border  crossing  points,  means  of 
transport  and  technical  equipment  such  as  stationary  and  mobile  biometric  passports  and 
fingerprint scanners. Moreover, communication will be improved with the replacement of the 
existing analogue radio stations by a modern digital TETRA system. 

5. 

IMPLEMENTATION OF 2007, 2008 AND 2009 PROGRAMMES 

This chapter presents and compares the facts and figures on the implementation of the 2007, 
2008 and 2009 annual programmes as reported by the Member States in 2010. The overview 
is not based on results of projects completed and accounted for financially, as the 2007 and 
2008  final  reports  are  under  examination  and  the  2009  annual  programme  is  still  ongoing, 
with  final  reports  only  due  by  31  March  2012.  Moreover,  as  the  deadline  for  requests  for 
revision  of  the  actions  in  the  2009  annual  programme  was  31  March  2011,  the  overview 
figures  on  programmed  actions  may  not  correspond  exactly  with  the  actions  actually 
implemented in the Member States.  

5.1. 

The selection process and the main beneficiaries  

5.1.1.  Overall approach  

The  Fund  intervenes  mostly  in  the  areas  where  either  de  jure  monopolies  of  national 
administrations  exist  or  where  security  reasons  exclude  a  possibility  of  an  open  call  for 
proposals.  Consequently,  actions  under  the  Fund  are  implemented  predominantly  by  the 
"executing body method" in which the Responsible Authority decides to implement projects 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
 
 
alone  or  in  association  with  other  national  administrative  bodies  due  to  their  specific 
competences.  Already  during  the  preparation  of  the  annual  programmes,  the  Responsible 
Authorities identify the projects beneficiaries and actions to be carried out. Since the Fund is 
designed  for  various  policy  areas,  engaging  all  relevant  national  actors  at  an  early  stage  is 
essential for a balanced approach to the Fund's implementation.  

5.1.2. 

Selection procedures 

Selection  procedures  were  followed  to  determine  which  actions  should  be  taken  up  in  the 
annual programmes, while preventing conflict of interest and abiding by the principle of value 
for  money.  The  most  common  procedure  consisted  in  organising  calls  for  expression  of 
interest  addressed  to  potential  beneficiaries  and  setting  up  inter-ministerial  committees  to 
steer the process. For example, in Hungary two-phased, closed calls for expression of interest 
were organised for each annual programme. In the first phase an invitation to submit a general 
project  description  was  addressed  directly  to  relevant  national  authorities,  following  which 
projects  to  be  realised  under  the  annual  programmes  were  identified  by  an  independent 
evaluation committee. After the adoption of the annual programme the selected beneficiaries 
were requested to present detailed project descriptions. A similar, two-phased approach was 
also  followed  by  Poland.  Lithuania  identified  the  project  beneficiaries  at  the  stage  of 
preparation  of  the  multiannual  programme  and  the  selection  of  projects  took  place  after  the 
acceptance  of  the  draft  annual  programme  by  the  Commission.  In  Italy,  in  order  to  ensure 
participation of various public entities concerned, a Drafting Group was set up, composed of 
representatives  of  several  national  offices.  The  Drafting  group,  acting  as  a  collegial  body, 
analysed  project  proposals  submitted  by  potential  final  beneficiaries  and  advised  the 
Responsible Authority on the selection of actions. The model was also followed in countries 
with  smaller  allocations,  such  as  Denmark,  in  which  an  inter-ministerial  Steering  Group 
participated in the projects' selection.  

5.1.3.  Main beneficiaries 

Under  the  2007-2009  annual  programmes,  the  main  project  beneficiaries  were  usually 
specialised departments and/or agencies under the aegis of the Ministries of the Interior, such 
as  border  guard  services,  national  police,  IT  and  communications  departments.  In  addition, 
projects were carried out by the consular services under the Ministries of Foreign Affairs.  

Depending  on  the  national  set-up,  some  Member  States  associated  other  public  bodies  with 
more specific competences such as the Federal Criminal Office in Germany (responsible for 
the SIS) or the Inland Waterways Authority in Lithuania in charge of the surveillance of the 
northern part of the Curonian lagoon bordering Russia. 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
5.2. 

Quantitative aspects of the implementation by Member States  

5.2.1.  The breakdown of resources by the five EU priorities  

Graph 4: 2007, 2008 and 2009 EU resources by priority 

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Priority 5

Priority 4

Priority 3

Priority 2

Priority 1

2007

2008

2009

Priorities  1  and  2  covered  72%  of  the  2007-2009  EBF  allocations,  priority  4  21%  of  the 
available funds and priorities 3 and 5 respectively 3% and 4%.  

In  line  with  the  multiannual  programming  logic  of  Member  States,  the  choice  of  activities 
towards  which  the  funds  were  allocated  in  the  first  years  of  the  implementation  has  been 
primordially  determined  by  national  needs  related  to  integrated  border  management, 
surveillance capabilities and VIS and SIS II (priorities 1, 2 and 4). However, in the course of 
the lifecycle of the Fund, a growing emphasis is being put on actions in support of the visa 
issuing  process  (priority  3).  This  trend  continues  also  under  the  subsequent  programming 
years 2010 through 2011. Over the years different Member States carried out measures related 
to  the  risk  analysis,  training  for  border  guards  and  consular  services  as  well  as  promotional 
campaigns  and  dissemination  of  information  realised  under  priority  5,  even  though  the 
allocated  resources  were  marginal  overall  and  decreasing  in  the  initial  period  of  the  Funds' 
implementation.  

Graph 5: 2007-2009 - Member States' choices by priority under each of the annual programmes 

EBF 2007 impleme ntation by Priority

49,70

55,80

30,60

22

No of MS

Amount (in Mio €)

8

10

3,80

10

9,80

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

21

Priority 1

Priority 2

Priority 3

Priority 4

Priority 5

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
EBF 2008 implementation by Priority

55,5

40

19

29,7

21

No of MS

Amount (in Mio €)

9

9

3,4

12

2

Priority 1

Priority 2

Priority 3

Priority 4

Priority 5

EBF 2009 implementation by Priority

59,7

53,5

17

8

10

7,1

28,9

20

15

3,7

No of MS

Amount (in Mio €)

Priority 1

Priority 2

Priority 3

Priority 4

Priority 5

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Across the annual programmes 2007-2009 priorities 1, 2 and 4 maintained a similar level of 
importance in terms of both the allocated amount and the number of Member States carrying 
out actions. This is due to the fact that it concerns mostly investments which by their nature 
require  multiannual  projects.  Hence,  selecting  such  projects  under  one  of  the  annual 
programmes  has,  to  some  extent,  determined  the  choices  under  subsequent  annual 
programmes.  

The  number  of  Member  States  carrying  out  actions  under  priority  3  remained  almost 
unchanged,  with  little  variety  among  them.  This  may  be  partially  explained  by  the 
institutional setup and a strategic framework in the concerned countries. Such projects require 
close  cooperation  with  another  body,  usually  the  Ministry  of  Foreign  Affairs.  In  some 
countries the partnership is well developed and enables smooth cooperation, whereas in other 
countries  it  seems  to  be  less  evident.  Some  Member  States  decided  to  commit  for  the  visa 
related procedures exclusively national means.  

Priority  5 is given an  increasing  overall importance as evidenced in the growing number of 
the Member States. 

In the reporting period, all Member States carried out actions related to IT systems necessary 
in the fields of management of external borders and visas (Priority 4) and all Member States 
except DK and LU executed measures aiming at the gradual establishment of the integrated 
border  management  (Priority  1).  Actions  reinforcing  the  surveillance  capacity  and  building 
towards the establishment of the EUROSUR (Priority 2) were realised by 10 Member States, 
namely  EL,  ES,  FR,  HU,  MT,  IT,  LT,  PT,  SE,  SI.  13  Member  States  devoted  part  of  their 
programmes to measures linked with visa issuing procedures (Priority 3): AT, BE, CY, CZ, 
DE,  EL,  ES,  FI,  HU,  NL,  PL,  SI,  SE  and  15  carried  out  training  and/or  dissemination 
activities (Priority 5): all except CY, DK, EE, LU, MT, NL, PT, SE. 

In  terms  of  variations  over  time,  the  share  of  the  total  budget  has  remained  stable  for  all 
priorities  during  all  programming  years  except  priority  3,  for  which  the  allocated  amounts 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
 
 
increase  remarkably  as  of  2009,  and  priority  5,  for  which  the  allocated  amount  was 
particularly high in 2007. The last may be partly explained with an increased need for training 
by the services concerned during the Fund's launching phase. 

5.2.2.  Number of actions  

Table 3: 207-2009 - number of actions by priority  

Priority 1 

Priority 2 

Priority 3 

Priority 4 

Priority 5  Total 2007-2009 

2007 

2008 

2009 

76

78

65

Total  

219

27

35

23

85

32

18

32

82

57

48

52

157

25 

26 

31 

82 

Graph 6: 2007-2009 - distribution of (EU) resources and actions by priority under the Fund  

217

205

203

625

Priority 2      
   85 actions    

10 MS
 162.217.808 €
 38%

Priority 1     
 219 actions   

  21 MS
 145.788.842 €
 34%

Priority 3     
  82 actions   

  13 MS
 14.249.335 €
 3%

Priority 4     
 157 actions   

  23 MS
 89.115.553 €
 21%

Priority 5     
  82 actions   

  15 MS
 15.445.509 €
 4%

In  terms  of  number  of  actions  implemented  priority 1 and  priority  4 are dominating, with a 
similar average cost per action of about 600.000€. Priorities 3 and 5 are characterized by the 
same  number  of  actions  implemented  at  the  average  costs  of  about  180.000€.  Actions 
implemented under priority 2 required an average allocation of 2.000.000€.  

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
 
 
5.3. 

Qualitative aspects of the implementation by Member States  

5.3.1.  The categories of actions identified under the Fund - typology  

The actions supported by the Fund differ from the ones under the other Funds of the General 
Programme  in  that  they  concern  predominantly  tangible  investments  rather  than  operations 
and  "soft"  measures  like  counselling,  training  etc.  Hence,  the  Commission  developped  an 
analytical  tool  for  investments  carried  out under  the  Fund  based  on  the  generated  output.  It 
enables  a  classification  of  actions  under  each  priority.  For  Priority  1,  two  sub-categories  of 
actions  were  identified,  i.e.  actions  related  to  checks  (at  border  crossing  points)  and  actions 
related to surveillance (along the border line). For each sub-category, the following categories 
were defined by the type of the produced output: infrastructure, means of transport, operating 
equipment  and  IT  systems.  Substantially  the  same  pattern  has  been  followed  for  priority  2. 
Under priority 3 actions were qualified either as infrastructure, equipment, IT systems or as 
consular cooperation or deployment of ILOs. Priority 4 covers investments related to the SIS, 
the VIS and other relevant IT systems. Finally, for priority 5 training and risk-analysis were 
the main categories identified supplemented by information campaigns and other activities. 

Graph 7: 2007-2009 - distribution of funds (EU contribution and national resources) by outputs 

Info campaign & promotion

100.990   0,02%

Others

3.699.138   1%

Operating equipment for visa issuing

3.851.619   1%

Consular infrastructure

4.847.795   1%

Training

12.000.514   2%

Consular cooperation and ILOs

12.379.750   2%

Operating equipment for border checks

32.360.455   5%

SIS

39.147.129   6%

Other ICT systems

39.947.660   7%

Border Infrastructure

52.106.772   8%

Operating equipment for border surveillance

70.099.545   9%

 VIS

74.787.021   10%

Border surveillance systems

89.508.228   12%

Means of transport 

250.383.180  36%

0

50.000.000 100.000.000 150.000.000 200.000.000 250.000.000 300.000.000

• 

• 

• 

In  the  first  years  of  the  Fund's  implementation  nearly  half  of  the  resources  were 
used to enhance border surveillance capacity (investments into various means of 
transport  36%,  followed  by  border  surveillance  systems  12%  and  equipment  for 
border surveillance 9%). 

A  quarter  of  resources  went  to  IT  systems  (VIS  10%,  SIS  6%  and  other  IT 
systems 7%).  

Less  than  a  fifth  was  used  for  the  reinforcement  of  border  crossing  points 
(border infrastructure 8%, operating equipment for checks at border crossing points 
5% and ICT systems for checks at border crossing points 4%). 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
 
5.3.2.  Examples of outputs achieved 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

The  acquisition  of  means  of  transport  concerned  mostly  vehicles  for  border 
surveillance – helicopters for air patrolling, vessels for the surveillance of maritime 
borders  and  land-based  vehicles  for  land  borders.  Cyprus  availed  itself  of  the 
available resources to significantly increase its surveillance capacity: 2 helicopters, 2 
medium sized patrol boats and 40 land vehicles were purchased under the 2007-2009 
programmes.  Helicopters  were  also  procured  by  Estonia,  Finland  and  Spain.  Malta 
replaced the existing vessels with 4 new patrolling boats with an increased capacity 
of  sea  patrolling  in  terms  of  time,  equipment  and  crew.  Greece  invested  into  a 
number of patrol passenger vehicles as well as two-wheeled patrol motorcycles to be 
deployed  for  patrolling  of  the  roads  in  the  border  areas.  Patrol  vessels  were  also 
purchased  by  Germany,  Finland,  Spain  and  Estonia.  Finland  procured  in  addition 
hovercrafts,  ice  vehicles  and  boats  capable  of  operating  in  ice  conditions.  Spain 
purchased  fixed-wing  aircrafts  for  maritime surveillance.  Hungary  procured  mobile 
floating platforms for shallow draft petrol boats to be deployed on the Hungarian – 
Ukrainian river border Tisza.  

A marginal share of the means of transport was purchased for deployment at border 
crossing points to reinforce effective checks. This refers for instance to acquisition of 
a  vehicle  equipped  with  special  thermo-vision  devices  for  patrolling  the  Prague 
Ruzyně international airport perimeter programmed by the Czech Republic or special 
terrain  vehicles  purchased  by  Slovakia  for  close  cooperation  of  border  guards  and 
customs officers performing border checks. 

Border surveillance systems: investments into national components of the European 
Surveillance System by France, Spain and Malta (see below).  

The  categories  VIS  and  SIS  encompass  investments  into  hardware,  software, 
databases  development,  adaptation  and  maintenance  of  national  databases, 
interlinking and testing as well as equipment necessary to capture relevant data for 
those  two  systems  (including  biometrics).  Denmark  devoted  the  majority  of  its 
programmes 
the  programmes  of 
Luxembourg  support  exclusively  expenditure  linked  to  the  Schengen  Information 
System.  All  Member  States,  to  greater  or smaller extent,  used the  Fund to increase 
their readiness for participation in those two systems. 

the  Visa  Information  System  whereas 

to 

Operating  equipment  for  border  surveillance:  purchase  of  thermal  cameras,  night 
vision and long distance goggles (Greece), the navalisaiton of helicopters including 
their  equipping  with  rescue  winches,  heat  imaging  devices  and  additional 
searchlights (Germany), the acquisition of radar sensor equipment and modernisation 
of  image  transfer  connection  (Finland),  equipping  patrolling  boats  and  helicopters 
with state-of-the art optronic systems for maritime border surveillance (Spain). 

Border  infrastructure:  investments  at  the  airports  and  land  border  crossing  points. 
Germany  supported  a  project  at  the  border  crossing  point  in  Hamburg  ("Cruise 
Centre")  as  well  as  invested  into  development  of  separate  checking  lanes  and 
appropriate  signposting  at  the  airport  Nuremberg.  France  created  a  special  waiting 
zone for unaccompanied minors at the Roissy airport. 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

ICT systems other than the VIS and SIS: projects related to processing of data in air 
and  maritime  traffic,  development  of  a  system  for  registration  and  transfer  of 
passengers'  data  in  air  transport  (Germany),  development  of  IT  applications  for 
management  of  data  concerning  third-country  nationals  not  admitted  to  enter  the 
Schengen territory (France). 

Operating  equipment  for  border  checks:  equipment  related  to  the  introduction  of 
automated  border  controls  and  devices  for  document  reading  to  ensure  effective 
identity  verification  (see  below).  In  addition,  Czech  Republic,  Finland,  France, 
Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy and Spain inter alia purchased modern equipment 
for  document  verification  allowing  for  smooth  checks  at  the  borders  as  well  as 
contributing to fight against forged and falsified documents.  

In  the  reporting  period  consular  cooperation  and  Immigration  Liaison  Officers 
(ILOs)  included  only  actions  consisting  in  the  deployment  of  ILO's,  border  guard 
liaison  officers  and  document  advisers  in  third  countries  carried  out  by  Belgium, 
Finland and Germany.  

Consular infrastructure: actions aiming at increase of security at the consular offices 
by  adaptation  of  existing  infrastructure,  installation  of  visa  counters,  security  doors 
and  bullet-proof  document-passing  windows  (Austria,  Hungary,  Czech  Republic) 
and  improvement  of  the  visa  handling  process  through  purchase  of  operating 
equipment,  software  and  hardware  (Austria,  Finland,  Hungary,  Czech  Republic, 
Spain).  

Moreover,  several  training  sessions  and  seminars  for  border  guards  and  consular 
staff,  ranging  from  trainings  on  the  use  of  particular  equipment  and  software,  to 
workshops  on  the  Schengen  acquis  and  documentary  fraud  and  to  work-related 
language  training,  were  organised  by  Austria,  Belgium,  Czech  Republic,  Germany, 
Greece,  Hungary,  Finland,  France,  Italy,  Latvia,  Lithuania,  Poland,  Slovakia, 
Slovenia and Spain. 

5.3.3.  Examples of actions implemented in specific areas of the Fund's intervention 

A. 

Document security and fight against document fraud 

The fight against document fraud is a constant concern for European Union in particular in the 
field of identity and travel documents. Both the Schengen Borders Code and the Visa Code 
require the Member States to check the authenticity of the identity and travel documents that 
are used in order to cross the external border or to apply for a visa.  

Moreover,  according  to  Council  Regulation  (EC)  N°  377/2004  on  the  creation  of  an 
immigration  liaison  officers  network  the  collection  and  exchange  of  information  on 
counterfeit  and  forged  identity  and  travel  documents  is  one  of  the  tasks  assigned  to 
immigration liaison officers posted abroad.  

A European Image Archiving System (FADO) has been set up by a Joint Action adopted by 
the  Council  on  3  December  1998  for  the  purpose  of  exchanging,  by  computerised  means 
information  which  the  Member  States  possess  concerning  genuine  and  false  documents. 
Member States have been invited to use extensively this system by the Council Conclusions 

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
of 5 and 6 June 2008.  

The External Borders Fund supported Member States in their efforts to fight the use of false 
and  falsified  identity  and  travel  documents.  In  the  period  2007-2009,  17  out  of  23  Member 
States  carried  out  actions  relating  to  this  objective,  committing  8,7%  of  the  total  EBF 
resources for this period.  

Among  countries  with  the  most  significant  share  of  their  budgets  dedicated  to  combating 
document  fraud  were  Italy  (32%),  Germany  (21%),  Slovak  Republic  (19%)  and  Czech 
Republic  (16%).  Hungary,  Finland,  Lithuania,  Belgium,  Austria,  Portugal  and  Malta 
dedicated between 4% and 10% of their annual allocations to such measures. 

Graph 8: 2007-2009 - Budget allocation on document fraud actions as share of total EBF allocation 

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

AT

BE CY

CZ

DE

EL

ES

FI

FR

HU

IT

LT MT

PL

PT

SI

SK

With 18 actions concerning document fraud across all three programme years, Germany had 
the largest number of actions in this area. In Italy, the comparatively larger budget share was 
concentrated on much fewer actions – four actions across 2007-2009. The Czech budget share 
was  divided  between  six  actions  –  two  for  each  of  the  programme  years  –  and  the  Slovak 
efforts  on  the  fight  against  document  fraud  were  comprised  by  only  two  actions  for  one  of 
which a relatively large share of its comparatively small allocation was used. 

The  following  types  of  actions  aimed  at  early  detection  of  fraudulent  documents,  thus 
preventing and/or detecting irregular entry into the Schengen area: 

– 

– 

procurement of equipment for border guards and consulates. The devices used by 
border  guards  during  the  first  and  second  line  controls  serve  verification  of  travel 
documents  authenticity.  For  example,  Germany  equipped  airports  with  document-
testing technology enabling the checking of optical and electronic security features as 
well  as  the  biometric-supported  security  features.  The  equipment  deployed  in 
consulates  for  visa  issuing  procedure  consists  of  devices  such  as  biometric  data 
capturing devices like fingerprint scanners.  

training  of  consular  and  border  control  personnel  in  detecting  false  or  falsified 
documents.  France  dedicated  measures  to  training  across  all  three  programmes, 
educating  personnel  at  border  crossing  points  in  identifying  falsified  travel 
documents and in the use of technical equipment for the detection of document fraud. 
Finland  incorporated  training  on  the  detection  of  forged  documents  in  the  general 
training  on  immigration  issues  for  consular  staff.  Germany  trained  border  police 

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
 
– 

– 

officers  in  the  quick  detection  of  document  fraud  as  well  as  educating  document 
advisors furthering their competences in communication and intercultural relations. 

deployment of document advisors – or ALOs (air liaison officers) and immigration 
liaison  officers,  ILOs.  For  example,  in  Belgium,  Germany  and  Finland,  document 
advisors  and  liaison  officers  were  consulted  on  and  involved  in  training  in 
recognising falsified documents and passing on information in relation to document 
fraud  for  decision-makers  and  employees  at  consulates  in  third  countries,  airline 
employees,  and  border  control  authorities.  Furthermore,  efforts  were  deployed 
towards  improving  the  strategic  and  operational  collaboration  between  authorities 
and border police in the respective Member States and those in other Member States 
and third countries, developing the liaison officers’ network. 

developing  the  use  of  and  enhancing  the  input  into  FADO  (False  and  Authentic 
Documents  Online),  a  web-based  tool  facilitating  the  exchange  of  information 
between Member States on detected document fraud. BE, DE and PT have used EBF 
funds  for  the  development  or  further  expansion  of  national  information  and 
verification  systems  for  checking  the  validity  of  travel  documents,  connected  with 
FADO.  In  ES  and  LT  actions  have  been  devoted  to  connecting  national  contact 
points  and  relevant  authorities  to  the  FADO  system.  Besides  the  selected  Member 
States,  four others  (CZ,  HU,  MT  and  SK) have also carried out actions concerning 
the development of databases and information systems to be connected to the FADO 
system, and the general use of FADO in the fight against document fraud. 

B. 

Visa Information System 

The  Visa  Information  System  (VIS)  is  a  system  for  the  exchange  of  visa  data  between 
Schengen States and thus primarily an instrument to support the common visa policy. It will 
also  facilitate  checks  at  the  external  borders  and  within  the  Member  States  as  well  as  the 
application  of  the  Dublin-Regulation  determining  the  Member  State  responsible  for 
examining  an  asylum  application.  The  VIS  is  a  European  central  database,  which  will  be 
connected to the national systems of the Member States to enable their visa, border, and other 
competent  authorities  to  enter  and  consult  data  on  visa  applications  and  the  decisions  taken 
thereon. Council Decision 2004/512/EC establishing the VIS defined its architecture and gave 
the Commission the mandate to develop the VIS on the technical level, whereas the national 
systems  were  to  be  adapted  and  developed  by  the  Member  States.  The  VIS  is  based  on  a 
centralised  architecture  and  consists  of  a  central  information  system,  an  interface  in  each 
Member State which shall provide the connection to the relevant central national authority of 
the respective Member State, and the communication infrastructure between the central visa 
information  System  and  the  national  interfaces.  Regulation  767/2008  of  the  European 
Parliament and of the Council defines the legal framework for the functioning of the VIS.  

The VIS started operations on 11 October 2011. The first three regions where the VIS will be 
deployed  are  North  Africa,  then  the  Near  East  and  then  the  Gulf  region.  Furthermore,  a 
communication  network  to  enable  secure  exchange  of  data  between  consulates  should  be 
developed.  

EN 

23 

   EN 

 
 
In order to help Member States developing their  national  visa  systems  and  to  fulfil  the  VIS 
requirements as part of the common visa policy the Fund provided 75% of financial support 
for VIS related actions. Member States invested nearly 49 M € in VIS related actions, equal to 
10%  of  the  total  EBF  budget  for  this  period.  All  Member  States  but  Slovenia  and 
Luxembourg carried out actions on VIS roll out under their 2007-2009 Annual Programmes. 

Graph 9: 2007-2009 - % of EBF budget10 allocated to VIS related actions 

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

88,8

67,0

69,1

43,9

30

23,9

25,3

19,6

28,9

20

10

0

8,4

7,4

0,2

9,5

4,6

9,4

8,1

6,8

7,1

3,3

2,7

2,9

3,5

AT BE CY CZ DK EE

FI

FR DE EL HU

IT

LV

LT NL

PL

PT SK

SI

ES SE

Denmark, the Netherlands and Belgium allocated the largest share of their budgets to actions 
supporting the preparation for the VIS roll out. Denmark dedicated all actions but one of the 
annual  programmes  2007-2009  and  committed  nearly  90%  of  the  total  EBF  funds  for  these 
actions. Estonia, with a share of 0,2%, spent the smallest share of funds on VIS related actions 
compared to the total budget. 

The following actions were supported: 

• 

• 

• 

10 

Actions  dedicated  to  the  national  databases  sought  to  establish  an  interface  for 
communication  with  the  central  system  (AT),  to  establish  the  technical  connection 
with the CVIS (NL), to create new or adapt the existing national applications (such 
as  the  VISION  application  in  AT,  VISABIO  in  FR,  BELVIS  in  BE,  NET-VIS  in 
EL), to develop and test software necessary for the VIS connection (CY, DE, DK, FI, 
FR, SE) and to establish a VIS operational centre (DK). 

Actions  aiming  at  support  to  connection  of  the  consulates  included  purchase  of 
hardware  and  software  (IT),  reinstallation  and  upgrading  of  visa  workstations  and 
relevant software at all diplomatic and consular authorities (AT, SE), purchase of a 
fingerprint  processing  systems  and  biometric  data  capturing  devices  (AT,  BE,  CZ, 
FI, FR, NL, PL, ES, SI), extension of the network of diplomatic and consular posts 
for the collection of biometric data (BE) and training of personnel (FI, NL, SE). 

Actions supporting the connection of border crossing points focused on purchase 
of  equipment  for  data  verification  (such  as  stationary  and  mobile  devices  to  check 

Figures include Technical Assistance 

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
fingerprints) and biometric data capturing devices for visa issuing (BE, DE, FI, FR, 
HU, NL, PL) as well as training of staff (PL). 

• 

Finland carried out preparations for the replacement of the VISION protocol with 
the  VIS  Mail  communication  network,  including  the  preparation  of  a  SMTP  mail 
server  infrastructure,  analysis  and  development  and  testing  of  the  national  VIS-
MAIL application. Also Spain invested into development of a secure communication 
system VIS-MAIL. 

C. 

European Border Surveillance System 

The European Border Surveillance System (EUROSUR) will establish an information sharing 
and cooperation mechanism enabling a collaboration of border control authorities and Frontex 
at tactical, operational and strategic level. As of 2013 EUROSUR should provide Member 
States located at the eastern and southern external borders with the operational and technical 
framework  for  improving  their  situational  awareness  and  reaction  capability.  Firstly,  the 
existing  surveillance  systems  at  Member  States'  level  should  be  interlinked  into  a  single 
national system, then common tools and applications at EU level will be developed and a 24/7 
secure  information  sharing  environment  created.  The  backbone  of  the  system  constitute 
National Coordination Centres, streamlining the activities of all national authorities carrying 
out border surveillance.  

Conceived  as  "system  of  the  systems",  the  EUROSUR  will  allow  for  a  close  to  real-time 
exchange  of  data  on  the  situation  at  the  borders  and  hence  contribute  to  the  most  adequate, 
efficient and coordinated response. 

The  Fund  achieved  tangible  results  in  supporting  Member  States'  efforts  to  reinforce  their 
maritime  surveillance  capacity  in  the  run-up  to  a  common  European  surveillance  system  in 
the  Mediterranean  and  its  Atlantic  approaches.  Under  the  programming  period  2007-2009, 
under  priority  2,  Italy  spent  86%,  Spain  85%,  Malta  64%  and  France  26%,  Portugal  15%, 
Greece  and  Slovenia  2%  of  their  allocations  to  reinforce  their  surveillance  capacity  and, 
through  these  efforts,  building  up  of  the  national  components  of  the  European  Surveillance 
System (EUROSUR), equivalent to a total of nearly 168 M €. This amounted to about 32 % of 
the Fund in this period. In addition, Cyprus and Greece made pursued important investments 
linked with enhancement of maritime border surveillance under priority 1. 

While  the  majority  of  the  Member  States  concerned  treated  the  aspect  of  coastal  border 
surveillance  as  an  integrated  part  of  the  general  reinforcement  of  the  external  border 
surveillance,  France  and  Spain  have  adopted  what  may  be  termed  a  “regional  approach”, 
establishing  a  comprehensive  border  surveillance  system.  The  Spanish  SIVE  (Integrated 
External Surveillance System) has been created, particularly aiming at prevention of irregular 
entry  of  persons  and  goods  through  the  Spanish  coast.  In  France,  the  system  for  external 
border  surveillance,  SPATIONAV,  provides  the  framework  for  all  activities  and  actions 
related to maritime border control. Whereas the set up of the SIVE commenced prior to the 
2007  programme,  the  establishment  of  the  French  system  was  initiated  with  the  2007 
programme  and  has  so  far  undergone  three  development  and  expansion  phases,  one  under 
each successive programme.  

The  remaining  Member  States  bordering  the  Mediterranean  (CY,  EL,  IT,  MT,  PT,  SI)  also 
targeted maritime border surveillance but do not have (yet) in place specific systems.  

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
Measures  implemented  by  Member  States  under  priority  2,  with  specific  aim  of  Eurosur  in 
mind, included: 

– 

– 

– 

– 

further  development  of  the  Integrated  External  Surveillance  System  (SIVE)  in 
Spain,  with  authorities  highlighting  the  potential  for  leveraged  benefits  in 
undertaking  integrated  border  surveillance,  especially  in  the  Strait  of  Gibraltar  and 
off the Canary and Balearic Island coasts. Each SIVE deployment consists of several 
stations  equipped  with  radar  and  optical  sensors  to  detect  and  identify  small  boats 
(motor  boats  and  small  fishing  boats)  before  they  reach  the  coast.  The  general 
information  gathered  by  each  station  is  transmitted  to  and  held  centrally  at  a 
command  and  control  centre  which  coordinates  the  operations  by  land,  sea  and  air 
units.  In  addition  to  support  for  the  surveillance  system,  the  Fund  was  used  to 
purchase  two  fixed-wing  aircraft  for  maritime  patrol  and  fight  against  irregular 
immigration (overall cost 24 M€), several helicopters and boats of different type and 
size and land vehicles. Spain has allocated a total of nearly 80 M€ under the 2007-
2009 annual programmes to this key objective. According to the Spanish authorities, 
the  support  of  the  Fund  was  crucial  in  order  to  quickly  implement  this  system 
following  the  migratory  crisis  in  2006.  Four  years  after  the  start  of  the 
implementation of the SIVE, the migratory pressure on the maritime Border of Spain 
strongly decreased; 

development  of  the  coastal  network  for  detection,  identification  and  tracking  of 
vessels, SPATIONAV in France. The existing system has been gradually reinforced 
under the 2007-2009 programmes by extending the area it covers and improving the 
detection  capacity,  through  purchase  of  state-of-the-art  equipment  like  high 
frequency  radars,  detection  equipment  on  lighthouses  and  investments  into  data 
connection  systems.  France  has  allocated  10  M€  under  the  2007-2009  annual 
programmes to the improvement of "Spationav";  

the  main 

there  were: 

investments  made 

improvement of the coastal guard maritime traffic system in Italy, complemented 
with  satellite  equipment  and  infrared  surveillance  systems  installed  on  vessels. 
Among 
improvement  of  satellite 
communications  capability  at  ground  anchor  station;  enhancement  of  the  Coastal 
Search  Radar  Network  for  the  coverage  of  the  central–  northern  Adriatic;  western 
Liguria  and  western  Sardinia  in  order  to  ensure  a  clear  maritime  situational 
awareness thanks to the view of the radar and the thermal cameras images; supply of 
all  the  territorial  and  frontier  police  offices  with  a  common,  shared,  operating 
software;  creation  of  a  common,  shared  platform  offering  the  same  effective 
instruments  and  simplifying  the  end-user  practical  approach  and  installation  of 
satellite  communications  systems  and  their  integration  onboard  Navy  Off  Shore 
Patrol  Vessels  (OPVs)  involved  in  maritime  operations.  Italy  has  allocated  47  M€ 
under the 2007-2009 programmes to these actions; 

a  new  interoperable  communication  system  for  the  Armed  Forces  entrusted  with 
maritime surveillance in Malta, completed with the introduction of four new vessels 
with  an  increased  capacity  of  sea  patrolling  in  terms  of  time,  equipment  and  crew. 
Malta's  allocation  to  the  support  for  the  development  of  the  European  surveillance 
system came to 17 M€ under the 2007-2009 programmes; 

EN 

26 

   EN 

 
– 

establishment  of  a  National  Coordination  Centre  (the  Dolga  vas  trilateral  centre) 
by Slovenia for the co-operation of national authorities implementing external border 
control  duties  (detection,  identification  and  intervention).  Slovenia  budgeted  over 
100.000 € for this purpose. Hungary and Austria collaborate in this project. 

On  the  other  hand,  measures  implemented  under  priority  1,  also  aimed  at  enhancement  of 
maritime surveillance in the Mediterranean, included: 

– 

– 

a  significant  increase  of  the  surveillance  capacity  in  Cyprus  thanks  to  purchase  of 
two  helicopters  and  two  medium  sized  patrol  boats  equipped  with  fixed  and 
transportable  observation  systems  to  be  mounted  on  the  patrolling  boats  for  an 
overall amount of 5,4 M€; 

enhancement  of  the  border  surveillance  capacity  in  Greece  through  acquisition  of 
various  means  of  transport  (e.g.  a  helicopter,  costal  patrol  vessels)  and  equipment 
(e.g.  night  vision  and  long  distance  goggles).  For  these  investments  Greece 
programmed nearly 30 M€.  

D. 

Automated Border Control Systems 

Based on the current legislation, border checks of EU citizens can be automated, provided that 
they  hold  an  e-passport,  which  stores  biometric  data  of  its  holder  (facial  image  and,  as  of 
2009,  fingerprints).  Some  Member  States  have  already  implemented  such  automated  border 
control (ABC) systems. The ABC process starts with passport scanning. The passport reader 
technically  checks  its  physical  security  features,  reads  the  Machine  Readable  Zone  (MRZ) 
and  verifies  the  authenticity  of  the  document.  A  live  facial  image  (or  fingerprints)  of  the 
traveller  is  then  compared  to  the  one  stored  in  the  chip  (or  sometimes  in  the  database)  to 
verify the identity of the traveller. Random checks are carried out against the SIS and national 
databases.  If  the  match  is  successful  and  the  travel  document  is  found  to  be  genuine,  the 
automated gate opens and the traveller can enter the territory of the Member States; if not, the 
traveller is referred to a manual check. Border authorities monitor the whole process including 
the  matching  of  the  facial  image  -  they  can  monitor  several  gates  at  once.  The  system  has 
many  advantages,  such  as  enhanced  security,  gain  of  resources,  fluent  border  crossing  and 
facilitated entry of travellers. 

In the future, Registered Traveller Programmes (RTP) would allow extending this process to 
third-country nationals. Currently thorough border check requires border guards to interview a 
traveller  and  manually  stamp  the  travel  document.  The  aim  would  be  to  facilitate  border 
crossings  of  the  Schengen  external  border  for  frequent,  pre-vetted  and  pre-screened  third-
country  travellers,  while  ensuring  overall  coherence  of  EU  border  policy.  Third-country 
nationals having access to the RTP would be able to use ABC facilities whenever available at 
the Schengen border crossing point. 

The  Fund  contributed  to  implementation  of  innovative  projects  on  the  development,  testing 
and putting into operation of Automated Border Control (ABC) systems at airports allowing 
for  checks  on  certain  categories  of  travellers,  mainly  EU-citizens  holding  an  e-passport, 
aiming at conducting automatic verification of travel document, fingerprints, facial image or 
iris recognition without intervention from border guards who only monitor the process. 

EN 

27 

   EN 

 
In  the  period  2007–2009  about  5,5  M€  was  used  to  carry  out  pilot  projects,  testing  and 
installation  of  the  necessary  equipment  for  automated  border  control  in  Germany,  Finland, 
France, the Netherlands, Portugal and Hungary:  

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Finland carried out a market test on the implementation of automatic border checks 
in 2007, which was followed up by a pilot project, initiated in July 2008, concerning 
automatic border checks on EU/EEA/SCH citizens carrying the new biometric travel 
documents at Helsinki-Vantaa Airport. The EBF co-financing for the market test and 
pilot projects came to 82.528 €. At the time of reporting, there were three ABC gates 
in the Helsinki-Vantaa airport. Based on the experience gained from the pilot phase, 
the system was planned to be taken into operational use and potentially extended to 
all  major  external  land  border  crossing  points.  Fifteen  additional  gates  for  the 
Helsinki-Vantaa airport and three gates for the port of Helsinki were planned to be 
purchased at a later stage. 

France carried out the “SAS PARAFES”-project consisting of procurement of SAS 
(e-gates)  and  implementation  of  the  PARAFES  system  for  the  automatic  check  of 
personal  documents  of  passengers  arriving  at  French  airports  from  outside  the  EU. 
Prior  to  this  project,  the  Ministry  for  the  Interior  had  been  piloting  a  programme 
called  PEGASE  concerned  with  the  collection  and  storage  of  fingerprints  of  a 
number  of  travellers  who  volunteered  with  the  prospect  of  achieving  fast  track 
passage  through  the  external  border  controls  of  the  Schengen  area.  With  the 
implementation of the PARAFES system, these frequent travellers would be able to 
pass  through  the  e-gates  (SAS)  carrying  out  their  border  checks  automatically  by 
scanning first their passport and then fingerprints. The PARAFES then compares the 
information to the data stored in the central database, allowing the passenger to pass 
through the border upon recognition. The financial prospect for the entire project is a 
total of 2.300.000 € for the procurement, implementation and equipment of 17 SAS.  

Portugal  carried  out  a  project  on  Automatic  Identification  of  Passengers  Holding 
Travelling  Documents  (RAPID)  with  the  aim  to  make  the  control  of  persons  at 
borders more rapid, secure and effective. An innovative system for automated border 
controls on all adult holders of electronic passports within the EU Schengen area was 
developed.  More  specifically,  the  project  involved  the  purchase  of  78  so-called 
VBeGates – automated border gates equipped to check travellers holding biometric 
travel documents. In March 2007, 10 e-gate terminals were procured for the airport 
in Faro, and in July the same year, an additional 68 terminals were ordered for the 
airports of Lisboa, Funchal, Porto, Lajes, Ponta Delgada and Porto Santo. The overall 
cost of the project was 3,5 M€ with a contribution from the EBF of over 2 M€. 

The Netherlands carried out a project which concerned the acquisition, testing and 
introduction of equipment and programming for automated border control systems at 
Schiphol  Airport  and  ultimately  at  all  air-  and  seaports  in  the  Netherlands.  In  EBF 
contribution to the programme set-up is about 180.000 €. The EBF funding is partly 
used to define an ABC vision for the Netherlands. 

From  2004  to  2007,  Germany  carried  out  a  pilot  project  on  the  use  of  automated 
biometric border control on passengers at the Frankfurt/Main airport, based on iris-
scan.  Given  the  positive  results  of  the  pilot  project,  it  was  decided  to  continue  and 
develop  further  the  use  of  ABC  at  German  airports  in  Frankfurt  and  Munich  with 

EN 

28 

   EN 

 
support  from  the  EBF.  The  costs  of  the  ABC-project  in  the  period  2007-2009 
amounted  to  over  700.000  €  and  covered  among  others  the  procurement  of  four 
automated border control gates. 

• 

Hungary  carried  out  a  study  to  assess  the  feasibility  of  implementing  an  e-gate 
system at Ferihegy International Airport in Budapest. Through the visit to and study 
of existing e-gate systems in the EU (i.e. Lisbon, Helsinki and Frankfurt), Hungarian 
experts  were  to  assess  the  possibilities  for  implementing  a  similar  system.  The 
feasibility study would feed into a pilot project for the establishment of such an ABC 
system  –  at  Ferihegy  airport  to  begin  with  and  potentially  at  all  Hungarian 
international 
run.  
in 
14.400 € was assigned for this project from the Hungarian Fund's allocation. 

airports 

long 

the 

E. 

Schengen Information System (SIS II) 

The Schengen Information system (SIS) is a system that allows competent authorities in the 
Member States, through an automatic query procedure, to access alerts regarding persons and 
property. It is thus a vital feature in managing the fields of security, freedom and justice for 
the  Schengen  area  without  internal  borders.  It  was  established  following  the  Schengen 
Convention  1990  for  the  implementation  of  the  1985  Schengen  agreement  and  became 
operational in 1995. Since one of its main uses concerns checks at the EU external borders, it 
contributes  to  the  implementation  of  the  provisions  on  the  free  movement  of  persons.  The 
system  consists  of  a  national  systems  (N.SIS)  located  in  each  of  the  Member  States  and  a 
central system (C.SIS) gathering all the data of national databases. 

The  establishment  of  the  second  generation  Schengen  Information  System  (SIS  II)  which 
replaces  the  system's  previous  generation,  is  necessary  to  allow  integration  of  new  Member 
States joining the Schengen area as well as to introduce new technical functionalities. Council 
Decision 2001/886/JHA and  Council Regulation No 2424/2001 of 6 December  2001  on  the 
development of the second generation Schengen Information System lay the legal foundations 
for  the  Schengen  Information  System  II.  They  state  that  the  Schengen  Information  System, 
created pursuant to Title IV of the Schengen Agreement of 1990, has been replaced by SIS II. 

The External Borders Fund supports Member States in preparation of the national parts of the 
SIS II in view of the entry into operation of the whole system, expected in 2013.  

In 2007-2009 sixteen Member States (AT, CZ, EE, FI, DE, EL, HU, LV, LT, LU, MT, PT, 
SK, SI, ES, SE) carried out actions related to the SIS, committing a total of 25,5 M € equal to 
5,5% of the total EBF allocation for this period.  

EN 

29 

   EN 

 
Graph 10: 2007-2009 - % of EBF budget11 allocated to SIS related actions 

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

98,9

20,6

22,9

23,2

20,8

5,3

2,5

11,7

16,2

7,1

8,4

3,5

1,1

30,1

EE

FI

DE

EL

HU

LV

LT

LU

MT

PT

SK

SI

ES

SE

16,4

AT

0,4

CZ

In  Luxembourg,  the  smallest  beneficiary,  the  available  funds  were  used  exclusively  to 
implement SIS-related projects. Other Member States with a significant allocation to the SIS 
were  Finland,  Germany,  Hungary,  Latvia  and  Sweden,  who  committed  more  than  20%  of 
their allocation from the Fund to this objective.  

Actions  supported  by  Member  States  were  focused  on  acquisition  and  adjustment  of  the 
necessary  hardware  and  software  (AT,  DE,  EL,  HU,  LU,  LV,  SI),  development  of  new 
applications  for  the  national  authorities  concerned  (SE),  improvements  within  the  existing 
national systems and preparation for the migration towards SIS II (AT, DE, EE, EL, ES, FI, 
HU), the development of the SISone4all as the transitory stage before joining the SIS II (HU, 
SI,  SK)  and  subsequent  migration  to  SIS  II  (LT,  LU,  MT,  SK),  adaptation  of  the  SIRENE 
workflow  system  (AT,  EE,  ES,  HU,  MT),  the  tests  to  prepare  for  migration  to  SIS  II  and 
connecting  the  national  systems  with  the  C.SIS  (AT,  SI),  workshops  and  training  for 
personnel (CZ, EL). 

6. 

OVERALL PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ON THE IMPLEMENTATION  

6.1. 

Assessment by the Member States  

6.1.1.  The results achieved 

Most of the Member States gave a positive overall assessment of the results of the actions co-
financed by the Fund, classifying the possibilities for projects under the Fund as effective and 
useful. The Fund is appreciated for its important contribution to Member States' efforts in the 
fields  of  integrated  border  management,  implementation  of  common  visa  policy  and  large 
scale IT systems and has helped alleviate the impact of constraints imposed on state budgets 
in these areas due to the unfavourable economic situation. Member States stress that given the 
austerity measures taken by the national budgetary authorities some activities would not have 
been implemented or would not have been carried out in a timely manner if it were not for the 
co-financing provided by the Fund.  

11 

Figures include Technical Assistance 

EN 

30 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
In  particular,  Member  States  value  the  possibility  of  co-financing innovative projects  such 
as the implementation of state-of-the-art technology (notably mobile and fixed devices for 
border  checks  and  border  surveillance,  Automated  Border  Control  systems)  and  enhancing 
Member States' monitoring and reacting capabilities at the external air, sea and land borders 
(CCTV-systems, means of transport, interoperable communication systems). These measures 
have  led  to  more  cost-effective  management  of  passenger  flows  without  decreasing 
security.  

6.1.2.  The challenges encountered during the implementation 

Whereas  most  Member  States  were  satisfied  with  the  results  achieved  with  the  Fund's 
contribution,  many  highlighted  the  challenges  encountered  during  the  implementation  and 
suggested simplification of the regulatory framework. 

Firstly, the first two years were characterised by some degree of uncertainty and delays in the 
adoption of the regulatory framework and the annual programmes. For most Member States 
the  2007  and  2008  programmes  were  approved  at  the  end  of  2008,  which  shortened  the 
timeframe for implementation of the projects. Secondly, the rules governing the eligibility of 
expenditure were deemed complex and cumbersome. Furthermore, given that programmes are 
conceived  annually  but  the  actions  may  be  realised  within  2,5  years,  the  implementation 
period  of  one  annual  programme  overlaps  with  the  drafting  of  the  subsequent  annual 
programme and the reporting on the preceding one. In addition, if a revision of a programme 
was  needed,  a  modified  document  had  to  be  drafted  and  submitted  by  a  given  deadline. 
Member  States  found  it  strenuous  to  meet  the  requirements  while  deploying  the  available 
resources  to  perform  various  planning,  reporting  and  management  tasks  on  several 
programmes simultaneously. The organisation of these coinciding obligations was perceived 
as demanding and requiring a significant workload within a limited timeframe.  

Besides the initial delays and difficulties, the main challenge to a timely execution of actions 
under  this  Fund  is  stemming  from  procurement  procedures.  The  tendering  procedures  in 
question  require  an  advanced  planning  as  well  as  internal  consultations  with  and  in  some 
cases consent of other relevant public bodies. Procedures usually consist of several stages and 
national  legal  framework  may  require  additional  steps.  The  final  outcome  may  be 
unsatisfactory or there may be a need to suspend, postpone, cancel or change the scope of the 
project.  Several  Member  States  were  faced  with  such  difficulties  with  a  potentially  serious 
negative  impact  on  the  budget  consumption.  In  some  cases,  difficulties  arose  after  the 
procurement procedure and were due to delays and other timing issues related to delivery and 
verification  of  equipment  and  services  from  external  contractors  (abroad).  In  a  few  cases  it 
turned  out  at  a  later  stage  that  the  implementation  costs  were  either  lower  or  higher  than 
expected or that ineligible costs were identified during implementation. 

For  countries  not  applying  the  euro,  the  financial  and  economic  factors  impacting  on  the 
exchange rate led to modifications of the initially foreseen budgets. 

In  the  light  of  these  constraints,  Member  States  resorted  consistently  to  the  possibility  to 
revise the annual programmes in order to secure a more optimal absorption of the funds. In 
the reporting period, 15 Member States (AT, BE, CY, DE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HU, LT, LV, PL, 
PT, SE, SI) submitted a total of 43 requests for revision of the 2007-2009 annual programmes, 
out of which 39 necessitated a formal decision by the Commission (8 for the 2007, 14 for the 
2008 and 17 for the 2009 annual programmes).  

EN 

31 

   EN 

 
Revising  the  annual  programmes  enabled  Member  States  to  adjust  their  programming  to 
changing  situations  taking  into  account  unexpected  developments  and  the  encountered 
challenges. It did, however, increase the administrative work load. 

Perhaps more than other spending programmes, this Fund, being implemented essentially in 
the  executing  body  method  by  a  limited  number  of  public  bodies,  is  giving  Member  States 
more  flexibility  in  adapting  programmes  by  replacing  some  actions  with  other  ongoing 
projects, also relevant for the national strategies defined in the multiannual programmes.  

To  mitigate  the  challenges,  the  Commission  initiated  three  revisions  of  the  Implementing 
Rules resulting in extension of the eligibility period and major simplifications of the eligibility 
rules.  These  initiatives  were  undertaken  in  collaboration  with  the  Member  States  who 
confirmed  that  the  changes  would  bring  about  improvements  in  the  management  and 
execution of the actions by enabling a satisfactory implementation of numerous projects.  

6.2. 

Assessment by the Commission on the achievements of the Fund  

Having  reviewed  the  reports  from  Member  States,  and  also  taking  into  account  other 
information, including from monitoring missions, the Commission finds that, despite starting 
difficulties and some specific issues with the rules and implementation, the Fund lived up to 
its  objectives.  For  2007-2009  it  clearly  fulfilled  its  purpose  as  a  specific  vehicle  to  channel 
EU aid to boost investments at borders and in consulates in the interest of the Schengen area 
as a whole. As illustrated in section 5.3.3, the Fund actively leveraged important EU policy 
initiatives  and  projects.  As  such,  it  contributed  significantly  to  furthering  integrated 
border  management  and  the  use  of  new  technologies  to  facilitate  legitimate  travel. 
Besides the development of the Schengen Information Systems and the Visa Information 
System,  the  Fund  supported  pilot  projects  on  the  introduction  of  automated  border 
controls  and  preparation  for  the  registered  travellers'  programme.  Thanks to  the 
financial  contribution  of  the  Fund  to these  measures, even  if  relatively small, valuable 
experiences  were gained  through  the  development  of  such  innovative  systems which  will 
be an  important  input  for  the  Commission  in  the  further preparations  of  the  'smart  borders 
concept' for the future, notably with regard to making it possible to use them also for third-
country  nationals. In  that  respect,  Member  States  are  encouraged  to include  fingerprint 
readers in their ABC projects, in order to make them future-proof in relation to the EES and 
RTP  (Smart  Borders  initiative).  The  Fund  proved  also  very  useful  to  boost,  in  a  very  short 
period of time, investments in vulnerable areas, such as the Mediterranean. 

It has helped improving the management of the EU external borders, fighting against irregular 
migration  as  well  as  enhanced  Member  States  cooperation,  as  testified  by  the  following 
results: 

• 

Firstly,  thanks  to  the  investments  in  national  communication  systems,  border 
crossing  infrastructure,  state-of-the-art  operating  equipment  for  border  checks  and 
surveillance,  means  of  transport  and  training  for  border  guards,  Member  States 
benefited  from  significant  technical  improvements  at  the  external  border  and  at 
border  crossing  points,  resulting  in  increased  safety  at  EU  external  borders,  more 
effective  border  traffic  control  and  improved  coordination  between  the  various  law 
enforcement  authorities  at  national  level.  Thus,  the  Fund  has  contributed  to  the 
national efforts to handling efficiently the external borders and in particular to 
fighting  illegal  entry  into  the  Schengen  area,  completing  past  investments 

EN 

32 

   EN 

 
• 

• 

(Schengen  Facility)  and  strengthening  further  the  integrated  border  management 
system of the EU.  

Secondly,  under  the  2007-2009  annual  programmes  Member  States  purchased  and 
upgraded  the  necessary  equipment  for  the  VIS  and  SIS  II,  enabling  a  smooth 
connection  of  the  national  platforms  to  the  central  systems.  Given  that  all 
participating  Member  States  must  be  ready  with  development  of  their  national 
systems,  in  order  for  these  European  projects  to  function  properly  as  a  whole,  the 
Fund, as a long term framework for complementing national funding, has proven to 
be of vital importance for the implementation these common IT projects.  

Lastly, 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  had  contributed  to  swifter  processing  of  visa 
applications, enhancement in the quality of services and an equal and fair treatment 
of visa applicants.  

Part of the success of the Fund is due to its specific character. The Fund is characterised by a 
limited  scope  and  concerns  activities  implemented  at  the  physical  external  borders  or  in 
relation to visa issuance. This excludes many measures undertaken by Member States in the 
framework of the four-tier border management such as activities inside the Schengen territory 
(patrolling  activities  inside  the  country,  checks  on  persons  outside  of  the  border  crossing 
points).  Similarly,  activities  aiming  at  migration  control,  improvement  of  maritime  security 
and traffic management and general airport security do not fall within the Fund's scope. While 
this  allows  the  Fund  to  target  and  avoid  fragmentation  of  resources,  it  does  imply  the 
necessity  to  verify  carefully  the  envisaged  actions  in  order  to  ensure  compliance  with  its 
specific scope. 

In the same vein, the equipment, means of transport and IT systems purchased with the Funds' 
contribution can often be deployed for multiple purposes (such as border checks on goods, 
fight against smuggling of goods and environmental crimes, search and rescue actions at sea). 
Given  the  limited  scope  of  the  Fund,  apportionment  is  necessary  in  many  cases,  which 
necessitates development of additional statistics and complicates management of the actions. 
In  short,  such  management  and  control  activities  will  remain  a  necessary  corollary  of  a 
spending programme of this nature. This can be further complicated due to the organisational 
set-up in Member States when, for instance, border guards are part of the police force and/or 
also carry out other functions (including customs-related). 

7. 

CONCLUDING REMARKS 

7.1. 

Recommendations for the remainder of the multiannual period  

This report is based on the first three programming years, with final reports available for one 
annual  programme  only.  Its  submission  is  timed  to  assist  the  European  Parliament  and  the 
Council with the preparation for the next multiannual financial framework and not to provide 
a comprehensive and final evaluation. 

The  results  of  these  three  years  are  not  necessarily  representative.  The  first  annual 
programmes  were  drafted  and  implemented  under  considerable  time  pressure  with  little 

EN 

33 

   EN 

 
previous experience with similar instruments. Nearly 30% of the Funds were made available 
for  this  period  and  the  remaining  70%  will  be  allocated  to  the  subsequent  four  annual 
programmes. 

7.1.1.  A more strategic use of the Funds  

The 2010 programming exercise went much swifter. With the experiences gained in this first 
phase, and capitalising on the changes in the implementing rules as well as on the significant 
increases of the annual allocations, Member States are set to make the best use of funds in the 
period  2010-2013.  To  this  end,  as  of  2011,  Member  States  were  invited  to  develop  a 
programming of actions specifically targeted to the achievement of a number of key strategic 
objectives,  in  line  with  the  principle  in  the  basic  act  that  the  Commission  and  the  Member 
States  ensure  that  assistance  from  the  Fund  and  the  Member  States  is  consistent  with  the 
activities, policies and priorities of the Union. The overall aim is to underscore the coherence 
with  the  most  important  common  priorities  of  the  EU  as  established  in  the  Stockholm 
Programme, essential for the successful management of migratory flows in the Schengen area 
as a whole.  

Consequently, Member States have been invited to concentrate resources under the Fund 
on the investments needed into the following five strategic objectives: 

1.  realising the SIS II;  

2.  the VIS roll-out at consulates and border crossing points;  

3.  consular cooperation between Member States;  

4.  building up the European Surveillance System;  

5.  and  introducing  new  technologies  supporting  smoother  border  crossings,  notably  the 

automated border control systems.  

The  Fund's  appropriations  for  2011  were  directed  primarily  towards  meeting  the  EU 
requirements in these areas and this approach will be reinforced for the 2012-2013 period. 

7.1.2.  Reinforcing the strategic approach through adequate multiannual forward planning 

The  Fund,  conceived  as  a  capacity  building  instrument,  essentially  seeks  to  co-finance 
purchase,  upgrading,  development,  installation  and  renovation  of  infrastructure,  IT  systems, 
equipment  and  means  of  transport.  Capacity  building  actions  principally  target  long-term 
measures, which, as a general rule, do not display features typical for projects implemented 
within  a  limited  time  frame.  Member  States  could  explore  more  extensively  the 
possibilities to set up multiannual projects, in accordance with the regulatory framework, 
thus  reducing  also  the  incidence  of  selection  processes  and  establishing  a  stable  financial 
multiannual planning.  

7.1.3.  Complementing capacity building with operational support, where necessary  

Actions  aiming  to  maintain  equipment  or  run  (surveillance)  operations  per  se  were  not 
introduced  in  the  annual  programmes.  Those  activities  in  principle  form  part  of  routine 
activities at Member States' level. 

EN 

34 

   EN 

 
However,  the  Commission  recognises  that  once  the  above  five  strategic  objectives  and 
remaining national capacity building objectives are adequately met, resources under the Fund 
could also be directed to support an effective continued use of past investments made with EU 
resources.  Thus,  future  actions  could  also  finance  maintenance,  repairs  and  upgrades  in 
relation  to  investments  made  under  previous  annual  programmes  of  the  Fund  or,  for  some 
countries,  the  Schengen  Facility.  This  is  also  possible  in  case  of  emergencies.  Such  actions 
would  also  underpin  the  philosophy  that  Member  States  securing  external  borders  are 
providing a public service in the interest of and on behalf of other Member States.  

7.2. 

Preparing for the first ex-post evaluation (2012)  

The next milestone for the Fund is the ex-post evaluation report for 2007-2010. According to 
the basic act the Commission report is due by 31 December 2012.  

The  preparations  for  this  exercise  are  ongoing.  Unfortunately,  Member  States  cannot 
reasonably  be  expected  to  report  on  the  outputs  of  the  2010  annual  programme  by  30  June 
2012, as indicated in the basic act, since the eligibility period for 2010 runs till the second half 
of 2012. In order to provide complete data on 2010, Member States will be asked to submit 
their contributions by end October 2012 instead. 

To build upon this intermediate report, the ex-post evaluation for 2007-2010 could present a 
more  comprehensive  picture  of  the  Fund's  intervention  at  national  and  EU  level  as  regards 
outputs,  results  and  its  overall  impact  on  the  development  of  border  management  and  visa 
policy in Member States. To that end, its overall aim would be as follows: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

To  identify  the  results  arising  from  the  outputs  of the Fund for the  management of 
migration flows at borders and in consulates, i.e. the degree to which EU investments 
in infrastructure, equipment, means of transport, IT systems and training contributed 
to  strengthening  the  overall  capacity  to  carry  out  border  crossing  checks, 
surveillance, pre-entry checks and visa issuing procedures in Member States; 

To distinguish clearly the results achieved for the organisation of the public tasks of 
border  control  and  visa  policy,  on  the  one  hand,  and  for  the  entry  into  the  EU  of 
travellers and visa applicants, on the other;  

To assess the degree to which the Fund's intervention contributed to the prevention of 
irregular entry and stay through each national border and visa management system, 
taking into account the strategy established in the multi-annual programme, specific 
national targets identified and the evolution of migratory flows affecting the system; 

To assess the extent to which the Fund's intervention contributed to the application of 
EU  law,  including  the  Schengen  borders  Code  and  the  Visa  Code,  as  well  the 
development of specific EU projects such as the VIS and the SIS II; and  

Finally,  to  measure  the  values  obtained  in  relation  to  the  share  of  EU  allocations 
under the Fund to the overall national (financial and other) inputs and to identify any 
other relevant factors having had an impact on the intervention.  

EN 

35 

   EN