COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER Impact Assessment accompanying the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the European Border Surveillance System (EUROSUR)
Date: 2011-12-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU migration policy, Frontex, Schengen Agreement, border control, external border of the EU, illegal migration

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 12.12.2011 
SEC(2011) 1538 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 

Impact Assessment accompanying the Proposal for a Regulation of the European 
Parliament and of the Council establishing the European Border Surveillance System 
(EUROSUR) 

{COM(2011) 873 final} 
{SEC(2011) 1536 final} 
{SEC(2011) 1537 final} 

 
 
 
 
  
 
Accompanying document to the 

PROPOSAL FOR A REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF 
THE COUNCIL ON 

Establishing the European Border Surveillance System (EUROSUR) 

ANNEXES 

ANNEXES overview 

ANNEX 1 

EUROSUR documentation 

ANNEX 2 

EUROSUR expert groups 

ANNEX 3 

EUROSUR in scope/out of scope 

ANNEX 4 

Cost estimates for National Coordination Centres 

ANNEX 5 

Cost estimates for EUROSUR network 

ANNEX 6 

Cost estimates for regional networks with third countries 

ANNEX 7 

Cost estimates for the common application of surveillance tools 

ANNEX 8 

List of abbreviations 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROSUR documentation 

ANNEX 1 

This  annex  provides  an  overview  and  short  summaries  of  the  most  relevant  EUROSUR 
documents, starting with horizontal documents and then followed by documents relevant for 
Steps 1 to 7 of the 2008 EUROSUR roadmap.  

ANNEX 1.1:   

Horizontal documents 

1. 

Legislation 

Title 
Full title 

Excerpt 

Schengen Borders Code 
Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
15  March  2006  establishing  a  Community  Code  on  the  rules  governing  the 
movement of persons across borders, OJ L 105 of 13.4.2006, 1.  
Article 12 Border surveillance 
1. The main purpose of border surveillance shall be to prevent unauthorised border 
crossings, to counter cross-border criminality and to take measures against persons who 
have crossed the border illegally. 
2. The border guards shall use stationary or mobile units to carry out border 
surveillance. That surveillance shall be carried out in such a way as to prevent and 
discourage persons from circumventing the checks at border crossing points. 
3. Surveillance between border crossing points shall be carried out by border guards 
whose numbers and methods shall be adapted to existing or foreseen risks and threats. 
It shall involve frequent and sudden changes to surveillance periods, so that 
unauthorised border crossings are always at risk of being detected. 
4. Surveillance shall be carried out by stationary or mobile units which perform their 
duties by patrolling or stationing themselves at places known or perceived to be 
sensitive, the aim of such surveillance being to apprehend individuals crossing the 
border illegally. Surveillance may also be carried out by technical means, including 
electronic means. 
5.  Additional  rules  governing  surveillance  may  be  adopted  in  accordance  with  the 
procedure referred to in Article 33(2). 

Title 

Updated EU Schengen Catalogue on External borders control, Return and 
readmission 

Reference  Council document 7864/09 SCH-EVAL 48 FRONT 21 COMIX 252 of 16.3.2009
RECOMMENDATIONS 
4. Border surveillance  
4.1 Generally 
Border surveillance should be implemented in 
accordance with the Schengen Border Code (SBC) and 
Schengen Handbook. 

Officers carrying out border surveillance have 
suitable uniforms made of materials adapted to the 
weather and climate conditions and sign or badges 
which identify them as border guards.  

BEST PRACTICES 

Border surveillance should be assessed using two key 
parameters  which  are  situational  awareness  and 

The border is kept under constant monitoring. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
reaction capability.  

−  Situational  awareness  measures  the  level  at 
which the units can detect ongoing or already 
accomplished  unlawful  border  crossings  (or 
smuggling  activities)  throughout  the  relevant 
planning period. This shows the requirements 
at  tactical  level  (monitoring  times  and  areas, 
detection  rate,  identification  methods  and 
profiling  of  targets).  Also,  the  number  and 
direction  of  patrols  along  blue  and  green 
borders is relevant. 

Tactical surveillance centres active 24/7, monitoring 
the border or sea area through surveillance equipment 
and patrols. The centre actively refers information on 
movements to intelligence officers (risk indicators, 
registers) and analyses the nature of movements in 
order to discover anomalies. Random controls are 
also carried out. 

Constant readiness of patrols. The tactical 
surveillance centre is competent to send out patrols 
immediately. 

the  units  are  able 

−  Reaction  capability  measures  the  level  at 
which 
to  react  by 
apprehending  and  searching  any  persons 
detected  or  investigating  suspected  illegal 
activity  throughout  the  planning  period.  This 
shows 
level 
(density and equipment of patrols, density and 
intervention  units, 
special 
readiness  of 
availability of aircraft and helicopters etc). 

the  requirements  at 

tactical 

Based on risk analysis, suitably equipped patrols (land, 
sea, airborne) should be kept in readiness for pursuit, 
apprehension and/or control of detected movements 
and arriving or departing transportations. 
Functional communications between patrols, vessels, 
aircraft and command/control centres. 
Activities in the area of responsibility are supported by 
mobile control equipment.   

4.2. Land borders 

Illegal immigrants crossing the border should be 
detected with adequate efficiency.  
Border surveillance and apprehension of illegal 
immigrants should be carried out with mobile and 
fixed patrols supported by technical means: 

−  patrols  moving  by  car,  motorcycles,  snow 
scooters, all-terrain vehicles, horses etc. 
−  night vision devises and thermal cameras 
−  fixed camera and sensor alarm systems 
−  portable  infrared  alarm/camera  and  other 

sensor systems 

−  sniffer dogs in forest areas 
−  motor boats at lakes and rivers 

Surveillance resources should be concentrated in high-
risk areas in accordance with risk analysis. 

Border near the BCPs should be kept under 
supervision in order to detect person attempting to skirt 
around the BCP.  
The response times required to start tracing illegal 
border crossers in each border sector should be defined 
(based on risk analysis). 

Cooperation of border guards with the local 

Use of TETRA standard radios or other encrypted 
ways of communication. 
Mobile patrols/vessels have on-line access to 
databases and examples of travel documents (visas, 
border stamps information, etc)  
Mobile patrols/vessels have some equipment to check 
travel documents (UV, magnifying glass at least 10 x 
or mono microscope with variable zoom). 

Helicopters and fixed wing aircrafts carry out 
surveillance and support patrols on the ground.  

Border area is divided into sectors/sections. The 
period of surveillance of each sector depends on risk 
analysis. 
Border close to BCP is monitored by cameras and/or 
an alarm system.   

Mobile units, fast response teams, helicopters, motor 
boats, sniffer dogs etc. 
Plans drafted in advance, including manned points, 
for tracing illegal border crossers in different border 
sectors/sections.  
Constant contacts with local population and relevant 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
population.  

Collection of all relevant evidence to prove illegal 
crossing of the State border in order to readmit third-
country nationals.  
4.3. Maritime borders 
There should be coastal surveillance system backed up 
by a network of coastguard stations in readiness for 
rapid reaction. The system should be supported by an 
offshore element; offshore patrol vessels, helicopters, 
fixed wing aircraft and other means. 

All vessels coming into territorial waters should be 
detected and identified. Identifications (names of 
vessels) should be checked against background 
information on risk vessels.  

Arriving vessels should be assessed in accordance with 
risk analysis.  

If necessary, checked vessels should be intercepted by 
border guards at sea. Necessary coercive measures are 
carried out. 
There should be necessary measures to prevent 
unauthorized access to the port facility, ships moored, 
and to restricted areas. 

authorities.  
During their shifts; border patrols and leaders keep 
up regular contacts with local residents.  
Fixed practices of gathering evidence regarding 
illegal border crossing, in accordance with bilateral 
or EC Readmission Agreements.  

Integrated surveillance system and common maritime 
situation picture with all relevant authorities (border 
guard, naval authorities, navy, coastguard etc.). All 
data are recorded and stored for at appropriate time. 
Situation is monitored in adequate number of 
command/control centres. Situation picture is 
composed of information from radars, offshore patrol 
vessels (OPV), camera surveillance systems, 
helicopters and fixed wing aircraft. 
Use of AIS (Automatic Identification System), 
VTMS (Community Vessel Traffic Management 
System), VMS (Vessel Monitoring System for 
fisheries), V-RMTC (Virtual Regional Maritime 
Traffic Centre) and SSN (SafeSeaNet). 
Assessment is carried out in regional/tactical 
command/coordination centres by crime intelligence 
officers. 
OPVs, coastal patrol vessels (CPV) or patrol boats 
(CPB) from coastguard stations. 

Frontex guidelines on sea border operations  

Title 
Full title  Council  Decision  2010/252/EU  of  26  April  2010  supplementing  the  Schengen 
Borders  Code  as  regards  the  surveillance  of  the  sea  external  borders  in  the 
context of operational cooperation coordinated by the European Agency for the 
Management  of  Operational  Cooperation  at  the  External  Borders  of  the 
Member States of the European Union, OJ L 111 of 4 May 2010, 20.  

Abstract 

Council  Decision  2010/252/EU  establishes  rules  for  the  surveillance  of  sea  borders 
(Part  I  of  Annex  -  binding)  and  it  sets  out  guidelines  for  search  and  rescue  situations 
and  for  disembarkation  (Part  II  of  Annex  –  non-binding)  within  the  context  of  sea 
border operations coordinated by Frontex.  
According  to  Article  1  of  this  Council  Decision  both  the  rules  and  the  non-binding 
guidelines  should  form  part  of  the  operational  plan  for  each  sea  border  operation 
coordinated by Frontex.  
Part I of the Annex contains general principles including the protection of fundamental 
rights and the principle of non-refoulement. It also lays down rules on the interception 
measures  which  may  be  taken  with  regard  to  ships  suspected  of  carrying  irregular 
migrants.  
Part II sets out the duty under international maritime law to render assistance to persons 
in  distress  at  sea  and  it  contains  guidelines  as  to  how  this  duty  may  be  implemented 
during a sea border operation coordinated by Frontex. Part II of the Annex also sets out 
modalities of disembarkation which need to be included in the operational plan.  

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Title: 
Full title 

Abstract 

Frontex Amendment 
(Draft)  Regulation  of  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  amending 
Council Regulation (EC) No 2007/2004 establishing FRONTEX 
The agreed compromise text can be summarised as following: 
Creation of European border guard teams 
The provisions on the Rapid Border Intervention Teams and the joint support teams 
(joint operations, pilot projects) are becoming part of one set of provisions under the 
heading: European Border Guard Teams. The European Border Guard Teams will 
consist of national border guards assigned or even seconded by Member States to the 
agency for joint operations, rapid interventions and pilot projects.  
Fundamental rights 
The visibility of fundamental rights obligations and references to various international 
law instruments is increased: 
- 

In  case  of  a  breach  of  human  rights,  Frontex  missions  shall  be  suspended  or 
terminated in whole or in part.  

-  The office of a Fundamental Rights Officer will be created in the Agency to assist 

in matters having implications for fundamental rights. 

-  A  Consultative  Forum  on  Fundamental  Rights  will  be  created  also  involving 

relevant international organisations and NGOs.  

-  A Code of Conduct will be established to guarantee respect for fundamental rights. 
-  Frontex-funded  return  operations  will  be  monitored  observing  objective  and 
transparent  criteria.  The  Commission  shall  draw  up  an  annual  report  on  the 
monitoring. 

-  The  tasks  of  the  Agency  will  include  possible  assistance  to  Member  States  in 

situations that may involve humanitarian emergencies and rescue at sea 

-  Fundamental rights are included in the training curricula of Frontex personnel and 

border guards participating in Frontex operations.  

Strengthening of the operational capacity 
The putting at the disposal of the Agency of human and technical resources is further 
developed, as well as the creation of the possibility for the Agency to acquire or lease 
its own technical equipment. This is achieved by: 
- 

a  quasi  compulsory  mechanism  for  technical  and  human  resources  i.e.  once 
Member States agree on assigning their national border guards or even seconding 
them to the Agency or put technical equipment in the pool at the disposal of the 
Agency, they will be legally bound to honour their commitments.  
the  agreed  change  that  Frontex  may  purchase,  lease,  own  and  co-own  its  own 
technical assets.  

- 

Frontex will also have the mandate to process personal data obtained during 
operations to use them in the fight against criminality, human trafficking and irregular 
immigration. Data may also be transmitted to Europol, albeit, on a case-by-case basis.  
The cooperation with relevant authorities of third countries is enhanced. The basis 
remains the conclusion of a working arrangement with the competent authorities 
regarding border control of a third country. The Agency will have the possibility to 
provide technical assistance to relevant third countries to increase the level of 
cooperation. 
Regarding training, an Erasmus-style exchange programme for national border guards 
will be created.  

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
2. 

Commission 

Title 
Full title  Communication  examining  the  creation  of  a  European  Border  Surveillance 

2008 EUROSUR roadmap 

System (EUROSUR), COM(2008)68 final of 13 February 2008 (12 pages). 

Abstract 

Title 
Full title 

Abstract 

Proposal  of  the  Commission  to  establish  EUROSUR  in  3  phases,  consisting  of 
8 separate,  but  interlinked  steps,  ranging  from  the  setting  up  of  national  coordination 
centres  to  the  creation  of  a  common  information  sharing  environment  for  the  EU 
maritime  domain.  The  document  identifies  the  3  main  objectives  (reducing  irregular 
migration and loss of migrants at sea; combating cross-border crime). Then it presents a 
general concept how to improve situational awareness and reaction capability of border 
control  authorities,  followed  by  a  detailed  presentation  of  the  different  steps. 
A preliminary timetable for making EUROSUR operational by 2013 is annexed. 

2008 EUROSUR impact assessment 
Impact assessment accompanying the Communication examining the creation of 
EUROSUR, SEC(2008)151 of 13.2.2008 (97 pages). 
In the impact assessment the following policy options had been identified: 
1) 
2)  This  option 

interlinking  and 
streamlining existing surveillance systems and mechanisms at Member States level. 
3)  This  option  comprises  the  actions  listed  in  option  2  plus  four  additional  actions, 
which  promote  the  development  and  implementation  of  common  tools  and 
applications for border surveillance at EU level. 

A status quo policy option involving no new actions. 

includes  four  different  actions  focusing  on 

4)  This  option  consists  of  all  actions  listed  in  options  2  and  3  plus  one  additional 
action, aiming at the creation of a common information sharing environment for the 
maritime domain. 

It  was  concluded  that  the  preferred  policy  actions  are  steps  1  to  7  as  proposed  under 
policy options 2, 3 and 4, forming a roadmap for the development of EUROSUR. 

Title 
Full title 

Abstract 

2009 EUROSUR progress report 
Report on progress made in developing EUROSUR, Commission staff working 
paper, SEC(2009)1265final of 24 September 2009 (11 pages). 

This document summarizes the progress made in developing EUROSUR from February 
2008 until July 2009. For each step identified in the 2008 EUROSUR roadmap, it lists 
the objectives and measures taking during the reporting period (e.g. programming of 
External Borders Fund and FP7 for EUROSUR, establishment of expert groups, 
implementation of EUROSUR technical study) and identifies the next measures to be 
taken (Frontex' assessments, pilot project for the EUROSUR network). 

2010 EUROSUR progress report 

Title 
Full title  Commission staff working paper determining the technical and operational 
framework of EUROSUR and the actions to be taken for its establishment, 
SEC(2011)145 final of 28 January 2011 (11 pages). 

Abstract 

Like in the 2009 progress report, this document summarizes the progress made under 
each of the 8 steps of the 2008 EUROSUR roadmap between August 2009 and October 
2010. In addition, it identifies the technical and operational framework of EUROSUR 
and the short-term and long-term actions to be taken for its establishment, including the 
Commission's intention to table a legislative proposal at the end of 2011. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
3. 

Council 

Council Conclusions of 5-6 June 2008 

Title 
Full title  Council Conclusions on the management of the external borders of the member 
states  of  the  European  Union;  2873rd  Justice  and  Home  Affairs  Council  meeting; 
Luxembourg, 5 and 6 June 2008. 

Excerpts 

The Council […] Regarding EUROSUR 
21. Welcomes the progress made on the development of the European Patrols Network 
based on the MEDSEA and BORTEC studies undertaken by FRONTEX. 
22. Welcomes the Commission's intention to launch, in 2008, the work on elaborating 
guidelines, together with the Member States, for the tasks of and the cooperation 
between the national coordination centres and FRONTEX. 
23. Encourages the Commission to launch immediately a study concerning the key 
components of the EUROSUR concept, and to analyse concepts of the common 
application of the surveillance tools and satellites on reliable basis, financial 
consequences for the introduction of such a system and an assessment to the border 
surveillance infrastructure in selected third countries on the basis of an evaluation to be 
carried out by FRONTEX. 
24. Invites the Commission to give priority in the programming of the 7th Framework 
Programme for research and development (security and space themes) to improving the 
performance and use of surveillance tools. 
25. Requests FRONTEX to participate in the development of the EUROSUR concept, 
within its existing mandate, including by taking forward the studies referred to in the 
Commission's Communication on examining the creation of EUROSUR. 
26. Requests the Commission to report back to the Council in the first half of 2009 on 
progress made in developing EUROSUR on the basis of the preparatory works carried 
out, in close cooperation with the Member States and FRONTEX, including with regard 
to the study to be launched by the Commission concerning the key components of the 
EUROSUR concept. 

Title 
Full title 

Excerpt 

Stockholm Programme 
The Stockholm Programme- An open and secure Europe serving and protecting 
citizens (2010/C 115/01 of 4.5.2010). Compare also Commission 
Communication titled "Delivering an area of freedom, security and justice for 
Europe's citizens – Action Plan implementing the Stockholm Programme" 
(COM(2010)171final of 20.4.2010) 

The European Council looks forward to the continued phased development of the 
European Border Surveillance System (Eurosur) in the Southern and Eastern borders, 
with a view to putting in place a system using modern technologies and supporting 
Member States, promoting interoperability and uniform border surveillance standards 
and to ensuring that the necessary cooperation is established between the Member 
States and with Frontex to share necessary surveillance data without delay. This 
development should take into account the work in other relevant areas of the Integrated 
Maritime Policy for the European Union as well as being able in the medium term to 
allow for cooperation with third countries. The European Council invites the 
Commission to make the necessary proposals to achieve these objectives.  

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
Title 
Full title  Council Conclusions on 29 measures for reinforcing the protection of the 

Council Conclusions of 25-26 February 2010 

external borders and combating illegal immigration; Justice and Home Affairs 
meeting, 25-26 February 2010 

Excerpts 

The Council has agreed: 
4. To improve operational cooperation with third countries of origin and transit, in 
order to improve joint patrolling on land and at sea, upon consent of the Member State 
concerned, return, and collection and exchange of relevant information within the 
applicable legal framework, and other effective preventive measures in the field of 
border management and illegal immigration. 
10. To call on the Member States to implement the phases and steps laid down for the 
development of EUROSUR as soon as possible, in order to reinforce cooperation and 
Member States' border surveillance capabilities. The Council invites the European 
Commission to report on EUROSUR progress on mid-2010. 
11. To urge relevant Member States to establish or further develop a single national 
border surveillance system and a single national Coordination Centre. A network of 
national Coordination Centres, compatible with the FRONTEX Information System, 
and available on a 24/7 basis in real time, should be fully operational on a pilot basis as 
of 2011, involving as many Member States of the southern and eastern external borders 
as possible. The Commission is invited to present legislative proposals if necessary to 
consolidate the network of Member States by 2013. 
12. To create a Common pre-frontier intelligence picture in order to provide the 
Coordination Centres with pre-frontier information provided by Member States, 
Frontex and third countries. To this end, the Council invites Frontex, in close 
cooperation with the Commission and the Member States to take the necessary 
measures to implement the study carried out by the Commission in 2009. 
13. To encourage cooperation by neighbouring third countries in border surveillance. It 
is essential that within the territorial scope of EUROSUR and in the current financial 
framework, financial and logistic support from the European Union and its Member 
States be made available to the third countries whose cooperation could significantly 
contribute to controlling illegal immigration flows, in order to improve their capacity to 
manage their own borders. 
14. To invite the Commission to report before the end of 2010 on how the conclusions 
of the Global Monitoring for Environment and Security (GMES) border surveillance 
group on common application of surveillance tools, such as satellites, could be 
implemented in the EU land and sea borders. 
17. To request Frontex and the Member States concerned to further develop the 
European Patrols Network (EPN) in order to generalize bilateral joint maritime patrols, 
in particular between neighbouring Member States at the southern and eastern maritime 
borders, taking into account the experience gained on joint police patrols in the context 
of the Prüm Decision, and to ensure the full integration of the EPN in the EUROSUR 
network. 
18. To encourage Member States to optimise the use of the European External Borders 
Fund annual programmes for the period 2007-2013 to improve the capabilities of their 
border guards and the development of EUROSUR, including through the creation and 
development of the single national coordination centres, and considering the specific 
situation of the Member States. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
 
 
Title 
Full title 
Excerpts 

Council conclusions of June 2011 
European Council conclusions of 23 and 24 June 2011 

Responsibility for the control and surveillance of the external borders lies with the 
Member States which, in performing this function, are also acting in the common 
interest of all Member States. In order to ensure that Europe's external borders are 
effectively managed and that the same standards apply everywhere, all relevant 
instruments must be used in an optimal manner and be adapted where necessary. The 
European Border Surveillance System will be further developed as a matter of priority 
in order to become operational by 2013 and allow Member States' authorities carrying 
out border surveillance activities to share operational information and improve 
cooperation. 

4. 

Frontex 

Title 
Full title  MEDSEA feasibility study of 14 July 2006 on the Mediterranean Coastal 

MEDSEA study 

Abstract 

Title 
Full title 

Abstract 

Patrols Network; prepared by Frontex (99  pages). EU Restricted. 
The MEDSEA study on the reinforcement of monitoring and surveillance of the 
southern maritime borders of Member States examines the facilitation of a 
unified and cost effective cooperation between Member States and third 
countries, and the possibility of establishing national coordination centres and a 
network for cooperation and coordination between authorities involved in sea 
border surveillance.  

BORTEC study 
Study on technical feasibility of establishing a surveillance system (European 
Surveillance System), Warsaw, presented by FRONTEX on 12 January 2007 
(106  pages). EU Confidential. 
The BORTEC study, which examines the technical viability of estabilishing a 
surveillance system covering the whole southern maritime border of Member 
States, describes the maritime areas which need to be covered, the targets and 
threats to be detected and the systems, technologies and tools to carry out the 
surveillance.  

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
 
 
ANNEX 1.2:  National coordination centres (Step 1) 

1. 

Legislation 

Excerpt 

EBF Strategic Guidelines 

Title 
Full title  Decision of 27.8.2007 implementing Decision No 574/2007/EC of the European 
Parliament  and  of  the  Council  as  regards  the  adoption  of  strategic  guidelines 
for the External Borders Fund for 2007 to 2013, OJ L233/3 of 5.9.2007. 
PRIORITY 2: support for the development and implementation of the national 
components of a European Surveillance System for the external borders and of a 
permanent European Patrol Network at the southern maritime borders of the EU 
Member States1 
This could also include upgrading surveillance systems to locate and identify vehicles, 
boats and aircrafts correctly.  
Within this priority, the Community contribution may be increased to 75 % for projects 
addressing the following specific priorities: 
(1) investments in establishing or upgrading a single national coordination centre, 
which coordinates 24/7 the activities of all national authorities carrying out external 
border control tasks (detection, identification, and intervention) and which is able to 
exchange information with the national coordination centres in other Member States; 
(2) investments in establishing or upgrading a single national surveillance system, 
which covers all or selected parts of the external border and enables the dissemination 
of information 24/7 between all authorities involved in external border control; 
(3) purchase and/or upgrading of equipment for detection, identification and 
intervention at the borders (e.g. vehicles, vessels, aircraft, helicopters, sensors, cameras, 
etc.), provided the need for this equipment has been clearly identified at European level.

2. 

Commission 

Title: 
Full title: 

Summary of Member States' replies to 2008 questionnaire 
Summary of Member States' replies to questionnaires concerning Steps 1 and 2, 
REV2,  18.11.2008  (37  pages).  Document  presented/discussed  in  EUROSUR 
Member States' expert group. EU government use only. 

Abstract:  Based  on  detailed  Commission  questionnaires,  23  Member  States  provided  replies  on 
national  border  surveillance  infrastructure,  communication  systems  and  the  use  of 
surveillance tools (EUROSUR Steps 1, 2 and 5), including  

o  description of main scenarios and tasks of border control authorities,  
o  National land/maritime border surveillance – status quo and plans;  
o  Positions on what is being/should be done by NCCs;  
o  Collection,  fusion,  analysis  and  dissemination  of  information  in  operational 

pictures. 

The summary document provides an overview of the status quo in the Member States 
with regard to border surveillance and planning until 2013. The main findings are:  
o  While  land  border  surveillance  is  carried  out  by  border  guards,  many  different 

authorities (e.g. navies) are involved in maritime border surveillance. 

1 

A 2010 internal evaluation of the 2007-2009 annual programmes has shown that about 45% of the EBF 
funding is being spent for Priority 2. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
o  All  18  MS  concerned  will  upgrade/extent  their  border  surveillance  systems  until 

2013, with considerable investments.  

o  NCC needs no detailed information, but only generic picture.  
o  Currently big differences between NCCs on extent of information collection. 
o  Whenever NCCs do data analysis, they also include intelligence. 
o  Currently, only a few NCCs have a common situational picture.  
o  All NCCs coordinate surveillance activities, but only a few have C2 functions. 
o  Majority of MS think NCCs should have ISR and NEC functions. 

The main findings concerning Step 2 (EUROSUR network) are: 
o  Member  States  have  secured 

their  national  communication  systems,  but 

o 

communication channels with 3rd countries are in an early phase. 
Input on which information should be exchanged between neighbouring NCCs, all 
NCCs as well as with Frontex (compare EUROSUR guidelines). 

2010 EUROSUR guidelines 

Title: 
Full title:  REV1  version  of  23.11.2010  with  69  recommendations  (17  pages).  Elaborated 
on the basis of the "Discussion paper on tasks of and the cooperation between 
NCCs"  (REV2,  10.3.2009).  Document  /presented/discussed  in  EUROSUR 
Member States' expert group. 

Abstract:  The guidelines, which serve as a tool to consult Member States on the main 

elements of the 2011 legislative proposal , are structured as follows: 
o  Objective and scope of EUROSUR 
o  Technical framework: Definitions and requirements for national 

coordination centres, national border surveillance system, Frontex and the 
EUROSUR network 
o  Operational framework 

(cid:57) 

(cid:57) 

(cid:57) 

Situational awareness: Definitions of the national and European 

situational pictures and the common pre-frontier intelligence picture 

Information management: General principles and definition of 

information exchange categories between neighbouring and all national 
coordination centres as well as with FRONTEX. 

Reaction capability 

o  Common provisions on role of local, regional and other centres and on 

information exchange with neighbouring third countries 

EUROSUR Management concept 

Title: 
Full title:  Prepared by an external contractor as part of the EUROSUR technical study.2 
ESG doc. 1JLS-BT-0012, 19.1.2010, Version 03.03 of 18.2.2010 (133 pages). 
Document presented/discussed in EUROSUR Member States' expert group. 

Abstract:  This concept contains a model for the overall management of border 

surveillance activities and information, covering situational awareness, reaction 
capability and effect measurement at tactical, operational and strategic level.  
It interlinks the different tools developed under Steps 1, 2 and 6 (NCCs, 
network, CPIP) and contains a detailed definition of the local situational 

2 

Technical study on developing concepts for border surveillance infrastructure, a secure communication 
network  and  a  pre-frontier  intelligence  picture  within  the  framework  of  a  EUROSUR  (EUROSUR 
technical  study).  Main  contractor:  ESG.  Subcontractors:  EADS,  SELEX,  Thales.  Consultants: 
SECUNET, University of the German Federal Army. Budget: M€ 1, 8. The study was funded under the 
External Borders Fund. 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
picture/SP (LCC), the national SP (NCC), the European SP and the CPIP 
(Frontex). It contains a thorough description of roles and tasks of LCCs and 
NCCs, including how NCCs should attribute 3 impact (threat) levels to border 
sections (green – low impact, orange – medium impact, red – high impact). It 
also contains a description for the reaction capability management model.  
The concept serves as a major input for the revised EUROSUR guidelines. 

Title: 
Reference:  Prepared by an external contractor as part of the EUROSUR technical study. 

EUROSUR technical concepts for national surveillance systems and NCCs 

Abstract: 

ESG doc. 1JLS-BT-0011, 19.1.2010, Version 01.01 (230 pages). Document 
presented/discussed in the EUROSUR Member States' expert group. Partly for 
EU government use only. 

The technical concepts should serve as cost-effective and manufacturer 
independent design tool respectively as minimum/optimum requirements for 
Member States when extending/upgrading their national border surveillance 
systems and setting up their NCCs. In particular, they should enable a national 
planning authority to divide its border area into phenotypical border segments, 
evaluate the types of system segments needed, select the available modules 
from the library and tailor them to its needs before tendering (tool box).  
For this purpose, 33 relevant border segments – a part of the border with 
similar terrain conditions - have been identified and the basic technical details 
and cost estimates elaborated.  
Discussions in the EUROSUR Member States' expert group have shown that 
the technical concepts developed by the external contractor (industry) are not 
specific enough to be used as binding technical requirements for border 
surveillance. 

Summary of Member States' comments to EUROSUR concepts 
Title: 
Reference:  Summary of comments from Member States on the different concepts for Steps 

1, 2, 5 and 6 of the EUROSUR roadmap, 30.10.2009 (31 pages). Document 
presented/discussed in EUROSUR Member States' expert group. For EU 
government use only. 

Abstract:  Document lists in its five annexes detailed comments from Member States and 

Frontex with regard to: 
•  Annex 1 – General comments 
•  Annex 2 – Comments on the technical border surveillance concepts (Step 1) 
•  Annex 3 – Comments on the EUROSUR network (Step 2) 
•  Annex 4 – Comments on the GMES concept paper (Step 5) 
•  Annex 5 – Comments on the CPIP (Step 6) 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
 
 
3. 

Frontex 

Title: 
Full title: 
Abstract:  The business concept describes the legal and security framework of the FSC, 

Frontex situation centre (FSC) business concept 
22 April 2008, 46 pages. For internal use only. 

defines its mission, business functions, objectives, tasks, products, services and 
roles and identifies potential customers and suppliers, including information 
flows and business processes.  

Title: 
Full title: 

Abstract: 

Assessment of the EU external borders in light of EUROSUR 
Frontex, Assessment of the EU external borders of the Member States in the 
light of EUROSUR development, October 2009 (36 pages). Document 
presented/discussed in EUROSUR Member States' expert group. EU Restricted. 

Risk assessment determining those parts of the external borders to be covered 
by a (stationary) surveillance system, including a comparison of this assessment 
with the plans presented by the Member States in the context of the EBF. 
As outcome of the risk assessment, six Member States with maritime borders 
(Greece, Italy, Spain, Malta, Cyprus, Bulgaria) and seven Member States with 
land borders (Greece, Bulgaria, Spain, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, Romania) 
would benefit from setting up permanent surveillance systems in certain areas. 
These areas include:  
o  Maritime borders: Greek maritime borders in Aegean and Mediterranean 
Sea, Italian islands of Sicily, Sardinia and Pelagic Islands (Lampedusa, 
Linosa and Lampione), Spanish coast between Alicante and Cadiz, Canary 
Islands, entire coast of Malta, southern coast of Cyprus, entire Black Sea 
coast of Bulgaria and Romania. 

o  Land borders: Greek land borders with Albania, FYROM and Turkey; land 
border between Bulgaria and Turkey; Hungarian land border with Serbia; 
all MS land borders with Ukraine (Poland, Hungary, Romania and 
Slovakia). 

A (brief) analysis of the MS plans for the EBF has shown that they match to a 
very large extent with the risk assessment. A few border sections have been 
identified (e.g. northern maritime border between Greece and Turkey) with 
would benefit from further improvements. 
Furthermore, border sections have been identified for which MS have 
implemented or plan surveillance systems not needed according to the risk 
assessment (at least as far as illegal migration is concerned; however, 
surveillance might be needed for other purposes, e.g. narcotics trafficking). 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
 
ANNEX 1.3:   EUROSUR network (Step 2) 

1. 

Commission 

Title: 
Reference:  Prepared by an external contractor as part of the EUROSUR technical study. 

EUROSUR network architecture 

ESG doc. 1JLS-BT-0021, 19.1.2010, Version 2.0 (78 pages). Document 
presented/discussed in the EUROSUR Member States' expert group. Partly for 
EU government use only. 

Abstract:  The EUROSUR network architecture foresees that connecting the NCCs can be 

started with minimum effort and investments and extended in increments, i.e. 
after basic installation steps the network can be extended to further NCCs, 
higher security levels etc. The information exchange requirements (IER) 
between different NCC types and FRONTEX have been defined.  
The following requirements have been covered: 24/7 close-to-real time 
communication, audio and video conference channels, secure handling of 
classified information, bilateral and multilateral information dissemination.  
Thus the network will provide four major functionalities: Communication, 
information sharing, coordination, exchange of situational pictures. 
While the concept was initially based on using S-TESTA as the transportation 
layer, following the failure of negotiations with the S-TESTA framework 
contractor it has been adapted to the internet solution with encryption devices. 

Title: 
Reference:  Prepared by an external contractor as part of the EUROSUR technical study. 

EUROSUR network IT Security Framework 

Abstract: 

ESG doc. 1JLS-BT-0021, 19.1.2010, Version 2.0 (78 pages). Document 
presented/discussed in the EUROSUR Member States' expert group. Partly for 
EU government use only. 

This concept shows aspects to be considered when upgrading the EUROSUR 
network to a classification level higher than EU RESTRICTED.  
Frontex must be able to obtain for the ESP and CPIP researchable overviews of 
information managed by the NCCs in the NSPs without directly receiving 
specific details and while guaranteeing national security regulations of the 
NCCs. Detailed security-relevant information must be made accessible while 
ensuring that data is separated and securely verified (need-to-share 
requirement).  
The requirements described in this document represent the minimum 
requirements that all NCCs and Frontex must fulfil so that information can be 
exchanged in the network. It includes only the basic design guidelines for 
creating secure procedures for exchanging and verifying information.  
A detailed specification of the actual architecture, processes and security 
components is carried in the Frontex-led pilot project for the EUROSUR 
network (see below). 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
 
 
Specifications for  and results of "mini-pilot" on EUROSUR network 

Title: 
Reference:  Prepared by an external contractor as part of the EUROSUR technical study. 
Specifications: ESG doc. 1JLS-SK-0032, 12.11.2009 Version 1.3 (28 pages).  
Summary of results: ESG, 9.12.2009 Version 1.0 (185 pages). Documents 
presented/discussed in EUROSUR Member States' expert group. Partly for EU 
government use only. 

Abstract:  During the EUROSUR technical study, a “mini-pilot” was carried out with 

Finland, Poland and Slovakia (for land borders) as well as with France, Italy 
and Spain (for maritime borders) in November 2009 to test in test beds 
provided by industry possible applications for the EUROSUR network and the 
CPIP. Another 9 MS followed the demo. The following scenarios elaborated by 
MS were tested in test beds provided by industry in Warsaw/Frontex (ESG), 
Rome (SELEX) and Toulouse (THALES): 
1)  Cross-border crime across the green border (terrorist strike) 
2)  Irregular migration across the green border (Chechen woman) 
3)  Irregular migration and search & rescue across the maritime domain 

(Central Mediterranean) 

2. 

Frontex 

Title: 
Full title: 

Specifications for "big-pilot" on EUROSUR network 
Frontex, EUROSUR pilot project – Terms of reference (Annex II, 24 pages). 
Document presented/discussed in EUROSUR pilot subgroup. 

Abstract:  Coordinated and funded by Frontex, the same six Member States participating 

in the "mini-pilot" were preparing in the EUROSUR pilot subgroup the “big 
pilot” launched in November 2010. The “big pilot” will be extended from 6 to 
18 Member States in 2012. The pilot project consists of four phases: 
1.  Firm Phase I consists of the establishment of ‘information trade’ 

agreements and the drafting of information exchange models to materialize 
those exchanges. Information to be exchanged and preliminary ideas on 
data exchange structures will be defined by the EUROSUR pilot project 
subgroup. These initial ideas should be enhanced and extended by the 
contractor and used to define the SOA Architecture, the Service Bus and its 
supporting Security Schema. 

2.  Optional Phase II consisting of the definition, implementation, and 

validation of a First core EUROSUR node. The node should be set up in 
Frontex premises and should include basic Geographic Information System 
to present and exploit the information contained in the node database. 

3.  Optional Phase III consisting of the replication of the already validated First 

Node in each of the participant NCCs (ES, FI, FR, IT, PL, SK), the 
deployment of the Service Bus with its corresponding security schema, and 
the deployment and testing of the Web Services Interface. 

4.  Optional Phase IV consisting of the enhancement and extension of the SOA 
and Visualization interfaces to cope with new users’ requirements which 
may be agreed until the end of the contracting period. 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
 
 
Title: 
Full title: 

Abstract: 

EUROSUR data model 
Frontex, Incident/Event Catalogue and some aspects of the visualisation policy 
for the EUROSUR big pilot project. Working draft of 1.10.2010 (21 pages). 
Document presented/discussed in EUROSUR pilot subgroup. 

In order to support extensible ‘information trade’ between NCCs and Frontex in the 
pilot project on the EUROSUR network, a basic Geographical Information System 
(GIS) will be put in place in each node, which supports: (a) storing, (b) managing, 
(c) sharing, (d) searching, and (e) visually representing geographically referenced 
information. This document presents a draft proposal of incident/event types and 
their description, which are related to border security and on which the 
participating nodes could share information. 
In Section 2 an event type hierarchy accompanied by corresponding icons for 
visualization is presented. Subsequently, Section 3 includes some details regarding 
incident/event description templates. Finally, in Section 4 some aspects of 
visualization policy relevant in the context of implementing the basic Geographical 
Information System are addressed. 

ANNEX 1.4:   Cooperation with neighbouring third countries (Step 3) 

Title: 
Full title: 

Abstract: 

Assessment of third countries in the light of the EUROSUR  
Frontex, Assessment of third countries in the light of the EUROSUR 
development, November 2009 (72 pages). Document presented/discussed in 
EUROSUR Member States' expert group. EU Restricted. 

In 2009, Frontex missions took place to Senegal and Moldova, whereas Tunisia 
declined a on-the-spot visit. 
o  In Senegal, existing equipment for border surveillance is basic and border 
controls are hampered by lack of technical infrastructure and lack of 
funding for maintenance and running costs. The most needed equipment is 
for the maritime surveillance sector, including a patrol boat on the model of 
the Spanish boat deployed in Senegal in the framework of SEAHORSE.  

o  In Tunisia, various types of equipment for maritime and land border 

surveillance are needed. 

o  Substantial assistance has already been delivered to the border guards of 
Moldova through the EUBAM programme. A specific need concerns 
surveillance towers along the border with Romania that would facilitate 
detections. Moldova also expressed need for equipment at border crossing 
points where most of illegal migration to the EU takes place. 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX 1.5:  Research and Development (Step 4) 

The 7th Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development (FP7; B€ 50,5 
for  2007-2013)  consists  of  five  specific  programmes  (cooperation,  ideas,  people,  capacities, 
nuclear research). The cooperation represents 2/3 of the budget (B€ 32,4) and is carried out in 
ten key thematic areas, of which two (space and security themes) are relevant for EUROSUR.  

The Security  Theme  (B€  1,4)  has  an  exclusively  civ il  application  focus  with  four  security 
missions (security of citizens, security of infrastructures and utilities, intelligent surveillance 
and  border  security,  restoring  security  in  case  of  crisis)  and  three  cross-cutting  missions 
(security  systems  integration,  interconnectivity  and  interoperability;  security  and  society; 
security  research  coordination  and  structuring).  Research  is  done  via  capability  (2-4  years, 
 integration (4 years, over M€ 3,5) and  demonstration  projects 
FP7 funding  up  to M€ 3,5), 
(5 years,  over  M€  20).  With  the  exception  of   demonstration  projects,  FP7  funding  can  be 
increased from usually 50% to up to 75% in cases with "very limited market size and a risk of 
market failure, and for accelerated equipment development in response to new threats". 

A number of  border surveillance projects such as AMASS, GLOBE,  OPERAMAR, TALOS 
and  WIMASS  started  to  deliver  first  results  which  shall  be  taken  into  account  when 
developing  EUROSUR.  Further  relevant  projects  have  been  launched  just  recently,  such  as 
OPARUS, and specifically on maritime border surveillance SEABILLA, I2C and PERSEUS. 

AMASS  stands  for  "Autonomous  MAritime  Surveillance  System",  proposing  an  array  of  autonomous, 
automated surveillance platforms with sensors. The project started on 1 March 2008 and lasts for 42 months. 
It has a budget of M€ 4, 9. 

GLOBE  stands  for  "GLObal  Border  Environment",  proposing  a  comprehensive  framework  for  integrated 
border management. The project started on 1 July 2008 and lasted one year. It had a budget of almost M€ 1. 

OPERAMAR stands for "An interoperable approach to EU maritime security management", addressing the 
interoperability of European and national assets in maritime security. The project started on 1 March 2008 
and lasted for 15 months. It had of budget of EUR 669 000. 

TALOS  stands  for  "Transportable  autonomous  patrol  for  land  border  surveillance",  proposing  the  use  of 
unmanned ground and air vehicles. The project started on 1 June 2008 and runs for 4 years. It has a budget 
of M€ 19,9. 

WIMASS stands for "Wide maritime area airborne surveillance", aiming in particular at preparing the use of 
unmanned aerial vehicles. The project started on 1 December 2008 and runs for 36 months. It has a budget 
of M€ 3,9. 

OPARUS  stands  for  "OPen  ARchitecture  for  Unmanned  Aerial  Vehicle-based  Surveillance  system", 
proposing  an  open  architecture  for  unmanned  border  surveillance  platforms.  The  project  started  on  1 
September 2010 and runs for 18 months. It has a budget of M€ 1,18. 

SEABILLA stands for "Sea border surveillance"., aiming at defining the architecture for systems integrating 
space, land, sea and air assets. The project started on 1 June 2010 and will run for 45 months. It has a budget 
of M€ 15,5. 

I2C stands for "Integrated System for interoperable sensors and information sources for common abnormal 
vessel  behaviour  detection  and  collaborative  identification  of  threat".  The  project  started  on  1  September 
2010 and will run for 4 years. It has a budget of M€ 15,9. 

PERSEUS stands for "Protection of European seas and borders through the intelligent use of surveillance". It 
aims at implementing a large scale demonstration of a surveillance system of systems, integrating existing 
platforms and enhancing them with innovative capabilities. The project started on 1 January 2011 and will 
run for 54 months. It has a budget of M€ 43,6. 

Representatives  (industry)  from  selected  projects  are  regularly  participating  in  the  Frontex-
chaired FP7 implementation group on maritime border surveillance.  

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
ANNEX 1.6:   Common application of surveillance tools (Step 5) 

GMES (Global Monitoring for Environment and Security) is a joint initiative of the European 
Commission and the European Space Agency (ESA), which aims at achieving an autonomous 
and  operational  Earth  observation  (EO)  capacity.  The  objective  is  to  rationalize  the  use  of 
multiple-sources data to get a timely and quality information, services and knowledge, and to 
provide autonomous access to information in relation to environment and security.  

Following a seminar on the Security dimension of GMES in March 2007, support to border 
surveillance,  maritime  surveillance  and  to  EU  external  actions  have  been  identified  as 
priorities. The GMES border surveillance group prepared the following two documents: 

Title: 
Full title: 

Abstract: 

GMES concept in support to EUROSUR 
Report of the GMES border surveillance group: Support to EUROSUR/border 
surveillance, V1.0 of 3.12.2009, 95 pages. Document presented/discussed in the 
EUROSUR Member States' expert group. For EU government use only.  
This concept focuses on the use of satellites and other surveillance tools for the 
tracking of vessels over high seas and the punctual monitoring of neighbouring 
third country ports and coasts, which are known as departure points for 
irregular migration and narcotics trafficking. It also includes a technical 
overview of surveillance sensors, capabilities and platforms, including 
unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and satellites, as well as on the applicability 
of technology to different operational scenarios. 

Title: 
Full title:  GMES Concept of Operations for the common application of surveillance tools 

GMES CONOPS for EUROSUR  

Abstract: 

at EU level in the context of EUROSUR. Version 2.3 of 29.6.2011 (62 pages). 
Document presented/discussed in the EUROSUR Member States' expert group. 
For EU government use only.  

The purpose of the CONOPS is to provide a high level conceptual description 
of possible services for the common applications of surveillance tools at EU 
level (satellites, UAVs, aerostats, etc), allowing Frontex to provide NCCs via 
the EUROSUR network with surveillance information on their external borders 
and the pre-frontier area on a frequent, reliable and cost-efficient basis. These 
services should be established gradually. 
The different land and maritime surveillance phases identified in the 2009 
concept have been used to structure the different possible services to be 
provided to the strategic, operational and tactical level. Frontex should act as a 
facilitator, taking advantage of systems and capabilities already set up by the 
European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) and the EU Satellite Centre 
(EUSC).  
The present version of the CONOPS is "work in progress" and will still be 
further developed by the GMES border surveillance group. Besides testing the 
CONOPS between Frontex, EMSA and the EUSC, FP7 projects (e.g. 
SIMITSYS, DOLPHIN, NEREIDS) will be used for testing selected 
components. 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
 
ANNEX 1.7:  Common Pre-frontier Intelligence Picture (Step 6) 

Title: 
Full title: 

EUROSUR CPIP concept 
Prepared by an external contractor as part of the EUROSUR technical study. 
ESG doc. 1JLS-BT-0031, 19.01.2010, Version 2.0 (136 pages). Document 
presented/discussed in the EUROSUR Member States' expert group. For EU 
government use only.  

Abstract: 

This concept provides a definition of the CPIP, including an analysis of relevant 
source data and software components. It divides the CPIP into 4 components: 

•  Operational information: E.g. detected targets and movements. 
•  Strategic key information: E.g. factors for illegal migration, trends, 

routes, methods. 

•  Knowledge base: Formalised description of vocabulary and methods, 

such as categorisation of vessel types including size, speed; description 
of typical scenarios etc. 

•  Basic geodata: E.g. topographic/thematic maps, digital elevation model, 

nautical charts. 

The document proposes to generate the CPIP in 7 processing steps:  

1)  Consistency check (automatic check of consistency and completeness 

during/after user input before being sent to Frontex);  

2)  Content evaluation, consistency and plausibility check (by Frontex);  
3)  Data fusion, integration and analysis (combining data from multiple 

sources into a common data model to detect patterns/anomalies and test 
hypotheses);  

4)  Knowledge based processing (analysis with support of concepts and 

methods described in the knowledge base);  

5)  Knowledge discovery (e.g. tactics not yet described in knowledge base);  
6)  CPIP generation and visualisation (situational picture, 2D and 3D) 
7)  Tasking functions (in case data is missing, to confirm unreliable data) 
The CPIP generated by Frontex is then disseminated on a need-to-know basis 
via the EUROSUR network to the NCCs.  
The concept also contains a reference architecture (RA) for intelligence 
systems and applications interoperability, technical standards and common 
infrastructure elements and furthermore specifies the HW/SW components and 
their functionalities.  

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
 
 
Title: 
Full title: 
Abstract: 

Concept for the management and generation of the CPIP 
Frontex internal document,  version 1.0 of August 2011 (11 pages). 
The document provides an operational overview of the EUROSUR Common 
Pre-Frontier Intelligence Picture (CPIP) as well as the steps of their generation 
process along with human resources requirements and cost estimates for 
hardware and software. According to this document, the CPIP shall be set up as 
described in the table below. 

Layer 

Sublayers 

Provided as of  Managed by 

Event layer 

Irregular migration (Illegal border crossing, 
incidents related to facilitators) 
Related cross-border crime 

Crisis 

Operational 
layer 

Analysis 
layer 

Joint Operation - Area of operations 
Own assets 
Environmental Information (Weather, currents, 
wave height) 
Information 
Analytical 
Intelligence Picture 

Imagery and geo-data 

2012 

2012 

2012 

2012 
2013 

2013 

Frontex Situation 
Centre  
(FSC) 

2013 
2013/ 2015 
2013 

2013/2015 

Frontex  
Risk Analysis 
Unit 
(RAU) 

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 1.8:  Common information sharing environment for internal security purposes 
covering the southern maritime borders (Step 7) 

Title: 
Full title:  Communication on the EU Internal Security Strategy in Action: Five steps 

Internal Security Strategy Communication 

towards a safer Europe, COM(2010)673 final of 22 November 2010. 

Excerpt 

Reference to Step 7 is made on page 12: 
In recent years, two major initiatives on operational cooperation at the maritime 
borders have been launched – one on human trafficking and human smuggling 
under the umbrella of Frontex and the second on drugs smuggling in the 
framework of MAOC-N3
 and CeCLADM4. As part of the development of 
integrated and operational action at the EU’s maritime border, the EU will 
launch in 2011 a pilot project at its southern or south-western border, involving 
those two centres, the Commission, Frontex and Europol. This pilot project will 
explore synergies on risk analysis and surveillance data in common areas of 
interest concerning different types of threats, such as drugs and people 
smuggling.5 

Joint Operation INDALO 

Title 
Reference  Frontex Joint Operation implemented from 9 May until 31 October 2011. 
Abstract  Hosted by Spain, Frontex and selected Member States are carrying a pilot 

project with EUROPOL, CeClad-M and EMSA. EMSA will provide analyzed 
satellite images in order to discover targets of interest in the areas used by 
criminal networks on their voyages towards EU as well as the pictures of 
pollution. Europol cooperates through the exchange of information and 
intelligence.  CeClad-M provides its updated “vessel of interest” list.  

3 
4 
5 

MAOC-N - Maritime Analysis and Operations Centre – Narcotics. 
CeCLAD-M - Centre de Coordination pour la lutte antidrogue en Méditerranée. 
This project will complement the other integrated maritime surveillance projects such as BlueMassMed 
and Marsuno, which aim to optimise the efficiency of maritime surveillance in the Mediterranean Sea, 
Atlantic and the northern European sea basins. 

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
EUROSUR technical expert groups 

ANNEX 2 

  Component 
p
e
t
S

Name of expert 
group 

Chaired 
by 

Experts from  Established
/started in 

No. of  
meetings 

Main results 

HOME  Member States, 

June 2008 

13 

Frontex. 

Coordination of all steps. 
EUROSUR guidelines. 

National 
coordination 
centres 
EUROSUR 
network  

1 

2 

3  Cooperation 
with third 
countries 
Research & 
development 
(FP7) 

4 

5 

6 

Common 
application of 
surveillance 
tools 

Common pre-
frontier-
intelligence 
picture 

EUROSUR 
Member States' 
expert group 
EUROSUR pilot 
expert group 

FP7 Implemen-
tation group on 
maritime border 
surveillance 
GMES border 
surveillance group 

Frontex  Member States, 

Commission. 

November 
2009 

COSI measure 4 
working group 

Spain 

Selected 
Member States, 
Commission. 
Industry, 
Commission. 

November 
2010 

September 
2010 

Frontex 

ENTR/ 
HOME 

Frontex, 
EMSA, EUSC, 
ESA, EDA. 

February 
2008 

COSI measure 12 
working group 
Frontex Risk 
Analysis Network 

Poland 

Frontex 

Member States, 
Commission 

In context 
of FRAN 
June 2010 

EUROSUR data model. 
Specifications for & establishment of 
EUROSUR network. 
Specifications for the establishment of the 
SEAHORSE Mediterraneo network. 

Coordination of the use of selected FP7 
projects for testing and validating 
EUROSUR components. 

2009 GMES concept in support to 
EUROSUR 
2011 Concept of Operations for the 
common application of surveillance tools 
Development of CPIP components. 

12 

3 

5 

12 

- 

3 

EN 

23 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 3 

EUROSUR In scope 

EUROSUR Out of scope 

• Border surveillance 
• External borders of Schengen countries 
• Geographical area beyond the territory/external border of Schengen 
countries (pre-frontier area) with main focus on neighbouring third 
countries 

• Collection of data and information relevant for the prevention of 

irregular migration and cross-border crime at EU external borders 

• Surveillance of land borders 

• Surveillance of maritime borders 

• Border surveillance in neighbouring third countries 

• Eastern and southern Schengen external borders 

• Monitoring, detection, identification, tracking & interception of 

targets 

• Border checks at border crossing points 

• Internal borders; Green line (Cyprus) 
• Territory of EU Member States and associated countries 

• Collection of data and information relevant for the prevention of 

irregular migration and cross-border crime inside the territory of EU 
Member States 

• Surveillance of air borders 

• Underwater surveillance (defence) 
• Border surveillance in third countries with no impact on EU external 

borders (e.g. Australia) 

• Northern Schengen external borders (at later stage) 
• External borders of UK and Ireland 
• Asylum 
• Readmission; Return 

• Protect and save lives at the external borders 

• Search and Rescue; Defence 

EN 

24 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
Responsibilities and competences of national coordination centres (September 2011)6 

ANNEX 4.1 

Country 

Year 
of 
operation 

Surveillance 

Maritime  Air 

Land 

Border 
checks 

Coordination 

Other  national 
authorities 

3rd 
countries 

LCCs/ 
RCCs 

Other 
NCCs 

FX 

Command 
and 
control 

Policy 
option 

Belgium 

Bulgaria  

Cyprus 

Germany 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Greece 

Spain 

Finland 

France 

Hungary 

Iceland 

Italy 

Lithuania 

Latvia 

Malta 

2007 

2010 

20107 

2008 

NR 

2009 

2013 

2009 

2005 

2010 

2011 

NR 

2011 

2011 

20078 

2008 

Netherlands 

2011 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

N 

Y 

N 

Y 

N/A 

Y 

N/A 

Y 

N 

Y 

N 

Y 

Y 

Y 

P 

Y 

Y 

Y 

N 

N 

N 

Y 

N 

Y 

Y 

P 

P 

Y 

Y 

Y 

P 

Y 

N 

Y 

Y 

Y 

NR 

NR 

NR 

NR 

NR 

NR 

NR 

NR 

NR 

NR 

P 

P 

Y 

Y 

Y 

N/A 

NR 

Y 

P 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

P 

Y 

Y 

N 

P 

Y 

P 

Y 

Y 

N 

Y 

Y 

N 

N 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

P 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

P 

Y 

Y 

N 

P 

Y 

N 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

P 

Y 

Y 

Y 

P 

Y 

P 

Y 

Y 

N 

P 

Y 

P 

Y 

Y 

N 

Y 

NR 

NR 

NR 

NR 

NR 

NR 

NR 

NR 

NR 

Y 

P 

P 

N 

N 

N 

P 

Y 

N 

N 

Y 

P 

Y 

N 

Y 

Y 

P 

Y 

Y 

Y 

P 

P 

Y 

Y 

N 

P 

P 

N 

Y 

Y 

Y 

P 

Y 

Y 

N 

Y 

P 

Y 

Y 

N 

N 

P 

Y 

Y 

N 

PO1.1 

PO1.3 

PO1.2 

PO1.3 

NR 

PO1.3 

PO1.2 

PO1.2 

PO1.3 

PO1.1 

PO1.2 

NR 

PO1.1 

PO1.3 

PO1.3 

PO1.2 

PO1.1 

6 Key to coding: NR = No response; P=Planned; Y=Yes; N=No;  N/A = Not applicable 
7 Planned to be fully operational from 2011. 
8 Planned to be fully operational from 2011. 

EN 

25 

EN 

 
  
 
                                                 
Country 

of 
Year 
operation 

Surveillance 

Maritime  Air 

Land 

Border 
checks 

Coordination 

Other  national 
authorities 

3rd 
countries 

LCCs/ 
RCCs 

Other 
NCCs 

FX 

Command 
and 
control 

Policy 
option 

Norway 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Sweden 

Slovenia 

Slovakia 

NR 

2010 

2009 

2010 

NR 

2007 

2007 

NR 

NR 

NR 

NR 

NR 

NR 

NR 

NR 

NR 

NR 

P 

P 

Y 

NR 

Y 

N/A 

P 

P 

N 

NR 

N 

N 

P 

P 

N 

NR 

N/A 

Y 

P 

Y 

N 

NR 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

NR 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

NR 

Y* 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

NR 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

N 

P 

Y 

NR 

NR 

NR 

N 

P 

N 

P 

Y 

Y 

NR 

PO1.1 

PO1.3 

PO1.2 

NR 

PO1.2 

PO1.2 

* Although the Slovenian reply to the NCC questionnaire indicates that it does not coordinate with other NCCs, it does coordinate with the Italian LCC in Trieste. 

EN 

26 

EN 

 
  
 
ANNEX 4.2 

Overview of coordination of the NCCs with other national authorities and third countries9 

Country  Responsible 
authority for 
the NCC 

Belgium  MIK – coast 

guards 

Ministry of 
interior / Police 
/ Border Guards

FPS interior 
Maritime and river 
police; Federal 
police 

Coordination at national level 

Maritime 
authorities 

Ministry of 
Defence / 
military bodies 

Ministry of 
economics 
and customs 

Others  

VLOOT - Fleet  Ministry of 

Defence; Navy  

FPS Economy; 
FPS Finance, 
Customs  

FPS foreign affairs; 
International environment 
policy; Sea Fisheries 
service; FPS Mobility and 
transport; FPS Public 
Health, Food Chain Safety 
and Environment; FPS 
Sustainable Development; 
FPS Science policy  

Coordination with 
third countries 

all European EU-
countries via MOC 

Bulgaria   Ministry of Interior, 

Police 

Cyprus 

Chief Directorate 
Border Police 

Cyprus Police - 
(Port and Marine 
Police Unit) 

Different Police 
Units, Marine 
Police, Airwings, 
Aliens Department 

N 

N 

Armed forces 

Customs 

Veterinary Services 

Serbia, FYROM, Turkey, 
Ukraine, Russia, Georgia 

N 

N 

N 

N 

NR 

Denmark  NR 

Estonia 

Police and Border 
Guard Board 
authorities 

NR 

Y 

NR 

Maritime 
administration  

NR 

N 

NR 

NR 

Tax and 
Customs 
Board; 

Environmental Board 

Russian Federation 

Finland 

Finnish Border 
Guard 

Police 

Maritime 
Authorities 

Defence Forces 

Customs,  

Other ministries 

Y 

9 Key to coding: NR = No response; P=Planned; Y=Yes; N=No;  N/A = Not applicable 

EN 

27 

EN 

 
  
                                                 
Country  Responsible 
authority for 
the NCC 

Coordination at national level 

Ministry of 
interior / Police 
/ Border Guards

Maritime 
authorities 

Ministry of 
Defence / 
military bodies 

Ministry of 
economics 
and customs 

Others  

Coordination with 
third countries 

France 

Greece 

General Secretary 
of the Sea Service 
du Premier 
Ministre)  

Ministry of Citizen 
Protection 

Border Police, 
Gendarmerie,  

Affaires 
maritimes, 
Gendarmerie 
maritime, 

Coast Guard 

NR 

Hungary 

Police 

Police 

Germany  Federal Police 

(Bundespolizei) 

Federal Criminal 
Office (BKA), State 
Police Authorities, 
Domestic 
Intelligence 
Service (BfV) 

Iceland 

NR 

NR 

Italy 

Latvia 

Ministry of Interior  Carabinieri,  
Coast Guard 

State Border 
Guard 

State Police, State  N 

N 

NR 

NR 

N 

Lithuania  State Border 

Police  

Guard Service 

Malta 

Nether-
lands 

Armed Forces of 
Malta 

Police 

Min. of Home 
affairs and 
Kingdom relations 

Royal 
Marechaussee 
(border police), 
Police (Sea Port 
Police) 

N 

N 

N 

N 

N 

Navy 

Customs, 

Civil protection, Préfectures 
Maritimes. 

N 

NR 

N 

NR 

NR 

Customs 

N 

Albania. ,FYROM, 
Turkey, Egypt 

Ukraine, Serbia 

Armed Forces. 

Customs,  

Foreign Intelligence Service 
(BND), etc.  

N  

NR 

Navy, 

Ministry of 
defence/ MRCC 
centre 

NR 

Guardia di 
Finanza 

NR 

N 

Custom 

Fire & Rescue Service 

Navy 

Customs 

N 

NR 

North African Countries 

Russian Federation, 
Republic of Belarus 

Russian Federation, 
Republic of Belarus 

N 

Transport authorities 

Worldwide 

Customs 

Other (enforcement) 
agencies regarding SAR, 
environment, routing, 
health/food 

N 

NR 

Norway 

NR 

NR 

NR 

NR 

NR 

NR 

EN 

28 

EN 

 
  
Country  Responsible 
authority for 
the NCC 

Coordination at national level 

Ministry of 
interior / Police 
/ Border Guards

Maritime 
authorities 

Ministry of 
Defence / 
military bodies 

Ministry of 
economics 
and customs 

Others  

Coordination with 
third countries 

Poland 

Chief of Polish 
Border Guards 

Police, Internal 
security agency  

Portugal 

SEF 

NR 

N 

NR 

Army 

NR 

Custom, 

Phyto-sanitary service 

NR 

NR 

Mainly Russia, Belarus & 
Ukraine 

YES (Undetermined)  

Romania  Romanian Border 

Headquarters 

Police, other 
structures within 
the Ministry of 
Administration and 
Interior 

Romanian 
Naval Authority 
(Harbour 
Master, MRCC, 
VTS), Port 
administration, 

Naval Forces, 

Customs 

National Agency for Fishing 
and Aquaculture,  

Turkey, Georgia, Russian 
Federation, Ukraine 

Sweden 

NR 

Slovakia 

Presidium of police 
force 

Slovenia  Ministry of Interior 
- Police 

NR 

Y 

Y 

NR 

N 

NR 

N 

NR 

Customs  

NR 

N 

NR 

Ukraine 

Navy, 

Customs, 

Environmental Agency,  

Maritime 
Administration,  
Port of Koper 
authorities 

Spain 

Guardia Civil  

Police 

SASEMAR 

Navy  

Customs  

N 

Italian LCC (Trieste) 
within FRONTEX EPN 

Morocco, Mauritania, 
Senegal, Cape Verde, 
Gambia, G. Bissau, 
Algeria 

EN 

29 

EN 

 
  
 
ANNEX 4.3a 

Classification level of information shared in NCCs 

Member State  Currently shared (Sept 2011)  Planned to be shared 

Belgium 

Bulgaria  

Cyprus 

Germany 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Greece 

Spain 

Finland 

France 

Up to ‘Top Secret’ 

Up to ‘Top Secret’ 

Protected, but unclassified 

  Up to 'Confidential' 

Protected, but unclassified 

  Up to 'Restricted' 

Up to 'Restricted' 

Up to 'Top secret' 

— 

Up to 'Restricted' 

Up to 'Top secret' 

Up to 'Secret'   

Up to 'Secret'   

— 

Up to 'Confidential' 

Up to 'Top secret' 

Up to 'Secret' 

Up to 'Secret' 

Protected, but unclassified 

Protected, but unclassified 

Hungary 

Up to 'Restricted' 

Up to 'Confidential' 

Iceland 

Italy 

— 

— 

Only unclassified 

Up to 'Restricted' 

Lithuania 

Protected, but unclassified 

  Up to 'Confidential' 

Protected, but unclassified 

  Up to 'Restricted' 

Only unclassified 

Netherlands 

Up to 'Restricted' 

— 

Up to 'Restricted' 

Up to 'Secret'   

Only unclassified 

— 

Latvia 

Malta 

Norway 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Sweden 

Slovenia 

Slovakia 

Up to 'Restricted' 

Up to 'Restricted' 

— 

Up to 'Restricted' 

Up to 'Secret' 

Up to 'Restricted' 

— 

Protected, but unclassified 

  Up to 'Confidential' 

Up to 'Confidential' 

Up to 'Confidential' 

EN 

30 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Data handling practices of NCCs with respect to personal data10 

Does NCC handle personal data for border surveillance  Does NCC handle personal data for purposes other than border surveillance 

ANNEX 4.3b 

Country 

Belgium 

Bulgaria  

Cyprus 

Germany 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Greece 

Spain 

Finland 

France 

Hungary 

Iceland 

Italy 

Lithuania 

Latvia 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Norway 

Poland 

Currently 

NR 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

N 

Y 

NR 

N 

N 

NR 

N 

N 

NR 

N 

NR 

NR 

NR 

Planned 

NR 

NR 

NR 

NR 

N/A 

N/A 

NR 

N/A 

NR 

NR 

Y 

NR 

NR 

N 

NR 

N 

NR 

NR 

NR 

Currently 

NR 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

N 

Y 

NR 

N 

N 

NR 

N 

N 

NR 

N 

NR 

NR 

NR 

Planned 

NR 

NR 

NR 

NR 

N/A 

N/A 

NR 

N/A 

NR 

NR 

Y 

NR 

NR 

NR 

NR 

N 

NR 

NR 

NR 

10 Key to coding: NR = No response; Y=Yes; N=No;  N/A = Not applicable 

EN 

31 

EN 

 
  
 
                                                 
Country 

Portugal 

Romania 

Sweden 

Slovenia 

Slovakia 

Does NCC handle personal data for border surveillance  Does NCC handle personal data for purposes other than border surveillance 

Currently 

Planned 

Currently 

Planned 

NR 

Y 

NR 

Y 

Y 

NR 

N/A 

NR 

N/A 

N/A 

NR 

Y 

NR 

Y 

Y 

NR 

N/A 

NR 

N/A 

N/A 

EN 

32 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
Costs of setting up, upgrading and maintaining NCCs and FSC (2007-2010) 

ANNEX 4.4 

When NCC became 
operational 

Total NCC costs 2007-2010 

Member 
State 

Belgium 

Bulgaria  

Cyprus 

Germany 

2007 

2010 

2010 

2008 

Denmark 

No data provided 

Estonia 

Greece 

Spain 

Finland 

France 

Hungary 

2009 

2013 

2009 

2005 

2010 

2011 

Iceland 

No data provided 

Italy 

Lithuania 

Latvia 

Malta 

2011 

2011 

2007 

2008 

Netherlands 

2011 

€1,170,000 

€500,000 

€320,000 

No data provided 

No data provided 

€292,304 

€0 

€3,084,768 

€6,638,798 

€597,000 

€0 

No data provided 
a 

€0 

€605,453 

€7,528,588 

€0 

Norway 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Sweden 

Slovenia 

Slovakia 

No data provided 

No data provided 

2010 

2009 

2010 

€201,006 

No data provided 

€22,514 

No data provided 

No data provided 

2007 

2007 

NCCs TOTAL 2007-2010: 

FSC 

2008 

€200,000 

€18,894,418 

€40,054,849 

€2,238,499 

a   The costs provided by Italy were in the region of 32,540k€ but it included more 
than  just  the  costs  associated  with  Italy’s  NCC  and  so  have  been  excluded  from 
this table. 

EN 

33 

   EN 

 
 
Annual staff in NCCs and FSC (2007-2010) 

ANNEX 4.5 

Member State 

When NCC became 
operational 

Staff figures 

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Cyprus 

Germany 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Greece 

Spain 

Finland 

France 

Hungary 

Iceland 

Italy 

Lithuania 

Latvia 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Norway 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Sweden 

Slovenia 

Slovakia 

2007 

2010 

2010 

2008 

— 

2009 

2013 

2009 

2005 

2010 

2011 

— 

2011 

2011 

2007 

2008 

2011 

— 

2010 

2009 

2010 

— 

2007 

2007 

AVERAGE ANNUAL STAFF: 

FSC 

2008 

9 

— 

— 

— 

— 

— 

— 

— 

12 

— 

— 

— 

— 

— 

11 

50 

— 

— 

— 

— 

— 

— 

— 

20 

20 

— 

9 

— 

— 

— 

— 

— 

— 

— 

12 

— 

— 

— 

— 

— 

11 

50 

— 

— 

— 

— 

— 

— 

— 

23 

21 

— 

9 

— 

— 

— 

— 

4 

— 

19 

12 

— 

— 

— 

4 

— 

11 

50 

— 

— 

— 

2 

— 

— 

— 

28 

15 

0.5 

9 

42 

28 

— 

— 

13 

— 

19 

12 

11 

— 

— 

3 

— 

11 

50 

— 

— 

12 

6 

— 

— 

— 

30 

19 

2 

EN 

34 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Estimates from Member States for costs of setting up, upgrading and maintaining NCCs (2011-2016) 

ANNEX 4.6 

Country
NO
BE
BG
CY
DK
EE
FI
FR
DE
EL
HU
IT
LT
LV
MT
NL
PO
PT
RO
SI
SK
ES
SE
Total

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016 Total

2,400,000
787,500
6,485,000

1,390,000
13,620,919
2,588,100

 €                        -    €                        -    €                        -    €                        -     €                        -    €                        -   
 €            400,000  €            400,000  €            400,000  €            400,000   €            400,000  €            400,000 
 €            100,000  €            112,500  €            125,000  €            137,500   €            150,000  €            162,500 
 €            955,000  €        1,015,000  €        1,115,000  €        1,120,000   €        1,130,000  €        1,150,000 
 €                        -    €                        -    €                        -    €                        -     €                        -    €                        -   
 €            140,000  €            200,000  €            250,000  €            250,000   €            275,000  €            275,000 
 €        1,825,530  €        1,916,807  €        2,000,000  €        2,113,279   €        2,812,343  €        2,952,960 
 €            438,100  €            430,000  €            430,000  €            430,000   €            430,000  €            430,000 
 €                        -    €                        -    €                        -    €                        -     €                        -    €                        -   
 €                        -    €        1,350,000  €        6,600,000  €        2,400,000   €        2,400,000  €        2,950,000 
 €              81,971  €            120,610  €            113,709  €            113,709   €            113,709  €            113,709 
 €      15,338,670  €      13,741,769  €      13,531,769  €      13,531,769   €      13,131,769  €      12,993,360 
 €            263,297  €            263,297  €            263,297  €            254,609   €            254,609  €            254,609 
 €              87,763  €        1,501,240  €        1,275,697  €            773,504   €            773,504  €            773,504 
 €        1,107,000  €        5,960,000  €        4,050,000  €        3,550,000   €        2,054,000  €        2,054,000 
 €            607,000  €            607,000  €            607,000  €            607,000   €            607,000  €            607,000 
 €            228,931  €            228,931  €            228,931  €            228,931   €            228,931  €            228,931 
 €                        -    €                        -    €                        -    €                        -     €                        -    €                        -   
 €        3,250,000  €        1,750,000  €            750,000  €        1,750,000   €            750,000  €            750,000 
 €            120,000  €            220,000  €            670,000  €            570,000   €            230,000  €            180,000 
 €            928,600  €            942,800  €        1,036,460  €        1,597,006   €        1,200,687  €        1,169,775 
 €        2,512,090  €      11,764,842  €        1,325,537  €        1,303,729   €        1,339,390  €        1,376,100 
 €                        -    €                        -    €                        -    €                        -     €                        -    €                        -   
 €      28,383,951  €      42,524,795  €      34,772,400  €      31,131,036   €      28,280,942  €      28,821,448  €    193,914,573   

€                    
-
€       
€           
€       
€                    
-
€       
€     
€       
€                    
-
€     
€           
€     
€       
€       
€     
€       
€       
€                    
-
€       
€       
€       
€     
€                    
-

15,700,000
657,418
82,269,106
1,553,718
5,185,212
18,775,000
3,642,000
1,373,585

9,000,000
1,990,000
6,875,328
19,621,688

EN 

35 

EN 

 
  
Cost estimates for NCCs in line with Policy Options 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3  

(2011-2020) 

ANNEX 4.7 

Approach used to estimate costs of policy options for NCCs 

In  response  to  our  data  collection  exercise  for  national  coordination  centres,  four  Member 
States  (Norway,  Iceland,  Sweden  and  Denmark)  did  not  provide  a  response.  A  further  two 
Member  States  (Germany  and  Portugal)  provided  some  descriptive  information  for  their 
NCCs, but no cost data. 

Among  those  Member  States  that  provided  NCC  cost  data,  the  completeness  and 
comparability of that data varied to a large extent, as illustrated in Annex 4.6. Consequently, 
it became clear that comparing the costs of different NCCs would prove difficult despite the 
standard data collection template and guidelines issued to Member States at the beginning of 
the study. 

As  a  result,  it  was  decided  to  identify  ‘reference’  Member  State(s)  for  each  policy  option 
which  would  be  used  to  scale  up  the  estimated  total  costs  of  establishing  NCCs  in  all  24 
Member States under each policy option. These ‘reference’ Member States have been based 
on  the  Member  State(s)  in  each  policy  option  ‘grouping’  that  display  a  consistent  and 
comparable  approach  to  estimating  their  NCC  costs.  For  the  purposes  of  this  report,  these 
Member States are: 

•  Policy option 1.1 – Belgium (total NCC costs of 2,400k€ for 2011-2016 and 4,000k€ for 

2011-2020) and France (2,588k€ for 2011-2016 and 4,308k€ for 2011-2020); 

•  Policy option 1.2 – Slovakia (6,875k€ for 2011-2016 and 11,554k€ for 2011-2020) and 

Cyprus (6,485k€ for 2011-2016 and 11,085k€ for 2011-2020); and 

•  Policy option 1.3 – Finland (13,620k€ for 2011-2016 and 25,432k€ for 2011-2020). 

In  the  analysis  that  follows  below,    the  NCC  costs  for  these  Member  States  are  used  to 
provide a total cost estimate for establishing NCCs in all 24 Member States under each policy 
option. For policy option 1.1, we use the average of the Belgian and French NCC costs for the 
period  2011-2020  (4,154k€)  and  scale  this  up  for  all  24  Member  States.    For  policy  option 
1.2,  we  use  the  average  of  the  Slovakian  and  Cypriot  NCC  costs  for  the  period  2011-2020 
(11,319k€) and scale this up for al l 24 Member States.  Finally, for policy option 1.3, we use 
the Finnish NCC costs for the period 2011-2020 (25,432k€). 

EN 

36 

   EN 

 
 
 
Policy Option 1.1. 
surveillance of at least land and maritime surveillance (where applicable), 2011-2020, Euros (€) 

Annual  costs  of  the  Belgian  and  French  NCCs  and  the  FSC  for  the  coordination  of  the 

Belgium1 
France2 
FSC3 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

2019 

2020 

Total 

400,000 

400,000 

400,000 

400,000 

400,000 

400,000 

400,000 

400,000 

400,000 

400,000 

4,000,000 

438,100 

430,000 

430,000 

430,000 

430,000 

430,000 

430,000 

430,000 

430,000 

430,000 

4,308,000 

2,764,078  

7,374,251  

9,688,796  

11,315,951   12,163,809   10,456,827   10,456,827   10,456,827   10,456,827   10,456,827   95,591,020 

1 

2 

3 

Belgian  NCC  costs  excluded  one-off  costs  (building  and  infrastructure  costs  and  operating  and  IT  equipment  costs)  in  all  years  as  well  as  recurring 
communications and maintenance costs, but included recurring personnel costs and the costs of operational applications.  These cost estimates are expected to 
increase once the NCC will be upgraded/extended.  However, detailed cost estimates in this regard could not be provided for the time being 

French NCC costs only included recurring personnel costs. 

For FSC cost estimates see Annex 4.8. 

Policy Option 1.2. 
competencies for at least land and maritime surveillance (where applicable), 2011-2020, Euros (€) 

Annual  costs  of  the  Slovakian  and  Cypriot  NCCs  and  the  FSC  for  command  and  control 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

2019 

2020 

Total 

Slovakia1 
Cyprus2 
FSC3 

 928,600  

942,800  

1,036,460  

1,597,006  

1,200,687  

1,169,775  

1,169,775  

1,169,775  

1,169,775  

1,169,775  

11,554,429 

 955,000  

1,015,000  

1,115,000  

1,120,000  

1,130,000  

1,150,000  

1,150,000  

1,150,000  

1,150,000  

1,150,000  

11,085,000 

 2,764,078   10,245,431   13,434,832   16,249,067   16,491,469   14,127,935   14,127,935   14,127,935   14,127,935   14,127,935   129,824,552 

1 

2 

3 

EN 

Slovakian NCC costs excluded one-off costs (building and infrastructure costs and operating and IT equipment costs) in all years with the exception of 2012, 
which included building and infrastructure costs.  In addition, all recurring personnel costs, communications and maintenance costs and the costs of operational 
applications were included for all years with the exception of 2011 which excluded the costs of operational applications. 

Cypriot  NCC  costs  excluded  one-off  building  and  infrastructure  costs  but  included  one-off  operating  and  IT  equipment  costs.  In  addition,  all  recurring 
personnel costs, communications and maintenance costs and the costs of operational applications were included for all years. 

For FSC cost estimates see Annex 4.8. 

37 

EN 

 
  
 
 
Policy Option 1.3 

Annual  costs  of  the  Finnish  NCC  and  the  FSC  for  command  and control competencies  for  the  surveillance  of  land  borders, 

maritime borders, air borders and border checks, 2011-2020, Euros (€) 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

2019 

2020 

Total 

Finland1 
FSC2 

1,825,530  

1,916,807  

2,000,000  

2,113,279  

2,812,343  

2,952,960  

2,952,960  

2,952,960  

2,952,960  

2,952,960  

25,432,759 

 2,764,078   10,245,431   13,580,356   17,089,365   17,705,589   15,119,805   15,119,805   15,119,805   15,119,805   15,119,805   136,983,844 

1 

2 

Finnish  NCC  costs  included  all  one-off  and  recurring  costs  (building  and  infrastructure,  operating  and  IT  equipment,  personnel,  communications  and 
maintenance and the costs of operational applications). The figure of 2,000k€ in 2013 is an estimate based on an assumption tha t a new NCC will not need to 
be established in this year.  Should a new NCC be established in 2013, the cost in that year will rise to 8,722k€. 

For FSC cost estimates see Annex 4.8. 

Cost comparison between policy options, 2011-2020. Euros (€) and per cent (%) 

Baseline (2007-
2010) 

Policy 0ption 
1.1: 
Decentralised 
Option (2011-
2020) 

Policy 0ption 
1.2: 
Comprehensive 
option (2011-
2020) 

Policy option 
1.3:  
Centralised 
option (2011-
2020) 

NCC 

€40,054,849 

€99,697,200 

€271,673,160 

€610,386,216 

FSC 

€2,238,499 

€95,591,020 

€129,824,552 

€136,983,844 

€42,293,348 

€195,288,220  

€401,497,712  

€747,370,060  

Total 
costs   

Total 
costs 

TOTAL 
COSTS 

MS share (%) 

95% 

FSC share (%) 

5% 

51% 

49% 

68% 

32% 

82% 

18% 

EN 

38 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
Policy option 1.1 costs 

Annual costs of the Belgian NCC, 2011-2016, Euros (€) 

Total cost estimated to be incurred
Individual cost items included in total cost
    One-off costs (generally categorised as capital expenditure - CAPEX)
        Building & infrastructure
        Operating & IT equipment
    Recurring costs (generally categorised as capital expenditure - OPEX)
        Personnel
        Communications & maintenance
        Operational applications
            - Specify type of application software
    Explanation to estimates
Total cost breakdown by type of financial source
    National
    EBF
    EU other
    - Explain 'EU other'
    Explanation to estimates

2011
€       

400,000

2012
€        

400,000

2013
€       

400,000

2014
€       

400,000

2015
€       

400,000

2016
€       

400,000

Total
€    

2,400,000

No
No

Yes
No
Yes

No
No

Yes
No
Yes

No
No

Yes
No
Yes

No
No

Yes
No
Yes

No
No

Yes
No
Yes

No
No

Yes
No
Yes

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

EN 

39 

EN 

 
  
 
Annual costs of the French NCC, 2011-2016, Euros (€) 

Total cost estimated to be incurred
Individual cost items included in total cost
    One-off costs (generally categorised as capital expenditure - CAPEX)
        Building & infrastructure
        Operating & IT equipment
    Recurring costs (generally categorised as capital expenditure - OPEX)
        Personnel
        Communications & maintenance
        Operational applications
            - Specify type of application software
    Explanation to estimates
Total cost breakdown by type of financial source
    National
    EBF
    EU other
    - Explain 'EU other'
    Explanation to estimates

2011
€       

438,100

2012
€        

430,000

2013
€       

430,000

2014
€       

430,000

2015
€       

430,000

2016
€       

430,000

Total
€    

2,588,100

No
No

Yes
No
No

No
No

Yes
No
No

No
No

Yes
No
No

No
No

Yes
No
No

No
No

Yes
No
No

No
No

Yes
No
No

EN 

40 

EN 

 
  
 
Policy option 1.2 costs 

Annual costs of the Slovakian NCC , 2011-2016, Euros (€) 

Total cost estimated to be incurred
Individual cost items included in total cost
    One-off costs (generally categorised as capital expenditure - CAPEX)
        Building & infrastructure
        Operating & IT equipment
    Recurring costs (generally categorised as capital expenditure - OPEX)
        Personnel
        Communications & maintenance
        Operational applications
            - Specify type of application software
    Explanation to estimates
Total cost breakdown by type of financial source
    National
    EBF
    EU other
    - Explain 'EU other'
    Explanation to estimates

2011
€       

928,600

2012
€        

942,800

2013
€    

1,036,460

2014
€    

1,597,006

2015
€    

1,200,687

2016
€    

1,169,775

Total
€    

6,875,328

No
No

Yes
Yes
No
No

Yes
No

No
No

No
No

No
No

No
No

Yes
Yes
Yes
geodata servic geodata servic geodata servic geodata servic geodata services for GIS

Yes
Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes
Yes

€    
€          
€                

1,976,600
32,000
-

2,120,800
€     
€           
10,000
€                 
-

€    
€          
€                

2,309,260
34,000
-

€    
€          
€                

2,989,486
45,000
-

€    
€          
€                

2,758,915
23,000
-

€    
€          
€                

2,856,126
53,000
-

100 000 EUR for geoservice annually

EN 

41 

EN 

 
  
 
 
Annual costs of the Cypriot NCC, 2011-2016, Euros (€) 

2011
€       

2012
€     

2013
€    

2014
€    

2015
€    

2016
€    

Total
€      

6,485,000

955,000

No
Yes

1,120,000

1,130,000

1,115,000

1,015,000

Total cost estimated to be incurred
Individual cost items included in total cost
    One-off costs (generally categorised as capital expenditure - CAPEX)
        Building & infrastructure
        Operating & IT equipment
    Recurring costs (generally categorised as capital expenditure - OPEX)
        Personnel
        Communications & maintenance
        Operational applications
            - Specify type of application software
    Explanation to estimates
Total cost breakdown by type of financial source
    National
    EBF
    EU other
    - Explain 'EU other'
    Explanation to estimates
* Cost estimates include upgrading of existing (and purchase of new) equipment at the NCC to facilitate the effective command and control functions on police mobile maritime & air units.

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Com ApplicatioCom ApplicatioCom ApplicatioCom ApplicatioCom ApplicatioCom Applications
*
*

950,500
€        
64,500
€           
€                 
-

1,023,000
92,000
-

€    
€          
€                

Yes
Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes
Yes

1,150,000

1,130,000

1,150,000

1,120,000

€                

€                

€                

No
Yes

No
Yes

No
Yes

No
Yes

No
Yes

955,000

€       

€    

€    

€    

*

*

*

*

-

-

-

EN 

42 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
Policy option 1.3 costs 

Annual costs of the Finnish NCC, 2011-2016, Euros (€) 

2011
€    

1,825,530

Yes
Yes

Total cost estimated to be incurred
Individual cost items included in total cost
    One-off costs (generally categorised as capital expenditure - CAPEX)
        Building & infrastructure
        Operating & IT equipment
    Recurring costs (generally categorised as capital expenditure - OPEX)
        Personnel
        Communications & maintenance
        Operational applications
            - Specify type of application software
    Explanation to estimates
Total cost breakdown by type of financial source
    National
    EBF
    EU other
    - Explain 'EU other'
    Explanation to estimates
* If a new NCC is required to be established in 2013, the cost in 2013 will increase to €8,722,000. 

Yes
Yes
Yes

All

2012
€     

1,916,807

2013
€    

2,000,000

2014
€    

2,113,279

2015
€    

2,812,343

2016
€    

2,952,960

Total
€ 

13,620,919

Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes
Yes

All

Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes
Yes

*

All

Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes
Yes

All

All

All

EN 

43 

EN 

 
  
 
 
ANNEX 4.8 

Cost estimates for FSC in line with Policy Options 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 (2011-2020)11 

Policy Option 1.1  Annual  costs  of the FSC for the coordination of the surveillance of at least land and maritime surveillance 
(where applicable), 2011-2016, Euros (€)* 

One-off costs (generally categorised as capital expenditure - CAPEX)
    Building & infrastructure
        Building construction
        Gigabit Ethernet infrastructure
        Building security
        Furniture
    Operating & IT equipment
        IT hardware
        IT software
    Explanation to estimates (open text)
Recurring costs (generally categorised as operating expenditure - OPEX)
    Personnel
        Staff costs for Senior Duty Officer
        Staff costs for Duty Officer
        Staff costs for Project, Product & Change Management Personnel
        Staff costs for Information Exchange Personnel
        Staff costs for all other managerial and administrative support staff
    Communications & maintenance
        Communications & IT
        Maintenance
    Operational applications
        Decision support applications, resource information and management applications, etc.
            - Specify type of application software
    Explanation to estimates (open text)
Total

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

Total 

€           
€                  
€           
€           
€              
€     
€           
€     

41,715
-
24,000
13,615
4,100
1,511,240
11,240
1,500,000

€            
€                  
€            
€            
€               
€      
€          
€      

82,371
-
54,000
18,521
9,850
4,225,290
225,290
4,000,000

€         
€           
€           
€           
€           
€     
€         
€     

120,021
20,000
60,000
18,521
21,500
4,528,100
528,100
4,000,000

€     
€     
€           
€              
€           
€     
€         
€     

2,563,510
2,500,000
30,000
9,260
24,250
2,514,050
514,050
2,000,000

€     
€     
€           
€              
€           
€     
€         
€     

2,548,654
2,500,000
18,000
3,704
26,950
2,508,430
508,430
2,000,000

€           
€           
€           
€              
€           
€     
€         
€     

62,004
20,000
12,000
3,704
26,300
2,505,620
505,620
2,000,000

€     
€     
€         
€            
€         
€   
€     
€   

5,418,275
5,040,000
198,000
67,325
112,950
17,792,730
2,292,730
15,500,000

€         
€                  
€         
€         
€                  
€           
€         
€         
€         
€         
€         

532,672
-
225,600
249,072
-
58,000
378,451
201,778
176,673
300,000
300,000

€      
€          
€          
€          
€            
€            
€          
€          
€          
€      
€      

1,304,972
256,800
435,600
496,572
58,000
58,000
661,618
348,774
312,844
1,100,000
1,100,000

€     
€         
€         
€         
€         
€         
€     
€         
€         
€     
€     

2,138,868
428,000
645,600
805,668
143,600
116,000
1,001,807
541,200
460,607
1,900,000
1,900,000

€     
€         
€         
€         
€         
€         
€     
€         
€         
€     
€     

2,541,968
513,600
785,600
805,668
201,600
235,500
1,396,423
781,088
615,335
2,300,000
2,300,000

€     
€         
€         
€         
€         
€         
€     
€         
€         
€     
€     

2,707,504
513,600
785,600
971,204
201,600
235,500
1,699,221
952,342
746,879
2,700,000
2,700,000

€     
€         
€         
€     
€         
€         
€     
€     
€         
€     
€     

2,863,104
513,600
785,600
1,041,204
287,200
235,500
1,926,099
1,059,268
866,831
3,100,000
3,100,000

€   
€     
€     
€     
€         
€         
€     
€     
€     
€   
€   

12,089,088
2,225,600
3,663,600
4,369,388
892,000
938,500
7,063,619
3,884,450
3,179,169
11,400,000
11,400,000

€      

2,764,078

€      

7,374,251

€      

9,688,796

€    

11,315,951

€    

12,163,809

€    

10,456,827

€    

53,763,712

*  Approximately 60 per cent of the FSC costs relate to the generation and/or use of CPIP products and services. 

11  

Costs estimates have been provided by Frontex and validated by GHK. 

EN 

44 

EN 

 
  
 
 
                                                 
Policy Option 1.2.  Annual costs of the FSC for command and control competencies for at least land and maritime surveillance 
(where applicable), 2011-2016, Euros (€)* 

One-off costs (generally categorised as capital expenditure - CAPEX)
    Building & infrastructure
        Building construction
        Gigabit Ethernet infrastructure
        Building security
        Furniture
    Operating & IT equipment
        IT hardware
        IT software
    Explanation to estimates (open text)
Recurring costs (generally categorised as operating expenditure - OPEX)
    Personnel
        Staff costs for Senior Duty Officer
        Staff costs for Duty Officer
        Staff costs for Project, Product & Change Management Personnel
        Staff costs for Information Exchange Personnel
        Staff costs for all other managerial and administrative support staff
    Communications & maintenance
        Communications & IT
        Maintenance
    Operational applications
        Decision support applications, resource information and management applications, etc.
            - Specify type of application software
    Explanation to estimates (open text)
Total

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

Total 

€           
€                  
€           
€           
€              
€     
€           
€     

41,715
-
24,000
13,615
4,100
1,511,240
11,240
1,500,000

€          
107,375
€                   
-
€            
66,000
€            
22,225
€            
19,150
€      
6,380,910
€          
380,910
€      
6,000,000

€         
€           
€           
€           
€           
€     
€         
€     

175,527
20,000
78,000
24,077
53,450
6,786,530
786,530
6,000,000

€          
€          
€                
€                
€                
€          
€             
€          

4,131,016
4,000,000
48,000
14,816
68,200
4,772,480
772,480
4,000,000

€          
€          
€                
€                   
€                
€          
€              
€          

3,624,160
3,500,000
36,000
9,260
78,900
4,293,860
793,860
3,500,000

€              
€                
€                
€                
€                
€          
€              
€          

146,012
20,000
36,000
11,112
78,900
4,266,860
766,860
3,500,000

€     
€     
€         
€            
€         
€   
€     
€   

8,225,805
7,540,000
288,000
95,105
302,700
28,011,880
3,511,880
24,500,000

€         
€                  
€         
€         
€                  
€           
€         
€         
€         
€         
€         

532,672
-
225,600
249,072
-
58,000
378,451
201,778
176,673
300,000
300,000

€      
€          
€          
€          
€            
€            
€          
€          
€          
€      
€      

1,444,972
256,800
575,600
496,572
58,000
58,000
812,174
348,774
463,400
1,500,000
1,500,000

€     
€         
€         
€         
€         
€         
€     
€         
€         
€     
€     

2,488,868
428,000
995,600
805,668
143,600
116,000
1,283,907
541,200
742,707
2,700,000
2,700,000

€          
€             
€          
€             
€             
€             
€          
€             
€          
€          
€          

3,115,504
513,600
1,205,600
901,204
201,600
293,500
1,810,067
781,088
1,028,979
2,420,000
2,420,000

€          
€              
€          
€          
€              
€              
€          
€              
€          
€          
€          

3,479,040
513,600
1,275,600
1,194,740
201,600
293,500
2,244,409
952,342
1,292,067
2,850,000
2,850,000

€          
€              
€          
€          
€              
€              
€          
€          
€          
€          
€          

3,820,640
513,600
1,345,600
1,322,740
287,200
351,500
2,614,423
1,059,268
1,555,155
3,280,000
3,280,000

€   
€     
€     
€     
€         
€     
€     
€     
€     
€   
€   

14,881,696
2,225,600
5,623,600
4,969,996
892,000
1,170,500
9,143,431
3,884,450
5,258,981
13,050,000
13,050,000

€      

2,764,078

€    

10,245,431

€    

13,434,832

€        

16,249,067

€         

16,491,469

€         

14,127,935

€    

73,312,812

*  Approximately 60 per cent of the FSC costs relate to the generation and/or use of CPIP products and services. 

EN 

45 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
Policy Option 1.3  Annual  costs  of  the  FSC  for  command  and  control  competencies  for  the  surveillance  of  land  borders, 
maritime borders, air borders and border checks, 2011-2016, Euros (€)* 

One-off costs (generally categorised as capital expenditure - CAPEX)
    Building & infrastructure
        Building construction
        Gigabit Ethernet infrastructure
        Building security
        Furniture
    Operating & IT equipment
        IT hardware
        IT software
    Explanation to estimates (open text)
Recurring costs (generally categorised as operating expenditure - OPEX)
    Personnel
        Staff costs for Senior Duty Officer
        Staff costs for Duty Officer
        Staff costs for Project, Product & Change Management Personnel
        Staff costs for Information Exchange Personnel
        Staff costs for all other managerial and administrative support staff
    Communications & maintenance
        Communications & IT
        Maintenance
    Operational applications
        Decision support applications, resource information and management applications, etc.
            - Specify type of application software
    Explanation to estimates (open text)
Total

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

Total 

€           
€                  
€           
€           
€              
€     
€           
€     

41,715
-
24,000
13,615
4,100
1,511,240
11,240
1,500,000

€          
107,375
€                   
-
€            
66,000
€            
22,225
€            
19,150
€      
6,380,910
€          
380,910
€      
6,000,000

€         
€           
€           
€           
€           
€     
€         
€     

184,029
20,000
84,000
25,929
54,100
6,839,340
839,340
6,000,000

€          
€          
€                
€                
€                
€          
€             
€          

4,139,518
4,000,000
54,000
16,668
68,850
5,325,290
825,290
4,500,000

€          
€          
€                
€                
€                
€          
€              
€          

3,649,666
3,500,000
54,000
14,816
80,850
4,852,290
852,290
4,000,000

€              
€                
€                
€                
€                
€          
€              
€          

146,012
20,000
36,000
11,112
78,900
4,566,860
816,860
3,750,000

€     
€     
€         
€         
€         
€   
€     
€   

8,268,315
7,540,000
318,000
104,365
305,950
29,475,930
3,725,930
25,750,000

€         
€                  
€         
€         
€                  
€           
€         
€         
€         
€         
€         

532,672
-
225,600
249,072
-
58,000
378,451
201,778
176,673
300,000
300,000

€      
€          
€          
€          
€            
€            
€          
€          
€          
€      
€      

1,444,972
256,800
575,600
496,572
58,000
58,000
812,174
348,774
463,400
1,500,000
1,500,000

€     
€         
€     
€         
€         
€         
€     
€         
€         
€     
€     

2,558,868
428,000
1,065,600
805,668
143,600
116,000
1,298,119
543,820
754,299
2,700,000
2,700,000

€          
€             
€          
€             
€             
€             
€          
€             
€          
€          
€          

3,255,504
513,600
1,345,600
901,204
201,600
293,500
1,849,053
796,890
1,052,163
2,520,000
2,520,000

€          
€              
€          
€          
€              
€              
€          
€              
€          
€          
€          

3,817,040
513,600
1,485,600
1,264,740
201,600
351,500
2,336,593
986,566
1,350,027
3,050,000
3,050,000

€          
€              
€          
€          
€              
€              
€          
€          
€          
€          
€          

4,158,640
513,600
1,555,600
1,392,740
287,200
409,500
2,718,293
1,105,178
1,613,115
3,530,000
3,530,000

€   
€     
€     
€     
€         
€     
€     
€     
€     
€   
€   

15,767,696
2,225,600
6,253,600
5,109,996
892,000
1,286,500
9,392,683
3,983,006
5,409,677
13,600,000
13,600,000

€      

2,764,078

€    

10,245,431

€    

13,580,356

€        

17,089,365

€         

17,705,589

€         

15,119,805

€    

76,504,624

*  Approximately 60 per cent of the FSC costs relate to the generation and/or use of CPIP products and services. 

EN 

46 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
Cost estimates for the EUROSUR network in line with Policy Options 2.1, 
2.2 and 2.3 (2011-2020)12 

ANNEX 5 

Extension of the EUROSUR network over the 2011-2020 period 

2011  2012  2013  2014  2015  2016 

2017 2018  2019  2020  Total

No of 
NCCs 

No of 
Agencies 

6 

1 

18 

18 

24 

24 

24 

24 

24 

24 

24 

24 

5 

7 

7 

7 

7 

7 

7 

7 

7 

7 

Cost Estimates (2011-2020) 

Policy Option 2.1 

Policy Option 2.2: 

Policy Option 2.3: 

Network 
related costs 

RAU CPIP 
costs 

Total costs 

€42,401k 

€0k 

€42,401k 

€46,743k 

€29,290k 

€76,033k 

€49,321k 

€29,290k 

€78,611k 

It is important to notice that these costs provided are based on the expected volume of data 
transfer as defined in the EUROSUR technical study. If the volume of data transfer is higher 
than expected, these costs reported could be underestimated. 

12  

Cost estimates have been provided by Frontex and validated by GHK. 

EN 

47 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
                                                 
PO2.1 costs  
1. Extension: Estimating the set-up and upgrade costs for extending EUROSUR network

Total cost estimated to be incurred
Individual cost items included in total 
cost
Hardware & Software
Frontex personnel
Contractor services
Connectivity
Training
(other) Redundancy

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

1852

2120

2990

1660

520

Total
520 9662

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes

Programme Management and ICT personnel

no training included
redundancy from 2013

2. Running costs: Estimating the operation, maintenance and annual recurring costs of the network

Total cost estimated to be incurred
Individual cost items included in total 
cost
Hardware & Software
Frontex personnel
Contractor services
Connectivity
Training
(other) 8hours /5 days maintenance
(other) 24hours /7 days maintenance

EN 

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

96

1798

3373

3628

3628

2016

Total
3628 16149

this concept is included in the maintenance rows below
limited after 2013

no training included
8/5 from 2012
24/7 from 2013

Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No

Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No

Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes

Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes

Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes

Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes

48 

EN 

 
  
PO2.2 costs  

3. Extension: Estimating the set-up and upgrade costs for extending EUROSUR network to include the two additional capabilities: (i) Exchange of information 
concerning cross border crime and (ii) Exchange of classified information via internet with encryption tools

Total cost estimated to be incurred
Individual cost items included in total 
cost
Hardware & Software
Frontex personnel
Contractor services
Connectivity
Training
(other) Redundancy
(other) EU-RESTRICTED setup

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

1852

2120

3788

1976

520

Total
520 10776

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes

programme management and ICT personnel

no training included
redundancy from 2013
EU-RESRICTED from 2013

4. Running costs: Estimating the operation, maintenance and annual recurring costs for extending the EUROSUR network  to include the two additional capabilities: (i) 
Exchange of information concerning border crime and (ii) Exchange of classified information via internet with encryption tools

Total cost estimated to be incurred
Individual cost items included in total 
cost
Hardware & Software
Frontex personnel
Contractor services
Connectivity
Training
(other) 8hours /5 days maintenance
(other) 24hours /7 days maintenance
(other) EU-RESTRICTED Operation

EN 

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

96

1798

4020

3993

3997

2016

Total
3997 17900

Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No

Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No

Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes

Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes

Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes

Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes

49 

this concept is included in the maintenance rows below
limited after 2013

no training included
8/5 from 2012
24/7 from 2013
EU-RESRICTED from 2013

EN 

 
  
PO2.3 costs  

5. Extension: Estimating the set-up and upgrade costs for extending to a fully centralised version of Option 2.2 of the  EUROSUR network

Total cost estimated to be incurred
Individual cost items included in total 
cost
Hardware & Software
Frontex personnel
Contractor services
Connectivity
Training
(other) Redundancy
(other) EU-RESTRICTED setup

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2318

2870

2448

1766

670

Total
670 10742

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes

programme management and ICT personnel

no training included
redundancy from 2013
EU-RESTRICTED from 2013

6.Running costs: Estimating the operation, maintenance and annual recurring costs to a fully centralised version of Option 2.2 of the network

Total cost estimated to be incurred
Individual cost items included in total 
cost
Hardware & Software
Frontex personnel
Contractor services
Connectivity
Training
(other) 8hours /5 days maintenance
(other) 24hours /7 days maintenance
(other) EU-RESTRICTED Operation

EN 

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

96

1918

4575

4184

4188

2016

Total
4188 19148

Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No

Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No

Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes

Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes

Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes

Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes

50 

this concept is included in the maintenance rows below
limited after 2013

no training included
8/5 from 2012
24/7 from 2013
EU-RESTRICTED from 2013

EN 

 
  
Cost estimates for the Common Pre-frontier Intelligence Picture/CPIP (2011-2020) 

2011
0

CPIP - FSC related costs *
Total COSTS FSC - CPIP
PO2.2 (60% of PO1.2 for the following items below) 
        IT hardware
463,488
4,000,000
        IT software
        Staff costs for Duty Officer
723,360
* Costs already taken into account in FSC SP1 -  PO1.2 costs (60% of IT HW and SW and duty officer costs)  - and excluded from the calculation of 

228,546
6,000,000
345,360

471,918
6,000,000
597,360

€               
-
-
€               
€               
-

2014
5,186,848

2012
6,573,906

2013
7,069,278

€      
€  
€      

€      
€  
€      

€      
€  
€      

€  

€  

€  

2015
4,741,676

€   

2016
4,767,476

€  

2017
282,816

€      

2018
282,816

€      

2019
282,816

€      

2020
282,816

€       

€       
€   
€       

476,316
3,500,000
765,360

€      
€  
€      

460,116
3,500,000
807,360

€               
-
€               
-
282,816
€      

€               
-
€               
-
€      
282,816

€               
-
€               
-
€      
282,816

€                
-
€                
-
€       
282,816

EN 

51 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
RAU CPIP costs 
One-off costs (generally categorised as capital expenditure - CAPEX)
    Building & infrastructure
        Building construction
        Gigabit Ethernet infrastructure
        Building security
        Furniture
    Operating & IT equipment
        IT hardware
        IT software
    Explanation to estimates (open text)
Recurring costs (generally categorised as operating expenditure - OPEX)
    Personnel
        Staff costs for Management staff
        Staff costs for Analytical staff
        Staff costs for Operational Staff
    Communications & maintenance
        Communications & IT
        Maintenance
    Intelligence
        Intelligence subscriptions / services
        Reports / Regional Studies / Profiles
        Regular global polls/surveys
        Translations
    Geo-data
        Geo-data
    Explanation to estimates (open text)
Total

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

102,020
0
72,000
22,220
7,800
240,260
40,460
199,800

81,740
0
42,000
35,190
4,550
32,510
30,350
2,160

35,190
0
0
35,190
0
11,440
10,680
760

35,190
0
0
35,190
0
11,440
10,680
760

35,190
0
0
35,190
0
11,440
10,680
760

35,190
0
0
35,190
0
11,440
10,680
760

35,190
0
0
35,190
0
11,440
10,680
760

35,190
0
0
35,190
0
11,440
10,680
760

35,190
0
0
35,190
0
11,440
10,680
760

964,620 1,496,620 1,496,620 1,496,620 1,496,620 1,496,620 1,496,620 1,496,620 1,496,620
261,420
261,420
192,380
959,040
959,040
634,160
276,160
276,160
138,080
282,580
282,580
165,740
62,330
62,330
26,640
220,250
220,250
139,100
590,000
590,000
322,000
95,000
95,000
95,000
150,000
150,000
150,000
300,000
300,000
50,000
45,000
45,000
27,000
900,000
900,000
900,000
900,000
900,000
900,000

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 2,694,640 3,383,450 3,315,830 3,315,830 3,315,830 3,315,830 3,315,830 3,315,830 3,315,830  

261,420
959,040
276,160
282,580
62,330
220,250
590,000
95,000
150,000
300,000
45,000
900,000
900,000

261,420
959,040
276,160
282,580
62,330
220,250
590,000
95,000
150,000
300,000
45,000
900,000
900,000

261,420
959,040
276,160
282,580
62,330
220,250
590,000
95,000
150,000
300,000
45,000
900,000
900,000

261,420
959,040
276,160
282,580
62,330
220,250
590,000
95,000
150,000
300,000
45,000
900,000
900,000

261,420
959,040
276,160
282,580
62,330
220,250
590,000
95,000
150,000
300,000
45,000
900,000
900,000

261,420
959,040
276,160
282,580
62,330
220,250
590,000
95,000
150,000
300,000
45,000
900,000
900,000

EN 

52 

EN 

 
  
 
ANNEX 6.1 

Additional information on regional networks with third countries 

1) 

SEAHORSE  

SEAHORSE  is  a  regional  network  between  Western  African  countries,  Spain  and  Portugal. 
It aims at reinforcing the cooperation with African countries and improve of their capacities to 
fight  against  irregular  migration  and  provide  support  to  maritime  operations  (e.g.  Frontex' 
HERA operations). It is led by Spain (Guardia Civil) and was financed by the EU (AENEAS 
Programme). The development of the SEAHORSE Project was concluded in 2010. It consists 
of  a  network  of  ten  national  cooperation  centres  set  up  in  Mauritania  (2),  Morocco  (1), 
Senegal  (1),  Gambia  (1),  Guinea  Bissau  (1),  Cape  Verde  (1),  Portugal  (1)  and  Spain  (2) 
interlinked  via  a  communication  network  for  the  coordination  and  permanent  exchange  of 
information via a secure satellite link.  

The  SEAHORSE  network  allows  the  distribution  of  information  about  migration  flows, 
location of suspicious vessels, coordination of rescue operations and interception of vessels. 
By providing operative information in real-time, it allows the effective decision on controlling 
any irregular activity in the area. 

In  addition,  the  SEAHORSE  Network  encourages  the  inter-regional  cooperation  between 
Sub-Saharan Africa and the Maghreb in the management of the migratory flows by migration 
authorities,  thereby  supporting  border  management.  The  conception  of  the  solution  as  a 
modular  system  allows  it  to  be  extended  to  other  African  Countries  and  even  to  expand  to 
other Regional Centres in the European domain.  

2) 

Baltic Sea Region Border Control Cooperation (BSRBCC) and COASTNET 

BSRBCC is seen as a regional tool for daily inter-agency (police, customs, coast guard and 
border guards) interaction in the Baltic Sea to combat cross-border crime and environmental 
protection  of  the  maritime  areas,  able  to  adjust  with  time  and  changing  conditions. 
Participating  Member  States  and  third  countries  are  Estonia,  Denmark,  Finland,  Germany, 
Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Sweden as well as Norway and Russia. Iceland holds an observer 
status. 

National  Coordination  Centres  (NCC)  which  are  connected  24/7  have  been  built  up  in  all 
participating States. Moreover, the BSRBCC is the frame for carrying out operations, training 
and  regular  meetings,  also  under  observation  and  strategic  participation  from  Frontex.  The 
NCCs are exchanging relevant information via a dedicated network called COASTNET. It is 
a needs-based reporting system where daily communication occurs via an encrypted system.  

Black  Sea  Littoral  States  Border/Coast  Guard  Cooperation  Forum  (BSCF)  and 

3) 
Black Sea Border Coordination and Information Centre (BBCIC) 

The BSCF is a cooperation agreement between border/coast guard agencies of the Black Sea 
Littoral States. One of its tasks is to enhance interactions among border/coast guard agencies 
in order to prevent irregular migration and illegal activities; as well as strengthening the safety 
and  security  of  navigation  in  the  Black  Sea.  Participating  countries  are  Bulgaria,  Romania, 
Ukraine, Russia, Georgia and Turkey. Information exchanges with regard to illegal activities 
in the Black Sea take place via the Black Sea Border Coordination  and Information  Centre 
(BBCIC)  at  Burgas  in  Bulgaria.  The  information  is  shared  through  an  on-line  computer 
network,  enabling  rapid  information  flow  and  enhancing  cooperation  between  the  BSCF 
countries. 

EN 

53 

   EN 

 
 
Current competencies of the Regional Centres / Networks 

Competencies   

BSCF-BBCIC 

SEAHORSE 

Member States’ 
participation  

Coordination with 
national authorities 

BG, RO 

PT, ES 

Maritime Administration, 
Executive Agency of 
Fishery and Aquaculture, 
the Navy 

Police, Customs, 
Navy, SASEMAR 

BSRBCC - 
COASTNET 

FI, ET, DK, FI, DE, 
LT, LI, PL, SE 

Police, Customs, 
Defence Forces, 
Aviation authorities, 
Maritime Safety 
authorities, at the 
areal level  

Coordination with third 
countries NCCs 

Ukraine, Russia, Turkey 
and Georgia 

Morocco, Mauritania, 
Senegal, Cape Verde, 
Gambia, G. Bissau 

Russia, Norway, 
Iceland (observer 
status only)  

Coordination with Sub-
national coordination 
centres  

Coordination with 
FRONTEX 

Command and Control 
(C2)  

Yes  

No 

No 

Yes 

Yes  

Yes  

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Current responsibilities of the Regional Centres / Networks 

Surveillance 
responsibilities  

Maritime  

Air  

Land  

Border Checks 

BSCF-BBCIC 

SEAHORSE 

Yes 

No 

No 

No 

Yes  

Yes 

No 

No  

BSRBCC - 
COASTNET 

Yes  

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

All the three regional networks are connected to their respective national NCCs. The types 
of information exchanged through the networks are summarised in the table below.  

Type of information exchanged through the networks  

BSCF-BBCIC 

SEAHORSE 

Classification level  Protected but 
unclassified  

Up to “EU Secret” 

Description of the 
information 
exchanged  

Data of suspicious 
ships, actions 
undertaken and 
results thereof.  

Intelligence reports, irregular border 
crossing reports, daily reports, 
monthly reports, assets situation in a 
daily basis and in an national and 
international operational 
environment 

BSRBCC - 
COASTNET 

Up to 
“Confidential” 

Incidents and 
alerts, not personal 
data 

EN 

54 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
Overall costs for setting up, upgrading and maintaining the technical infrastructure of the 
three regional cooperation centres over the 2007-2010 period 

Total  

BSCF-BBCIC 

SEAHORSE 

BSRBCC - 
COASTNET  

€77,055k 

€36,163k 

€4,827k 

€36,065k 

Cost breakdown by type of financial source for setting up, upgrading and maintaining the 
technical infrastructure of the three regional cooperation centres over the 2007-2010 period 

Financial source  

BSCF-BBCIC 

SEAHORSE 

National funding 

€9,163k 

European Border Fund 
(EBF) 

DCI - Thematic 
Programme Migration 
and Asylum  

AENEAS Programme  

- 

- 

- 

Other EU funding 

€27,000k 

€971k 

- 

€1,857k 

€1,999k 

- 

BSRBCC - 
COASTNET  

€36,065k 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Number of FTE employed in each Regional Centre / Network over the 2007-2010 period 

Year  

Total  

BSCF-BBCIC  SEAHORSE 

BSRBCC - COASTNET  

2007 

2008 

2009 

2010 

89 

89 

90 

158 

26 

26 

27 

95 

28 

28 

28 

28 

35 

35 

35 

35 

PO3_baseline 
(2007-2010) 

PO3.1 
(2011-2020) 

PO3.2 
(2011-2020) 

PO3.3 
(2011-2020) 

BSCF-BBCIC 

SEAHORSE 

BSRBCC - COASTNET 

TOTAL 

TOTAL cumulative costs  
(2011-2020) 

€36,100k 

€4,800k 

€36,000k 

€77,000k 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

€5,377k 

0 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

€5,377k 

€25,299k 

€5,377k 

€25,299k 

EN 

55 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Baseline costs for regional networks with third countries 

ANNEX 6.2 

BSCF-BBCIC (Black Sea) 

2. Financial amounts spent in setting up, upgrading and maintaining the technical infrastructure of the regional cooperation centre

Total cost incurred
Individual cost items included in total cost
    One-off costs (generally categorised as capital 
expenditure - CAPEX)
        Building & infrastructure
        Operating & IT equipment
    Recurring costs (generally categorised as capital 
expenditure - OPEX)
        Personnel
        Communications & maintenance
        Operational applications
            - Specify type of application software
Total cost breakdown by type of financial source
    National funding
    European Border Fund (EBF)

DCI - Thematic Programme Migration and Asylum 
AENAS Programme 
    Other EU funding 

    - Explain 'Other EU funding'

2007

2008

2009

2010

Total

106000

17500

39000

36,000,000

36162500

yes 
yes 

yes 
yes 
yes 

yes 
yes 

yes 
yes 
yes 

yes 
yes 

yes 
yes 
yes 

yes 
yes 

yes 
yes 
yes 

106000
0
0
0
0

17500
0
0
0
0

39000
0
0
0
0

9,000,000

27,000,000

SEAHORSE (Atlantic/Western Africa) 

2. Financial amounts spent in setting up, upgrading and maintaining the technical infrastructure of the regional network 
including the regional cooperation centre

Total cost incurred
Individual cost items included in total cost
    One-off costs (generally categorised as capital 
expenditure - CAPEX)
        Building & infrastructure
        Operating & IT equipment
    Recurring costs (generally categorised as capital 
expenditure - OPEX)
        Personnel
        Communications & maintenance
        Operational applications
            - Specify type of application software
Total cost breakdown by type of financial source
    National funding
    European Border Fund (EBF)

DCI - Thematic Programme Migration and Asylum 
AENAS Programme 
    Other EU funding 

    - Explain 'Other EU funding'

2007

2008

2009

2010

Total

1,967,685.55

534,872.13

2,324,656.25

4,827,213.93

yes 
yes 

yes 
yes 
yes 
GIS,IT

yes 
yes 

yes 
yes 
yes 
GIS,IT

yes 
yes 

yes 
yes 
yes 

395,898.33

107,616.27

467,488.37

1,571,787.22

427,255.85

1,857,167.88

From 2008 to 2010 was set up a SEAHORSE 
extension in Morocco, G. Bissau and Gambia called 
"Seahorse Cooperation Centres

EN 

56 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
BSRBCC – COASTNET (Baltic Sea) 

2. Financial amounts spent in setting up, upgrading and maintaining the technical infrastructure of the regional cooperation centre

Total cost incurred
Individual cost items included in total cost
    One-off costs (generally categorised as capital 
expenditure - CAPEX)
        Building & infrastructure
        Operating & IT equipment
    Recurring costs (generally categorised as capital 
expenditure - OPEX)
        Personnel
        Communications & maintenance
        Operational applications
            - Specify type of application software
Total cost breakdown by type of financial source
    National funding
    European Border Fund (EBF)

DCI - Thematic Programme Migration and Asylum 
AENAS Programme 
    Other EU funding 

2007

2008

2009

2010

Total

8676948.516

8899434.375

9127625

9361666.667

36,065,674.56

yes 
yes 

yes 
yes 

yes 
yes 

yes 
yes 
yes 
yes 
yes 
yes 
Finnish Border Guard Information systems

yes 
yes 
yes 

yes 
yes 

yes 
yes 
yes 

8,676,948.52
0
0
0
0

8,899,434.38
0
0
0
0

9,127,625.00
0
0
0
0

9,361,666.67
0
0
0
0

    - Explain 'Other EU funding'

All means that all funding for the RCC:s comes from the budget of 
Finnish Border Guard. 

EN 

57 

   EN 

 
    
          
   
     
 
 
Cost estimates for Policy Options 3.2 and 3.3 

ANNEX 6.3 

Policy Option 3.2: SEAHORSE Mediterraneo 

7. Estimates of the financial costs for setting up and maintaining the SEAHORSE Mediterraneo network in three selected neighbouring countries,
 including the costs for the Regional Coordination Centre in Maltese NCC and the back-up centre in the Italian NCC (funded from DCI-Thematic Programme for Asylum & Migration)

Total cost estimated to be incurred
Individual cost items included in total cost
    One-off costs (generally categorised as capital expenditure - CAPEX)
        Building & infrastructure
        Operating & IT equipment
    Recurring costs (generally categorised as capital expenditure - OPEX)
        Personnel
        Communications & maintenance
        Operational applications
            - Specify type of application software

    Explanation to estimates

2011

2012

2013

2014

3,226,544.80

2015

0

2016

0

Total

0

3226544.8

yes 
yes 

yes 
yes 
yes 
GIS,IT

yes 

yes 

yes 

yes 

yes 

yes 

The implementation of the "Seahore Mediterraneo 
project" will be in 2013, and for the next three years (from 
2014 to 2016) we expect to have an operational and 
maintenance guarantee, that is why we will not incur in 
comunication and maintenance costs.About your second 
question, 2013 is because of actual plans, the proyect is still 
in progress.

Policy Option 3.3: Connecting 15 third countries directly to the EUROSUR network 

Total cost estimated to be incurred 
Set up and upgrade costs 
Recurring costs 
Decommissioning costs 

2011
0
0
0
0

2012
0
0
0
0

2013
3896
1986
947
963

2014
7851.5
2882
4006.5
963

2015
2258.5
260
1998.5
0

2016 Total

2258.5
260
1998.5
0

16,264.50
5,388.00
8,950.50
1,926.00

EN 

58 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
       
          
          
          
 
 
ANNEX 7.1 

Summary of costs by policy option (€ 000’s) 

Cost estimates for Policy Option 4.1 

Cost 

Staff 

Procurement 

Total  

Option 4.1 

Option 4.2 

Option 4.3 

32,784 

47,699 

12,909 

49,142 

17,664 

44,615 

€80.5 million 

€62.1 million 

€62.3 million 

Estimated total costs for Policy Option 4.1 (€’000) 

Year  

EMSA 

JRC 

FRONTEX

EUSC 

NCCs 

TOTAL 

2012 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

2019 

2020 

Total 

Staff costs (€) 

Year 

2012 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

2019 

2020 

586 

1,148 

2,739 

5,361 

5,338 

5,338 

5,338 

5,338 

5,338 

60 

120 

120 

120 

120 

120 

120 

120 

120 

60 

60 

60 

60 

60 

60 

60 

60 

60 

408 

1,172 

527 

879 

2,098 

2,019 

1,641 

3,379 

7,035 

2,710 

3,173 

11,424 

2,710 

3,173 

11,401 

2,710 

3,173 

11,401 

2,710 

3,173 

11,401 

2,710 

3,173 

11,401 

2,710 

3,173 

11,401 

                         €80.5 million

EMSA 

JRC 

FRONTEX

EUSC 

NCCs 

TOTAL 

234,128 

60,000 

59,504 

91,725 

527,446 

972,803 

203,685 

120,000 

59,504 

309,781 

879,076 

1,572,047 

466,246 

120,000 

59,504 

553,687 

2,019,164 

3,218,601 

525,664 

120,000 

59,504 

644,359 

3,172,972 

4,522,500 

502,828 

120,000 

59,504 

644,359 

3,172,972 

4,499,664 

502,828 

120,000 

59,504 

644,359 

3,172,972 

4,499,664 

502,828 

120,000 

59,504 

644,359 

3,172,972 

4,499,664 

502,828 

120,000 

59,504 

644,359 

3,172,972 

4,499,664 

502,828 

120,000 

59,504 

644,359 

3,172,972 

4,499,664 

32,784,268 

EN 

59 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Procurement costs (€) 

Year 

2012 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

2019 

2020 

EMSA 

JRC 

FRONTEX

EUSC 

NCCs 

Total 

352,000 

944,460 

2,272,380 

4,835,600 

4,835,600 

4,835,600 

4,835,600 

4,835,600 

4,835,600 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

315,920 

862,510 

1,544,180 

2,065,580 

2,065,580 

2,065,580 

2,065,580 

2,065,580 

2,065,580 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

667,920 

1,806,970 

3,816,560 

6,901,180 

6,901,180 

6,901,180 

6,901,180 

6,901,180 

6,901,180 

47,698,530 

EN 

60 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Cost estimates for Policy Option 4.2 

Table 1.1  Estimated total costs for policy option 4.2 (€) 

Year  

EMSA 

JRC 

FRONTEX 

EUSC 

TOTAL 

ANNEX 7.2 

2012 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

2019 

2020 

Total 

Staff costs (€) 

Year 

2012 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

2019 

554 

1,062 

2,532 

4,922 

4,899 

4,899 

4,899 

4,899 

4,899 

60 

120 

120 

120 

120 

120 

120 

120 

120 

534 

832,473 

1,077 

1,077 

1,077 

1,077 

1,077 

1,077 

1,077 

379 

1,094 

1,957 

2,522 

2,522 

2,522 

2,522 

2,522 

2,522 

1,527 

3,109 

5,686 

8,641 

8,618 

8,618 

8,618 

8,618 

8,618 

€62.1 million

EMSA 

234,128 

JRC 

FRONTEX 

EUSC 

TOTAL 

60,000 

182,464 

91,725 

568,316 

203,685 

120,000 

358,960 

309,781 

992,426 

466,246 

120,000 

368,878 

553,687 

1,508,810 

525,664 

120,000 

368,878 

644,359 

1,658,901 

502,828 

120,000 

368,878 

644,359 

1,636,065 

502,828 

120,000 

368,878 

644,359 

1,636,065 

502,828 

120,000 

368,878 

644,359 

1,636,065 

502,828 

120,000 

368,878 

644,359 

1,636,065 

2020 

502,828 

120,000 

368,878 

644,359 

1,636,065 

12,908,778 

Procurement costs (€) 

Year 

2012 

2013 

EMSA 

320,000 

858,600 

JRC 

FRONTEX 

EUSC 

Total 

- 

- 

351,552 

287,200 

473,513 

784,100 

958,752 

2,116,213 

EN 

61 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2014 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

2019 

2020 

2,065,800 

4,396,000 

4,396,000 

4,396,000 

4,396,000 

4,396,000 

4,396,000 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

707,841 

1,403,800 

707,841 

1,877,800 

707,841 

1,877,800 

707,841 

1,877,800 

707,841 

1,877,800 

707,841 

1,877,800 

707,841 

1,877,800 

4,177,441 

6,981,641 

6,981,641 

6,981,641 

6,981,641 

6,981,641 

6,981,641 

49,142,252 

Division of workload in option 4.2 (%) 

Year  

2012 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

2019 

2020 

EMSA 

EUSC 

Industry 

In-house 

Industry 

In-house 

58% 

81% 

82% 

89% 

90% 

90% 

90% 

90% 

90% 

42% 

19% 

18% 

11% 

10% 

10% 

10% 

10% 

10% 

76% 

87% 

86% 

89% 

89% 

89% 

89% 

89% 

89% 

24% 

13% 

14% 

11% 

11% 

11% 

11% 

11% 

11% 

EN 

62 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Cost estimates for Policy Option 4.3 

Estimated total costs for policy option 4.3 (€’000) 

Year  

EMSA 

JRC 

FRONTEX 

EUSC 

TOTAL 

ANNEX 7.3 

2012 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

2019 

2020 

Total 

Staff costs (€) 

Year 

2012 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

2019 

2020 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

60 

120 

120 

120 

120 

120 

120 

120 

120 

1,586 

3,152 

5,754 

8,488 

8,456 

8,456 

8,456 

8,456 

8,456 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

1,646 

3,272 

5,874 

8,608 

8,576 

8,576 

8,576 

8,576 

8,576 

              €62.3 million 

EMSA 

JRC 

FRONTEX 

EUSC 

TOTAL 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

60,000 

711,643 

120,000 

1,221,397 

120,000 

1,944,334 

120,000 

2,154,461 

120,000 

2,122,491 

120,000 

2,122,491 

120,000 

2,122,491 

120,000 

2,122,491 

120,000 

2,122,491 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

771,643 

1,341,397 

2,064,334 

2,274,461 

2,242,491 

2,242,491 

2,242,491 

2,242,491 

2,242,491 

17,664,290 

EN 

63 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Procurement costs (€) 

Year 

2012 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

2019 

320,000 

858,600 

2,065,800 

4,396,000 

4,396,000 

4,396,000 

4,396,000 

4,396,000 

2020 

4,396,000 

EMSA 

JRC 

FRONTEX 

EUSC 

Total 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

351,552 

287,200 

473,513 

784,100 

707,841 

1,403,800 

707,841 

1,877,800 

707,841 

1,877,800 

707,841 

1,877,800 

707,841 

1,877,800 

707,841 

1,877,800 

707,841 

1,877,800 

958,752 

2,116,213 

4,177,441 

6,981,641 

6,981,641 

6,981,641 

6,981,641 

6,981,641 

6,981,641 

49,142,251 

EN 

64 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Abbreviation 

Glossary 

List of abbreviations 

ANNEX 8 

AIS 
C2 
CIRAM 
CeCLAD-M 
COI 
CONOPS 
COSI 
CPIP 
CRATE 
DG HOME 
EBF 
EDA 
EMSA 
EO 
EPN 
ESG 
ESP 
ESRIF 
EU 
EURODAC 
EUROPOL 
EUROSUR 
EUSC 
FSC 
FRONTEX 
GMES 
HUMINT 
IER 
ISR 
LCC 
LRIT 
LSP 
IMINT 
ILO 
JO 
MAOC-N 
MS 
NATO 
NEC 
NCC 
NSP 
OSINT 
R&D 
RA 
RAU 
RCC 
SAR 
SIGINT 
SOA 
S-TESTA 
UAS, UAV 
VMS 
VTS 

Automatic Identification System (vessels) 
Command & Control 
Common Integrated Risk Analysis Model (Frontex) 
Centre de Coordination pour la lutte antidrogue en Méditerranée 
Community of Interest 
Concept of Operations 
Standing Committee for Operational Cooperation on Internal Security 
Common Pre-Frontier Intelligence Picture 
Centralised Record of Available Technical Equipment (Frontex) 
Directorate-General Home Affairs (Commission) 
External Borders Fund 
European Defence Agency 
European Maritime Safety Agency 
Earth-Observation 
European Patrols Network (Frontex) 
Elektroniksystem- und Logistik-GmbH (EUROSUR study contractor) 
European Situational Picture 
European Security Research and Innovation Forum 
European Union 
European fingerprint database for asylum seekers and irregular border-crossers 
European Police Office 
European Border Surveillance System 
European Union Satellite Centre 
Frontex Situation Centre 
European Border Management Agency 
Global Monitoring for Environment and Security 
Human Intelligence 
Information Exchange Requirement 
Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance 
Local Coordination Centre  
Long Range Identification and Tracking System (vessels) 
Local Situational Picture 
Imagery Intelligence 
Immigration Liaison Officer 
Joint Operation (Frontex) 
Maritime Analysis and Operations Centre – Narcotics 
Member State 
North Atlantic Treaty Organization 
Network Enabled Capabilities 
National Coordination Centre 
National Situational Picture  
Open Source Intelligence 
Research & Development 
Risk Analysis 
Risk Analysis Unit (Frontex) 
Regional Coordination Centre 
Search and Rescue / Synthetic Aperture Radar (sensor) 
Signals Intelligence 
Service Oriented Architecture 
Trans European Services for Telematics between Administrations 
Unmanned Aerial System, Unmanned Aerial Vehicle 
Vessel Monitoring System (fishing vessels) 
Vessel Tracking System 

EN 

65 

   EN