COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Asylum and Migration Fund Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Internal Security Fund Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing, as part of the Integrated Border Management Fund, the instrument for financial support for border management and visa Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing, as part of the Integrated Border Management Fund, the instrument for financial support for customs control equipment
Date: 2018-06-12
Institutions: Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs, European Commission
Subjects: EU migration policy, EU visa policy, Schengen Agreement, area of freedom, security and justice, customs inspection, external border of the EU, fund (EU), migration control, public safety, right of asylum

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Strasbourg, 12.6.2018  SWD(2018) 347 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  IMPACT ASSESSMENT  Accompanying the document Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Asylum and Migration Fund  Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Internal Security Fund  Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing, as part of the Integrated Border Management Fund, the instrument for financial support for border management and visa  Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing, as part of the Integrated Border Management Fund, the instrument for financial support for customs control equipment   {COM(2018) 471} - {COM(2018) 472} - {COM(2018) 473} - {COM(2018) 474} - {SWD(2018) 348} - {SEC(2018) 315}  
 
 
Table of contents 

1 

INTRODUCTION: POLITICAL AND LEGAL CONTEXT ............................................................... 1 

1.1  Scope and context .............................................................................................. 1 
Scope of the Impact Assessment ............................................................................. 1 
1.1.1 

1.1.2 

Policy context in the areas of asylum and migration, borders and customs control 
equipment, and security ........................................................................................... 2 

1.1.3 

Policy response ........................................................................................................ 4 

1.2  Lessons learned from previous programmes ................................................... 10 
Key findings from evaluations of previous programmes ...................................... 10 
1.2.1 

1.2.2 

Consultation activities ........................................................................................... 14 

2 

THE CHALLENGES .......................................................................................................................... 15 

2.1  The main challenges to be addressed in the post-2020 MFF .......................... 15 
2.2  Enhancing flexibility within a stable framework ............................................ 15 
2.3  Further simplifying the rules for implementing EU Funds ............................. 16 
2.4  Ensuring more coherence and synergies between actions supported by 

EU funding instruments ................................................................................... 17 

2.5  Achieving  the  highest  level  of  EU  added  value  with  a  focus  on 

performance ..................................................................................................... 18 

3 

ARCHITECTURE OF THE FUNDS AND OBJECTIVES ................................................................ 18 

3.1  The EU’s right to act and the necessity for the EU to act ............................... 18 
3.2  Architecture  of  the  Funds:  the  Asylum  and  Migration  Fund,  the 

Integrated Border Management Fund and the Internal Security Fund ............ 20 
Asylum and Migration Fund ................................................................................. 20 

Integrated Border Management Fund .................................................................... 22 

Internal Security Fund ........................................................................................... 24 

3.2.1 

3.2.2 

3.2.3 

3.3  Coherence and complementarities with other EU funding instruments .......... 26 

4 

DELIVERY MECHANISMS OF THE INTENDED FUNDING ...................................................... 34 

4.1  Enhancing flexibility within a stable framework ............................................ 34 
Implementation modalities .................................................................................... 35 
4.1.1 

4.1.2 

4.1.3 

4.1.4 

4.1.5 

The thematic facility .............................................................................................. 39 

Emergency assistance ............................................................................................ 41 

A strengthened mid-term review of national programmes .................................... 42 

Use of financial instruments .................................................................................. 44 

4.2  Further simplifying the rules for implementing EU Funds ............................. 45 
Common provisions for shared management ........................................................ 46 
4.2.1 

4.2.2 

Simplification of the rules applicable to direct management ................................ 48 

4.3  The need for an adequate level of funding ...................................................... 48 

II 

 
 
5 

HOW WILL PERFORMANCE BE MONITORED AND EVALUATED?....................................... 50 

5.1  Practical arrangements of the evaluation: when and by whom ....................... 50 
5.2  Monitoring indicators ...................................................................................... 51 
Core performance indicators for the Asylum and Migration Fund ....................... 51 
5.2.1 

5.2.2 

5.2.3 

Core performance indicators for Integrated Border Management Fund – Border 
Management and Visa Instrument ......................................................................... 52 

Core performance indicators for the Integrated Border Management Fund – 
Customs Control Equipment ................................................................................. 52 

5.2.4 

Core performance indicators for the Internal Security Fund ................................. 52 

ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION ............................................................................................ 54 

1 

2 

3 

4 

LEAD DG(S), DECIDE PLANNING/CWP REFERENCES ............................................................. 54 

ORGANISATION AND TIMING ...................................................................................................... 54 

CONSULTATION OF THE RSB ....................................................................................................... 54 

EVIDENCE, SOURCES AND QUALITY ......................................................................................... 56 

ANNEX 2: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ....................................................................................... 57 

ANNEX  3:  HOME  AFFAIRS  FUNDS  IN  THE  2007-2013  AND  2014-2020  MULTIANNUAL 

FINANCIAL FRAMEWORK ............................................................................................................ 69 

ANNEX  4:  DELINEATION  OF  INTERVENTIONS  IN  THE  POST-2020  MULTIANNUAL 

FINANCIAL FRAMEWORK ............................................................................................................ 81 

ANNEX 5: OBJECTIVES OF THE FUNDS ............................................................................................... 90 

ANNEX  6:  OVERALL  DESIGN  OF  THE  NEW  CUSTOMS  CONTROL  EQUIPMENT 

COMPONENT .................................................................................................................................... 96 

ANNEX 7: PERFORMANCE INDICATORS FOR THE MID-TERM REVIEW ...................................... 98 

III 

 
Glossary 

Term or acronym 

Meaning or definition 

AFIS 

AMF 

AMIF 

Automated Fingerprint Identification System 

Asylum and Migration Fund (2021-2027 programming period) 

Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (2014-2020 programming period) 

ANPRS 

Automated Number Plate/container number Recognition System 

BCP 

BMVI 

C2020 

CAP 

Border Crossing Point 

Border Management and Visa Instrument 

Customs 2020 Programme, as established by Regulation (EU) No 1294/2013 

Common Agricultural Policy 

CBRN-E 

Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear and Explosive materials 

CCE 

CELBET 

CF 

CIPS 

CMEF 

DCI 

EAFRD 

EASO 

EBCGA 

EBF 

ECRIS 

EC3 

EES 

EFCA 

EIF 

EMFF 

Customs Control Equipment 

Customs  Eastern  and  South-Eastern  Land  Border  Expert  Team,  an  expert  team 
established under the C2020 programme and aimed at increasing collaboration at the 
Union’s external land frontier by pooling expertise from 11 MS for strengthening and 
improving  operational  cooperation  between  customs  authorities  and  with  border 
guards and in particular at mapping available and missing customs equipment for all 
BCPs. 

Cohesion Fund 

Programme  "Prevention,  Preparedness  and  Consequence  Management  of  Terrorism 
and other Security related risks" 

Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework 

Development Cooperation Instrument 

European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development 

European Asylum Support Office 

European Border and Coast Guard Agency 

External Borders Fund 

European Criminal Records Information Exchange System 

European Cybercrime Centre 

Entry / Exit System 

European Fisheries Control Agency 

European Fund for the Integration of third-country nationals 

European Maritime and Fisheries Fund 

EMPACT 

European Multidisciplinary Platform against Criminal Threats 

IV 

 
 
EMSA 

EPPO 

ERDF 

ERF 

ESF 

ESI 

ESIF 

ETIAS 

EU 

EUTF 

European Maritime Safety Agency 

European Public Prosecutor’s Office 

European Regional Development Fund 

European Refugee Fund 

European Social Fund 

Emergency Support Instrument 

European Structural and Investment Funds 

European Travel Information and Authorisation System 

European Union 

European Union  Emergency Trust Fund 

EUROSUR 

European Border Surveillance system  

EUIPO 

Eurodac 

Eurojust 

Europol 

eu-LISA 

Hercule 

IBMF 

ISEC 

ISF 

IT 

JIT 

MFF 

NGO 

OCG 

OECD 

PNR 

RAN 

RDPP 

RF 

Scheval 

SIENA 

European Union Intellectual Property Office 

EU asylum fingerprint database 

European Agency for judicial cooperation 

European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation 

European  Agency  for  the  operational  management  of  large-scale  IT  Systems  in  the 
area of freedom, security and justice 

The Hercule programmes protect the Union's financial interests by supporting action 
to  combat  irregularities,  fraud  and  corruption  affecting  the  Union  budget.  They  are 
administered by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF). 

Integrated Border Management Fund 

Programme "Prevention of and fight against Crime" 

Internal Security Fund 

Information Technology 

Joint Investigation Team 

Multiannual Financial Framework 

Non-Governmental Organisation 

Organised Crime Group 

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development 

Passenger Name Records 

Radicalisation Awareness Network 

Regional Development and Protection Programme 

European Return Fund 

Schengen Evaluation mechanism 

Secure Information Exchange Network Application 

V 

 
SIS 

SRSP 

TFA 

SOLID 

TFEU 

UMF 

VIS 

Schengen Information System 

The Structural Reform Support Programme (SRSP) is an EU programme that provides 
tailor-made  support  to  all  EU  countries  for  their  institutional,  administrative  and 
growth-enhancing reforms. The SRSP is coordinated by the  European Commission's 
Structural Reform Support Service (SRSS). 

World Trade Organisation (WTO) Trade Facilitation Agreement, WTO Agreement on 
Trade  Facilitation  WT/  MIN  (13)  /  W/  8,  6  December  2013,  entered  into  force  in 
2017. 

General Programme “Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows” 

Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 

Universal Message Format 

Visa Information System 

VI 

 
 
1 

INTRODUCTION: POLITICAL AND LEGAL CONTEXT 

1.1  Scope and context 

1.1.1  Scope of the Impact Assessment 

On 2 May 2018, the European Commission adopted its proposals for a new Multiannual 
Financial Framework (MFF) for 2021-20271. The Reflection paper on the future of EU 
finances2 states that the post-2020 MFF needs to budget migration management, internal 
and  external  security,  external  border  control,  the  fight  against  terrorism  and  defence 
within a longer-term perspective. The size, structure and content of the future budget of 
the European Union (EU) will have to correspond to the political ambition that the Union 
sets itself for the future.  

In the 2014-2020 programming period, the Union budget has underpinned the European 
response  to  the  refugee  crisis  and  to  the  threat  of  organised  crime  and  terrorism.  The 
funding  initially  earmarked  for  migration  and  security  was  increased  to  address  the 
migration and security challenges.  

The two key EU Funds addressing migration and security are the Asylum, Migration and 
Integration Fund (AMIF)3 and the Internal Security Fund (ISF)4; other Funds, notably the 
external Funds and the European Structural  and Investment Funds, have also supported 
Member States as well as partner organisations to deal with the comprehensive approach 
on migration that the Commission has put in place.  

This Impact Assessment report reflects the decisions of the MFF proposals and focuses 
on  the  changes  and  policy  choices  which  are  specific  to  the  Commission  proposals  for 
the  successors  to  these  Funds  in  the  post-2020  Multiannual  Financial  Framework. 
Current Funds are taken as the baseline and the options for the future are assessed against 
the outcomes of both the ex-post evaluation of the Home Affairs Funds in the 2007-2013 
programming period and the interim evaluations of AMIF and ISF as well as the changed 
migratory and security context. Moreover, it is in line with the principles of reform for 
the  post-2020  Union  budget,  as  set  out  in  the  Reflection  paper  on  the  future  of  EU 
finances.  

The  migration,  borders  and  security  cluster5  will  be  covered  by  four  instruments  under 
three  Funds:  the  Asylum  and  Migration  Fund,  the  Internal  Security  Fund  and  the 
Integrated  Border Management  Fund  (with  a  Border  Management  and  Visa  component 
and a Customs Control Equipment component). Due to the Treaty provisions that apply 
to  the  home  affairs  area,  regarding  the  Schengen  acquis  and  the  protocols  on  the 

1  
2  
3  
4  

5  

COM(2018) 321. 
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/publications/reflection-paper-future-eu-finances_en  
Regulation (EU) No 516/2014 of 16 April 2014 (OJ L 150, 20.5.2014, p. 68). 
Regulation  (EU)  No  513/2014  of  16  April  2014  (OJ  L  150,  20.5.2014,  p.  143)  and  Regulation  (EU)  No 
515/2014 of 16 April 2014 (OJ L 150, 20.5.2014, p. 143). 
Covered by heading 4 "Migration and Border Management" and heading 5 "Security and Defence". Heading 
5 also covers defence and crisis response. 

1 

 
 
                                                            
positions  of  the  United  Kingdom,  Ireland  and  Denmark,  the  creation  of  the  Funds 
requires the adoption of four separate legislative instruments. 

The  creation  of  a  new  instrument  dedicated  to  customs  control  equipment  will  support 
the management of the external borders of the Union. Dealing with goods (as opposed to 
persons) and the protection of the financial interests of the Union and its Member States, 
Customs  Union  and  customs  cooperation  are  different  areas  of  EU  intervention  than 
security  and  border  management  under  the  Treaties,  subject  to  dedicated  Union 
legislation and a specific EU action programme6.  

Nevertheless,  under  a  new  Integrated  Border  Management,  the  strong  operational 
connections between border control and customs control and the fact that both take place 
at  the  Union’s  external  borders,  can  be  underpinned  with  enhanced  funding  linkages, 
especially  as  regards  customs  equipment.  Whereas  the  current  Customs  programme,  as 
the  main  or  only  means  of  customs  financing  at  Union  level,  allows  funding  for 
cooperation,  IT  systems  as  well  as  administrative  capacity  building  of  the  national 
customs administrations, it did not provide means to fund customs detection and control 
equipment. Other EU instruments (Hercule7, the Structural Reform Support Programme 
and  the  European  Structural  and  Investment  Funds  (ESIF))  only  marginally  support 
funding of such equipment. As a new instrument, the customs control equipment (CCE) 
component  is  subject  to  different  considerations  than  AMIF  and  ISF,  but  it  may  also 
benefit from experience gained in these areas over the recent years and vice versa. 

The MFF proposals for the 2021-2027 programming period indicate that the Asylum and 
Migration  Fund  is  proposed  to  have  a  budget  of  EUR  10.415  billion,  the  Integrated 
Border Management Fund a budget of EUR 9.318 billion (of which EUR 8.018  billion 
for  its  Border  Management  and  Visa  component  and  EUR  1.3  billion  for  its  Customs 
Control  Equipment  component)  and  the  Internal  Security  Fund  a  budget  of  EUR  2.5 
billion8. 

This Impact Assessment meets the requirements of the Financial Regulation9 in respect 
of preparing an ex-ante evaluation. 

1.1.2  Policy context in the areas of asylum and migration, borders and customs control 

equipment, and security 

Over the past three years, migratory challenges have increased. Flows in the EU have 
evolved  greatly.  The  number  of  irregular  arrivals  to  the  Union  in  the  wake  of  the 
migratory crisis has been unprecedented10, posing a serious  challenge to the systems of 
Member States in the area of reception, asylum and migration and the proper functioning 

6  
7  

8  
9  
10  

COM(2018) 442. 
The only existing EU instrument which finances the purchase of customs equipment, among other activities, 
is the Hercule III Programme, whose main objective is to fight fraud affecting the financial interests of the 
EU.  Although  the  equipment  made  available  to  the  customs  administrations  under  Hercule  III  has  had  a 
positive impact on the protection of the EU's financial interests, its specific focus and rather limited financial 
envelope do not meet the wider requirements of customs administrations.  
Expressed in current prices. 
Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 (OJ L 298, 26.10.2012, p. 1). 
More than 1.8 million irregular border crossings detected in 2015 (Risk analysis data of the European Border 
and Coast Guard Agency (EBCGA)). 

2 

 
                                                            
of the Schengen area. The number of asylum applications was approximately 5.6 times 
higher in 2016 (1 260 910) than in 2008 (225 150, Eurostat). It decreased in 2017 (704 
630) but remains at substantially higher level than the average of the pre-crisis years.  

Member States at the external borders of the Union, Greece and Italy in particular, have 
been  mostly  affected  by  the  reception  of  migrants  upon  their  immediate  arrival,  while 
Germany,  Hungary,  Italy,  Sweden,  France  and  Austria  received  the  highest  number  of 
asylum applications in 2015 and 201611. 

Eurostat statistics on return and asylum show that with approximately 2.6 million asylum 
applications  in  2015  and  2016  combined,  and  considering  that  the  first  instance 
recognition rate stands at 47% in 2017, over one million people may need to be returned 
once  their  asylum  applications  have  been  processed.  On  the  other  hand,  return  rates  at 
Union level have not yet been improving to the extent necessary (46.3% in 2016).  

The number of non-EU nationals arriving to the EU via legal pathways is set to increase 
in  the  future.  Statistics  show  that  the  EU  is  already  facing  significant  labour  and  skills 
shortages  in  key  sectors12.  The  EU's  working  age  population  is  also  declining,  making 
migration an increasingly important way to enhance the sustainability of social security 
systems  and  to  support  growth,  but  also  requiring  immediate  and  long-term  integration 
support. 

Data  related  to  the  situation  at  the  external  border  also  illustrate  the  changing  of 
paradigms  relating  to  border  management  as  the  total  number  of  irregular  border 
crossings between  Border-Crossing  Points  (BCPs) increased from  282 933  crossings in 
2014 to 1 822 177 in 2015 and 511 371 in 201613. 

The number of visa applications processed by Member States has increased considerably. 
The  number  of  visas  processed  in  2017  was  16.1  million,  representing  a  50%  increase 
compared to 2009 (11 million).  

With  2  140  customs  offices14  that  need  to  be  equipped  to  implement  the  common 
customs  legislation,  customs  control  equipment  funding  is  a  long-standing  political 
issue within the Customs Union. Member States have repeatedly expressed the need for 
financial  support  and  requested  an  in-depth  analysis  of  the  equipment  needed.  In  its 
conclusions on customs funding on 23 March 2017, the Council invited the Commission 
to "evaluate the possibility of funding technical equipment needs from future Commission 
financial programmes and improve coordination and […] cooperation between Customs 
Authorities and other law enforcement authorities for funding purposes".  

Terrorism as well as the evolving threats linked to organised crime and cybercrime 
are critical challenges for the EU and its Member States, attacking its values as well 
as its social and economic model. In the period 2014-2016, a total of 554 failed, foiled or 

11  

12  

13  
14  

DE: 1 221 665 applicants (total for 2015 and 2016), HU: 206 565 applicants, IT: 206 500 applicants, SE: 191 
240 applicants, FR: 160 435 applicants and AT: 130 415 applicants. 
A  potential  shortfall  of  around  1  million  workers  is  estimated  by  2020  in  the  health  sector,  rising  up  to  2 
million if long term care and ancillary professions are taken into account. 
Risk Analysis data from the EBCGA. 
Annex of the Annual 2016 Report of the Customs Union Performance. 

3 

 
                                                            
completed terrorist attacks were reported in the EU, and 294 people died. The scale and 
the  flow  of  European  citizens  who  have  radicalised  and/or  joined  terrorist  groups  in 
conflict zones, in particular in Syria, Iraq and Libya, as well as the networked nature of 
these conflicts, are unprecedented15. 

Furthermore, serious and organised cross-border crime has been finding new avenues to 
operate in the EU and new ways to escape detection. More than 5 000 Organised Crime 
Groups (OCGs) would be operating in the EU in 2017, compared to 3 600 in 201316.  

Finally,  cybercrime  is  an  ever-growing  threat.  On  average,  globally  more  than  4  000 
ransomware  attacks  have  occurred  daily  since  the  beginning  of  2016,  representing  a 
300%  increase  compared  to  2015.  Studies  suggest  that  the  economic  impact  of 
cybercrime increased by 500% from 2013 to 2017, and is projected to rise significantly 
by 201917. Threats such as those posed by cyberterrorism and hybrid threats could also 
increase in the years to come. 

1.1.3  Policy response 

Migration and security being at the top of the political agenda, the Union’s response has 
been swift and comprehensive, formulated in the Agendas for Migration18 and Security19 
adopted in 2015.  

The Agenda on Migration, as confirmed by the regular reports on its delivery20, has set 
out  actions  to  reduce  the  incentives  for  irregular  migration,  efforts  to  save  lives  and 
secure  the  external  borders  of  the  Union,  actions  supporting  a  strong  common  asylum 
policy and supporting a new policy on legal migration. The continuous implementation 
of the EU-Turkey  Statement21, the Partnership Framework22 and the joint actions taken 
on the Central Mediterranean route have brought the number of arrivals down by almost 
30% compared to 2014, before the crisis. The management of the external borders of the 
Union  has  taken  a  major  step  forward  with  the  hotspot  approach23,  where  Union 
Agencies  (most  notably  the  reinforced  European  Border  and  Coast  Guard  Agency 
(EBCGA)24,  the  European  Asylum  Support  Office  (EASO)  and  the  European  Union 
Agency  for  Law  Enforcement  Cooperation  (Europol))  work  together  in  a  coordinated 
manner to manage exceptional migratory flows.  

More than two years on, the EU relocation scheme25 is successfully coming to an end. To 
date, more than 96% of all eligible applicants registered have been relocated from Italy 
and  Greece  with  almost  all  Member  States  contributing.  The  EU  resettlement  scheme 
adopted  in  July  2015  was  also  successfully  completed  in  2017  (19  432  vulnerable 

15  
16  
17  
18  
19  
20  
21  
22  
23  
24  
25  

Europol – EU Terrorism Situation and Trend Reports 2015, 2016 and 2017. 
Europol – European Union Serious and Organised Crime Threat Assessment 2017. 
Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section of the United States Department of Justice (2016).  
COM(2015) 240. 
COM(2015) 185. 
COM(2017) 558, COM(2018) 250 and COM(2018) 301. 
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2016/03/18/eu-turkey-statement/  
COM(2016) 385. 
As outlined in the European Agenda on Migration (COM(2015) 240). 
Regulation (EU) 2016/1624 of 14 September 2016. 
Council Decisions (EU) 2015/1523 and 2015/1601.  

4 

 
                                                            
persons resettled to Europe) and resettlements under the EU-Turkey Statement continue. 
A new resettlement scheme was launched in September 2017 for at least 50 000 refugees, 
with  a  particular  focus  on  refugees  on  the  Central  Mediterranean  route  and  those 
displaced by the conflict in Syria. At the same time, progress is being made in improving 
cooperation  on  return  with  countries  of  origin,  while  the  Commission  also  proposed 
stricter  conditions  for  processing  visas  when  a  partner  country  does  not  cooperate 
sufficiently on readmission. 

In order to consolidate these positive trends, the Commission has launched  a reform of 
the  Common  European  Asylum  System,  with  a  solidarity  component  in  the  Dublin 
system26 and a proposal to establish a permanent Union resettlement framework27, under 
negotiation.  The  Action  plan  on  the  integration  of  third-country  nationals28  and  the 
Renewed Action plan promoting an effective return policy in the European Union29 were 
launched in 2016 and 2017 respectively.  

The  Commission  has  also  made  proposals  on  legal  migration,  with  the  revision  of  the 
Blue  Card  Directive  under  negotiation30,  and  is  carrying  out  an  evaluation  of  the  legal 
migration framework to identify weaknesses as well as possible ways of simplifying and 
streamlining it.  

The interim evaluation of the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF) showed 
that  EU  funding,  being  part  of  the  policy  response,  contributed  to  policy  results  and 
provided  added  value.  Despite  their  relatively  small  size  in  comparison  with  the 
challenges raised by the crisis, EU Funds have had an added value by supporting actions 
with  a  transnational  dimension,  boosting  national  capacities  and  optimising  procedures 
related  to  migration  management,  and  enhancing  solidarity  and  responsibility  sharing 
between  Member  States,  in  particular  through  emergency  assistance  and  the  relocation 
mechanism.  

EU added value of the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund 

By the beginning of 2017, AMIF supported the creation of almost 7 500 additional places 
in  reception  centres,  and  provided  assistance  to  814  000  asylum  applicants  and 
beneficiaries  of  international  protection.  With  the  help  of  emergency  assistance, shelter 
has been provided to 35 000 people in Greece, including more than 400 safe places for 
unaccompanied minors.  

More  than  32  000  persons  were  resettled  and  more  than  34  000  persons  have  been 
relocated from Italy and Greece31.  
Integration assistance was also provided to more than 1 400 000 third-country nationals32. 
The  added  value  of  support  through  AMIF  relied  also  on  the  synergies  and 
complementarities  achieved  with  the  European  Structural  and  Investment  Funds 

26  
27  
28  
29  
30  
31  
32  

COM(2016) 270. 
COM(2016) 468. 
COM(2016) 377. 
COM(2017) 200. 
COM(2016) 378. 
COM(2018) 301 (resettlement of 27 637 persons to Member States participating in AMIF). 
AMIF 2017 annual implementation reports, covering the period until 15 October 2017. 

5 

 
                                                            
(including  the  European  Social  Fund  (ESF)  and  the  European  Agricultural  Fund  for 
Rural Development (EAFRD)), as regards integration and with the external instruments 
in  the  areas  of  migrant  protection,  asylum  and  return.  Examples  were,  in  the  area  of 
asylum,  the  implementation  of  the  Regional  Development  and  Protection  Programmes 
(RDPPs)33 in North Africa and in the Horn of Africa and, in the area of return, the AMIF 
contribution to the readmission agreements and mobility partnerships with third countries 
and the creation of the conditions for sustainable return and reintegration in the countries 
of origin (126 000 persons have been returned at the end of 2017)34. 
Border management  

Facilitating  legitimate  travel,  while  preventing  irregular  migration  and  security  risks,  is 
also  a  key  objective  of  the  Agenda  on  Migration.  On  14  March  2018,  the  Commission 
presented its ideas on how to adapt the common visa policy to new challenges, including 
through  a  revision  of  the  legal  framework  of  the  Visa  Information  System  (VIS).  The 
Commission  also  presented  a  legal  proposal  that  addresses  the  existing  divergent 
practices among Member States and ensures that visa-issuing rules can play a part in the 
Union's readmission policy. 

the  Union's  external  borders.  Furthermore, 

To preserve and strengthen the Schengen area, Member States are obliged, since 6 April 
2017, to carry out systematic checks against relevant databases on EU citizens who are 
crossing 
issued  a 
Recommendation to Member States to make better use of police checks and cross-border 
cooperation.  The  European  Integrated  Border  Management  Strategy 
is  being 
implemented by the European Border and Coast Guard, a close cooperation between its 
constituent parts, namely the European Border and Coast Guard Agency and the Member 
States'  border  guards.  All  of  this  will  enable  the  Union  to  achieve  its  main  goal  of 
reinforcing the functioning of the Schengen area without internal border control.  

the  Commission 

EU added value of the Internal Security Fund – Borders and Visa 

ISF  Borders  and  Visa  is  playing  a  crucial  role  in  supporting  the  management  of  the 
external borders, providing EU support to the most affected Member States as a sign of 
shared  responsibility  for  managing  the  common  Union  border.  For  example,  Member 
States are supported for the implementation of the European Border Surveillance system 
EUROSUR35  and  the  acquisition  of  border  management  equipment  that  is  put  at  the 
disposal of the EBCGA.  

ISF Borders and Visa is also a main source of financial support for the development and 
maintenance  of  the  Schengen  and  the  Visa  Information  Systems36  and,  more  generally,  

33  

34  
35  

36  

RDPPs  aim  at  enhancing  the  capacity  of  non-EU  countries  in  the  regions  from  which  many  refugees 
originate  or  through  which  they  pass  in  transit  as  regards  refugee  protection,  return,  local  integration  and 
resettlement.  
AMIF 2017 annual implementation reports, covering the period until 15 October 2017. 
EUROSUR  is  a  multipurpose  system  for  cooperation  between  the  EU  Member  States  and  the  EBCGA  in 
order  to  improve  situational  awareness  and  increase  reaction  capability  at  external  borders.  The  aim  is  to 
prevent cross-border crime and irregular migration and contribute to protecting migrants' lives. It comprises 
all Schengen area countries and Bulgaria, Romania and Croatia. 
The  Schengen  Information  System  (SIS)  is  a  large-scale  information  system  that  supports  external  border 
control  and  law  enforcement  cooperation  in  the  Schengen  States.  The  SIS  enables  competent  authorities, 

6 

 
                                                            
 
supporting  the  common  visa  policy,  including  by  strengthening  national  capacity  and 
increasing  consular  coverage,  thereby  combatting  irregular  migration  and  facilitating 
legitimate travel.   

Through the Fund, deficiencies found in the application of the relevant legislation by the 
Member  States  through  the  Schengen  Evaluation  mechanism  (Scheval)  have  also  been 
addressed in order to ensure that Union law is applied in a uniform way on the ground 
and  contributes  to  the  EU’s  integrated  border  management.  Furthermore,  emergency 
assistance (over EUR 300 million) has enabled to strengthen the Union’s external border, 
notably in Greece, Italy and Bulgaria in face of a significant migratory pressure. 

EU added value of Funds working in synergy – the hotspot approach 

A key element in the EU's support to Member States is the hotspot approach. AMIF, ISF 
Borders  and  Visa  and  ISF  Police  have  made  a  tangible  difference  by  supporting  the 
setting  up  of  hotspot  areas37.  Their  capacity  reached  more  than  7  000  places  in  Greece 
and  more  than  1  500  places  in  Italy.  In  2015,  before  the  establishment  of  the  hotspots, 
only 58% of migrants were fingerprinted upon arrival in Italy, currently almost 100% of 
migrants are. 

Customs Control Equipment  

Improving  the  performance  of  customs  controls  throughout  the  Customs  Union  and 
avoiding  diverting  flows  of  goods  towards  the  weakest  points  has  been  another  key 
policy objective.  

In  the absence  of a dedicated programme or  Fund, the Commission  supported Member 
States by redirecting them to the other EU funding options: the European Structural and 
Investment Funds (ESIF) and support investment in transport and other EU networks; the 
EU Neighbourhood Instrument, Hercule III38 and the External Borders Fund (EBF). 

However,  these  solutions  have  proven  to  be  not  satisfactory  as  it  did  not  allow  for 
Customs needs to be sufficiently addressed among the overall structural needs nor did it 
allow for a minimum level of homogeneous or streamlined customs control and detection 
equipment  at  the  border,  thus  creating  opportunities  to  identify  the  weakest  BCP  for 
malpractices.  

The Commission launched several initiatives to better scope the issue of equipment under 
the Customs 2020 programme but the absence of dedicated Union intervention prevented 
addressing  in  a  systematic  and  comprehensive  manner  imbalances  that  exist  between 
Member States, due to differences in the capacities and resources available. Their ability 
to  react  to  challenges  generated  by  the  constantly  evolving  global  business  models, 

such  as  police  and  border  guards,  to  enter  and  consult  alerts  on  certain  categories  of  wanted  or  missing 
persons and objects. This database included 70 827 959 alerts, 3 983 457 108 searches and 200 778 hits in 
2016. The Visa Information System (VIS) allows Schengen States to exchange visa data. 
In  the  hotspot  approach  EASO,  EBCGA,  Europol  and  the  EU  Agency  for  judicial  cooperation  (Eurojust) 
work on the ground with the authorities of frontline Member States to help to fulfil their obligations under 
EU  law  and  swiftly  identify,  register  and  fingerprint  incoming  migrants.  The  hotspot  approach  also 
contributes to the implementation of the relocation schemes. 
Hercule III has proven to be a successful instrument, valued as such by its stakeholders, as demonstrated by 
the 2017 independent mid-term evaluation. 

37  

38  

7 

 
                                                                                                                                                                                 
threats and supply chains depend not only on the IT and human components – adequately 
supported  by  the  existing  customs  legislation  and  programme  –  but  also  on  the 
availability  of  state-of-the-art  and  reliable  control  equipment  –  an  issue  with  strong 
connections with border management.  

Against this background, it is thus proposed to reinforce the Customs Union, the related 
customs policy and its programme by establishing a new Instrument for customs control 
equipment,  closely  linked  to  support  for  border  management  through  the  Integrated 
Border Management Fund in view of the particular, deep and operational connection of 
the equipment file with border management. 

EU added value of the future Customs Control Equipment Fund 

The  Customs  Union  has  a  key  function,  not  only  in  view  of  its  traditional  role  of 
protection of the financial interests of the Union and its contribution to the Union budget 
as well as of trade facilitation, but also because customs authorities play a decisive role in 
the safety, security and border-management.  

Currently,  Customs  services  of  several  EU  Member  States  suffer  from  the  severe 
shortage  of  customs  control  equipment39:  53%  of  the  EU  Customs  BCPs  at  the  EU 
Eastern and South-Eastern Land Borders lack automated number plate/container number 
recognition systems (ANPRS) that would be needed for risk management; 46% of them 
lack  scanners  for  cargo  and  vehicle  inspection  of  trucks  and  wagons;  and  51%  lack 
personal hand control equipment. 

This lack of fundamental control equipment puts at risk the EU Internal Market and EU 
security and financial interests through: 

1.  Insufficient  protection  of  the  financial  interests  of  the  Union  and  its  Member 

States via the better collection of customs duties40;  

2.  Ineffective  fight  against  illegal  trade  and  reduced  facilitation  of  legal  trade 

processing; 

3.  Decreased  security  and  safety  of  the  EU  internal  market,  the  Union  and  its 

citizens and the protection of the environment. 

Supporting the creation of an adequate and equivalent level of protection of the Union's 
external  borders  for  goods  –  as  a  complement  to  existing  instruments  under  ISF  as 
regards persons – would thus contribute to a better functioning of the Customs Union. In 
view of the challenges facing the world, the EU and its Customs Union and in particular 
the continued need to ensure the security and safety, while securing revenues and easing 
the  flow  of  legitimate  trade,  the  availability  of  state-of-the-art  and  reliable  customs 
control equipment at the external borders is a must.  

The Agenda on Security has provided a clear framework for the Union and its Member 
States  to  address  better  together  security  concerns  and  was  the  basis  for  the  European 

39  

40  

2017  Customs  2020  Programme  activity  (Customs  Eastern  and  South  Eastern  land  Border  Expert  Team  – 
CELBET expert team  -  reports  in 2017). 
Council  report  11760/17  on  the  fight  against  excise  fraud  (8  September  2017)  noted  that  "according  to 
conservative  estimates,  tobacco  product  smuggling  costs  national  and  EU  budgets  more  than  10.2  billion 
EUR in lost public revenue annually". 

8 

 
                                                            
Council's endorsement of a renewed Internal Security Strategy, adopted on 16 June 2015. 
Its  priorities  focus  on  combatting  terrorism,  organised  crime  and  cybercrime,  and 
progress towards an effective and genuine Security Union. To combat terrorism, actions 
have  been  implemented  or  proposed  which  include  preventing  and  combatting 
radicalisation and terrorist financing, protecting public spaces and restricting the use of 
Chemical,  Biological,  Radiological,  Nuclear  and  Explosive  (CBRN-E)  materials, 
improving the controls on explosives precursors.  

To combat cybercrime, operational measures are complemented by proposals to build EU 
resilience  to  cyber-attacks,  creating  effective  EU  cyber  deterrence  and  strengthening 
international cooperation on cybersecurity, as well as improving the capacity to identify 
perpetrators  of  cybercrime  and  cyber-attacks.  The  EU  Policy  Cycle  for  serious  and 
organised crime is delivering a more coordinated strategic direction and implementation 
of joint operations of authorities in Member States.  

EU added value of the Internal Security Fund – Police  

ISF  Police  has  been  part  of  the  Union  response,  providing  Member  States  with  the 
opportunity  to  work  together  to  effectively  tackle  cross-border  crimes  and  risks, 
enhancing  cooperation  and  the  exchange  of  information  between  law  enforcement 
authorities in different Member States, and supporting the development of the necessary 
capabilities.  These  include  the  Secure  Information  Exchange  Network  Application 
(SIENA)41  used  by  Europol,  Member  States  and  third  parties,  the  exchange  of  DNA, 
fingerprinting  and  vehicle  registration  numbers  via  the  Prüm  Decision42,  the  continued 
development of the Universal Message  Format (UMF),  which offers important  benefits 
such  as  shorter  response  times  and  improved  data  quality,  or  the  creation  of  dedicated 
Passenger  Information  Units  in  the  context  of  the  Passenger  Name  Record  Directive 
(PNR)43, while also supporting the interoperability of different security systems in order 
to combat cross-border crime.  

ISF Police also co-funded successful actions to prevent and counter radicalisation, such 
as the Radicalisation Awareness Network (RAN)44 and the EU Internet Forum45. In the 
aftermath  of  the  terrorist  attacks  in  Paris  in  2015,  emergency  assistance  funding  has 
helped  to  put  in  place  a  digital  solution  to  process  large  amounts  of  surveillance  data, 
increasing the preparedness of the Union to possible new threats.  

Information systems for security, border and migration management  

Legislative acts have been adopted or proposed towards stronger and smarter information 
systems for security, border and migration management, making the data architecture of 
EU  information  systems  more  effective  and  efficient.  These  include  the  Entry  /  Exit 

41  

42  
43  
44  
45  

SIENA is managed by Europol and enables a swift and secure communication and exchange of operational 
and strategic crime-related information.   
Council Decision 2008/615/JHA of 23 June 2008 (OJ L 210, 6.8.2008, p. 1). 
Directive (EU) 2016/681 of 27 April 2016 (OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 132). 
The Radicalisation Awareness Network brings together practitioners on the prevention of radicalisation. 
Launched  in  December  2015,  it  brings  together  EU  Home  Affairs  Ministers  and  stakeholders  to  reduce 
accessibility to terrorist content online and empower civil society  partners to increase alternative narratives 
online. 

9 

 
                                                            
System (EES)46, the European Travel Information and Authorisation System (ETIAS)47, 
the  Schengen  Information  System  (SIS)48,  the  Automated  Fingerprint  Identification 
System  (AFIS),  Eurodac49,  the  European  Criminal  Records  Information  Exchange 
System  (ECRIS)50  and  Passenger  Name  Records  (PNR).  In  order  to  improve  the 
management of data in the area of security, border and migration management there is an 
increased need for the interoperability of these IT systems51. 

1.2  Lessons learned from previous programmes 

1.2.1  Key findings from evaluations of previous programmes 

The interim evaluations  of the Funds of the 2014-2020 programming period, as well as 
the ex-post evaluations of Funds under the 2007-2013 programming period (instruments 
under  the  "Solidarity  and  Management  of  Migration  Flows"  (SOLID)  Programme, 
"Prevention  of  and  fight  against  Crime"  (ISEC),  and  "Prevention,  Preparedness  and 
Consequence  Management  of  Terrorism  and  other  Security  related  risks"  (CIPS)) 
allowed  to  identify  the  findings  indicated  below.  The  added  value  of  the  Funds  having 
been outlined in the previous section, the following analysis will focus on the other key 
evaluation  criteria  of  relevance,  effectiveness,  efficiency  (including  simplification  and 
reduction of administrative burden) and coherence (including complementarity). 

1.2.1.1 Relevance, scope and size of the Instruments 

The  broad  scope  of  AMIF,  ISF  Borders  and  Visa  and  ISF  Police  ensured  they  could 
support  the  implementation  of  the  necessary  actions  needed  at  EU  level  in  the  home 
affairs  area.  Other  EU  Funds  contribute  to  migration,  border  management  and  security 
objectives within their scope of intervention. 

Due to the migratory and security crises significant budget reinforcements were needed, 
raising the available budget from EUR 6.9 billion for the 2014-2020 programming period 
to EUR 10.8 billion. Please find an overview of the Funds in the 2007-2013 and 2014-
2020 programming periods in Annex 3. 

The  possibility  to  provide  emergency  assistance  (through  direct  management)  has 
contributed  to  ensuring  the  relevance  of  the  Funds  by  increasing  their  flexibility  but  it 
was used at a significantly higher scale than originally intended, to respond adequately to 
the  unprecedented  large-scale  migratory  movements  and  security  challenges.  In  certain 
cases emergency assistance was also used to support actions that contribute to long-term 
capacity building.  

The interim evaluations also showed that even if the scope of the Fund was sufficiently 
broad  to  enable  the  implementation  of  the  necessary  actions  in  the  areas  of  external 
border  management  and  common  visa  policy,  as  regards  ISF  Police,  stakeholders 

46  
47  
48  
49  
50  
51  

Regulation (EU) 2017/2226 of 30 November 2017 (OJ L 327, 9.12.2017, p. 20). 
COM(2016) 731. 
COM(2016) 881, 882 and 883. 
COM(2016) 272. 
COM(2017) 344. 
COM(2017) 793 and COM(2017) 794. 

10 

 
                                                            
expressed  a  need  to  further  promote  the  external  dimension,  in  order  to  better  address 
global security threats. 

Furthermore, allocations being fixed at the beginning of the programming period, on the 
basis of statistical data, do not reflect changes in the needs of Member States during the 
implementation period. For example, the United Kingdom was the largest beneficiary of 
AMIF  based  on  pre-crisis  data,  while  in  fact  other  Member  States  (such  as  Germany) 
were most affected by the crisis. When providing additional financial support during the 
programming  period,  the  distribution  key  established  at  the  beginning  of  the 
programming period does not allow for flexibility, potentially affecting the effectiveness 
and  efficiency  of  the  Funds.  For  example,  when  allocating  funding  to  implement  the 
PNR Directive under ISF Police, France received double the funding needed while other 
Member  States  received  much  less  funding  than  needed.  More  flexibility  would  be 
needed  as  far  as  the  implementation  of  national  programmes  is  concerned  and  a 
distribution  system  should  be  adaptable  in  order  to  ensure  an  appropriate  response  to 
changing needs. 

1.2.1.2  Effectiveness 

The  interim  evaluations  show  that  AMIF  and  ISF  are  considered  as  effective, 
contributing to their objectives although the migration and security crisis impacted their 
effectiveness,  since  the  challenges  they  needed  to  address  increased.  The  possibility  to 
the 
use  emergency  assistance  was  generally  highlighted  as  crucial 
responsiveness of the Funds in changing circumstances.  

to  ensure 

Both the ex-post evaluations of the 2007-2013 Funds and the interim evaluations of the 
current  Funds  show  that  a  mix  of  delivery  modes  in  the  areas  of  migration,  border 
management  and  security  allowed  for  an effective  way  to  achieve  the  objectives  of  the 
Funds. The holistic design of the delivery mechanisms should be maintained. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  evaluations  point  to  the  lack  of  flexibility,  to  be  balanced  with 
predictability  as  Responsible  Authorities  and  beneficiaries  need  financial  and  legal 
certainty to plan the implementation of the Fund throughout the programming period, as 
a  limitation  to  their  effectiveness.  Although  the  ISF  Borders  and  Visa  Regulation 
includes  a  financial  envelope  to  be  distributed  across  the  national  programmes  in  the 
framework  of  the  mid-term  review,  this  was  not  foreseen  in  the  AMIF  and  ISF  Police 
Regulations,  limiting  the  possibility  to  provide  additional  funding  to  the  national 
programmes. Another limitation relates to the fact that the mid-term review can only be 
used at a pre-defined time during the implementation period. The migration and security 
crises  have  shown  that  flexibility  was  needed  from  the  beginning  of  the  programming 
period onwards to be able to react to changes on the ground. 

The interim evaluations also note the need for a clear intervention logic,  and that more 
focused national programmes  would increase the effectiveness by allowing  to prioritise 
some  objectives,  and  the  importance  of  a  full  monitoring  and  evaluation  system. 
Designed  at  an  early  stage,  it  ensures  a  consistent  and  uniform  monitoring  of  progress 
and effectiveness from the outset. The shortcomings of the SOLID Funds in this respect 
(absence of mechanisms common to all Member States, with baselines and targets) have 

11 

 
been largely addressed in AMIF and ISF. Common indicators for shared management are 
used  and a common  monitoring and evaluation framework  (CMEF) has been  designed. 
However, the interim evaluations also show that it was established late and needed to be 
improved,  also  as  regards  baseline  values  and  the  clarity  of  the  indicators.  This  would 
allow  for  better  tracking  of  the  intended  results  and  informing  any  future  revisions  of 
policy interventions, both under shared and direct management. 

1.2.1.3  Efficiency (including simplification and reduction of administrative burden) 

The  interim  evaluations  emphasise  that  stakeholders  have  noted  progress  in  the 
simplification  of  the  procedures,  especially  as  regards  the  programming  phase  (ISF 
Borders  and  Visa),  less  though  as  regards  AMIF  and  ISF  Police.  Innovative  measures 
(simplified cost options, multiannual programming) are considered beneficial. Although 
the late adoption of the legal bases and the need to complete the programming exercise of 
the national programmes as well as the designation of authorities, as set out in those legal 
bases, have delayed the implementation of the Funds, overall implementation seems on 
track. Establishing common rules on the implementation of AMIF and ISF (through the 
Horizontal  Regulation52),  has  supported  the  management  of  the  three  funding 
instruments, leading to close cooperation between – and in some cases the unification of 
– the entities responsible for the management of the two Funds. 

Furthermore, a number of changes compared to the previous programming period were 
introduced  and  have  simplified  the  management  of  the  programmes:  multiannual 
programming  (the  ex-post  evaluations  of  the  SOLID  programmes  had  shown  that 
annual programming provided insufficient predictability for Member States and resulted 
in  a  high  administrative  burden,  both  for  the  managing  authorities  and  for  the 
Commission),  a  simplified  Management  and  Control  System  (the  involvement  of  a 
separate  Certifying  Authority  is  no  longer  required),  increased  alignment  with  rules 
applicable  to  other  EU  shared  management  Funds;  Simplified  Cost  Options  were 
introduced,  and  more  flexibility  granted  to  Member  States  to  set  up  the  rules  on  the 
eligibility of expenditure. 

However,  the  administrative  burden  is  still  perceived  to  be  too  high  by  both  managing 
authorities and beneficiaries, undermining the efficiency of the Funds. For example, even 
though  the  use  of  national  eligibility  rules  has  the  potential  to  reduce  administrative 
burden,  eligibility  rules  that  are  applied  at  times  remain  too  heavy.  Simplified  Cost 
Options  are  not  applied  to  the  full  extent.  Several  stakeholders  indicated  that  the 
introduction  of  national  eligibility  rules  did  not  simplify  the  implementation  of  the 
Funds. 

There  is  also  a  relatively  high  administrative  burden  for  both  Member  States  and  the 
Commission in the provision of emergency assistance through direct management. This 
entails setting up a detailed grant agreement in a short period of time and more detailed 
reporting  requirements  towards  the  Commission  for  the  beneficiaries  (compared  to 
shared management). 

52  

Regulation (EU) No 514/2014 of 16 April 2014 (OJ L 150, 20.5.2014, p. 112). 

12 

 
                                                            
The interim evaluations also show the need for a sufficient level of technical assistance to 
facilitate  the  successful  management  of  the  Funds  and  for  further  efforts  to  simplify 
access to the Funds for potential beneficiaries by providing information regarding actions 
and funding opportunities.  

Furthermore,  the  current  reporting  system  would  not  allow  for  adequately  tracking 
investments  in  the  Union's  policy  priorities  and  there  is  no  mechanism  aiming  at 
improving  performance,  such  as,  for  example,  a  system  of  incentives  which  would 
further  improve  the  effectiveness  and  efficiency  of  the  Funds.  In  the  absence  of  such 
mechanism, Member States that perform well in the implementation of the Funds could 
not  be  rewarded.  This  could  have  increased  the  effectiveness  of  the  Funds  to  achieve 
their objectives.  

1.2.1.4  Coherence (including complementarity) 

The  ex-post  evaluations  of  SOLID  indicate  that  some  Member  States  reported  that 
complementarities  could  be  improved  with  the  European  Social  Fund  as  regards 
integration measures, and with the external instruments as regards reintegration activities. 

The implementation of the current Funds shows that steps undertaken during the design, 
planning and programming stages  have facilitated their coherence and complementarity 
with  other  EU  funding  instruments.  The  format  of  the  Funds  (national  programmes 
aiming  at  long  term  capacities,  emergency  assistance  aiming  at  alleviating  immediate 
pressure  and  Union  Actions  designed  to  support  transnational  cooperation)  was 
considered  as  positive.  Nevertheless,  ensuring  coherence  and  synergies  remains 
challenging  in  three  main  areas:  supporting  asylum  and  integration  objectives  through 
ESIF,  supporting  border  management,  return  and  reintegration  measures  as  well  as 
developing protection systems in third countries and, finally, ensuring coherence between 
the interventions of EU Funds in the area of security. 

The  interim  evaluations  emphasise  the  importance  to  ensure  complementarity  of 
emergency  assistance  with 
the  respective  national  programmes  and  other  EU 
programmes from the start, and during implementation. In the  case of ISF Borders and 
Visa for example, complementarity should be increased at implementation stage. Overall, 
further efforts are needed to improve cooperation, coordination and strategic steering in 
the implementation of AMIF and ISF with other EU level initiatives. 

1.2.2 

Consultation activities 

In the context of this Impact Assessment the Commission has undertaken a broad range 
of consultation activities in order to assess how well the existing programmes  meet the 
needs in the areas of migration and security and how they could be improved to address 
future challenges and adequately support the Union's objectives in these areas.  

Two dedicated open public consultations ran from 10 January 2018 to 9 March 2018 on 
EU  funds  in  the  area  of  migration  and  on  EU  funds  in  the  area  of  security.  Overall, 
respondents strongly supported the need for simplification in the delivery of home affairs 
Funds,  greater  flexibility  (specifically  in  relation  to  the  ability  to  respond  to  migration 
and  security  related  crises),  and  for  increased  funding  and  support  in  areas  with  strong 

13 

 
responsibility-sharing (asylum and border management) and/or high level of cooperation 
between Member States, as well as cooperation with Home Affairs Agencies. Responses 
demonstrate that through these measures the effectiveness and efficiency of instruments 
can  be  improved  and  the  EU  added  value  enhanced.  The  need  for  greater  home  affairs 
policy leverage in third countries was also indicated by stakeholders. A summary of the 
consultation results is provided in Annex 2.  

Consultations with Member States and Schengen Associated Countries took place in the 
framework of the AMIF-ISF Committee53. Member States provided  inputs on the main 
funding priorities, problems, the architecture of the Funds and delivery modes. Other key 
stakeholders,  including  beneficiaries  of  AMIF  and  ISF  through  direct  and  indirect 
management, such as international organisations and civil society organisations were also 
consulted, as well as Home Affairs Agencies. 

Stakeholders concurred that in order to maximise EU added value, EU spending should 
reflect  Union  level  priorities  and  policy  commitments  and  should  support  the 
implementation  of  the  Union  home  affairs  acquis.  Stakeholders  called  for  sufficient 
funding to be made available to face current and newly emerging challenges. Sufficient 
funding should also be made available for the Home Affairs Agencies, in line with their 
increasing  activities.  Stakeholders  agreed  on  the  need  for  more  flexibility  embedded 
within the structure of the Funds. They found that, in order to retain sufficient flexibility 
to  be  able  to  react  to  changing  circumstances,  the  multiannual  national  programme 
should  be  maintained.  Non-governmental  organisations  (NGOs)  were  of  the  view  that 
direct management should also be continued.  

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

Specific consultations as regards the new CCE fund 

As a new component under the Integrated Border Management Fund, CCE cannot benefit 
directly  from  lessons  learned  from  evaluations  of  past  experience.  However,  in  the 
context  of  the  study  on  the  post-2020  customs  programme  the  needs  and  challenges  as 
regards customs control equipment were examined. In particular, a dedicated survey and 
specific  interviews  and  case  studies  were  performed.  An  overall  open  public 
consultation also took place from 10 January 2018 to 9 March 2018 on EU funds in the 
area of investment, research & innovation, SMEs and single market, which addressed the 
customs aspects as well and inter alia. A summary of all these contributions is provided 
in Annex 2. 

All these activities confirmed the diagnostic, need for Union action and expected strong 
EU added value. Indeed, the ever growing volumes of goods together with the increasing 
need  for  efficient  and  swift  border  control  are  underpinned  not  only  by  the  traditional 

53  

Comprised of the representatives of the Responsible Authorities for the AMIF and ISF national programmes. 

14 

 
                                                            
function of customs to collect revenue but also by the necessity to extensively reinforce 
the  control  of  goods  entering  and  exiting  EU  external  borders  to  ensure  safety  and 
security. At the same time, these controls governing the movement of goods across the 
external borders should not impair but rather facilitate legitimate trade. Customs control 
equipment is an essential element for fulfilling these objectives and there is accordingly 
an  urgent  need  to  foresee  a  dedicated  EU  instrument  aimed  at  addressing  current 
imbalances and thereby ensuring a uniform application of customs rules at EU borders. 

2  THE CHALLENGES  

2.1  The main challenges to be addressed in the post-2020 MFF 

From  the  evaluation  and  consultation  activities  outlined  in  section  1.2,  the  main 
challenges  to  be  addressed  in  the  post-2020  MFF  are  identified  in  this  section.  The 
interim evaluations plead for continuity in the objectives and structure of the Funds. The 
main  challenges  are  the  cross-cutting  challenges  for  the  MFF,  relating  to  flexibility, 
simplification,  coherence  and  complementarity,  and  achieving  the  highest  EU  added 
value. Changes in the objectives and structure of the Funds are presented in section 3. 

2.2  Enhancing flexibility within a stable framework 

The  constantly  evolving  challenges  in  the  areas  of  migration,  border  management  and 
security  require  increasing  the  flexibility  in  the  management  of  the  Funds  when 
compared to AMIF and ISF. New mechanisms for the allocation of funding for shared, 
direct and indirect management will be needed to address new challenges and priorities. 

Currently,  the  largest  share  of  AMIF  and  ISF  is  implemented  through  shared 
management54,  where  a  national  programme  is  approved  by  the  Commission  for  the 
2014-2020  programming  period.  Basic  allocations  to  the  participating  States  are 
calculated  on  the  basis  of  2008  to  2012  statistics.  While  the  ISF  Borders  and  Visa 
Regulation  provides  for  an  additional  envelope  to  be  distributed  across  the  national 
programmes as a result of the mid-term review55, the AMIF and ISF Police Regulations 
do not have such a provision. For an overview of the current allocations under AMIF and 
ISF, please refer to Annex 3. 

54  

55  

In the current Funds up to 76%, or EUR 8.2 billion, of the available funding is implemented through shared 
management,  through  multiannual  national  programmes  implemented  by  Member  States.  The  remaining 
24%, or EUR 2.6 billion, of the funding envelope is implemented through direct and indirect management. 
This  funding  is  implemented  via  two  mechanisms:  Union  Actions,  which  are  transnational  actions  for  the 
benefit of the Union as a whole, and emergency assistance, which complements the national programmes of 
Member States having significant funding needs and which has been instrumental during the crisis years to 
address  urgent  and  short-term  needs.  Due  to  the  situation  on  the  ground,  the  support  provided  through 
emergency  assistance  increased  significantly  from  EUR  32  million  in  2014  to  EUR  956  million  as  per  30 
April 2018. Indirect management represents a small share of the current Funds, with approximately EUR 60 
million allocated through Union Actions and EUR 80 million allocated through emergency assistance. 
Article 6(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 515/2014. 

15 

 
                                                            
To  provide  additional  funding  under  shared  management,  funding  must  be  distributed 
across  all  national  programmes  in  accordance  with  the  original  distribution  key,  or  be 
based on Specific Actions or lump sum payments56. 

A new mechanism should address the lack of flexibility related to the static distribution 
key  and  be  available  throughout  the  programming  period.  It  should  also  allow  for  an 
adequate level of predictability, since the Responsible Authorities and beneficiaries need 
financial  and  legal  certainty  to  plan  the  implementation  of  the  Fund  throughout  the 
programming period. 

Mechanisms  will  also  be  needed  to  allocate  funding  in  such  a  way  that  enables  further 
incentivising Member States to implement Union policy priorities. Shared management 
has proven to be an effective delivery mechanism to Member States in maintaining and 
improving  migration  management  and  the  response  to  security  challenges  on  national 
level,  in  line  with  the  specific  needs  of  Member  States.  However,  programmes 
implemented by Member States under shared management have not always allowed the 
Commission  to  ensure  that  funding  was  steered  towards  Union  priorities  to  the  extent 
necessary. 

Finally,  the  possibility  to  provide  emergency  assistance  under  AMIF  and  ISF  has 
increased  the  capacity  of  the  Funds  to  react  to  unforeseen  circumstances.  Emergency 
assistance  is  implemented  through  direct  management  only.  Future  mechanisms  should 
retain the possibility to provide emergency assistance while reducing the administrative 
burden  of  managing  such  assistance  and  facilitating  the  coordination  with  actions 
supported through the national programmes. 

2.3  Further simplifying the rules for implementing EU Funds 

The architecture of AMIF and ISF addressed findings from the ex-post evaluations of the 
SOLID Funds. Establishing common rules, the Horizontal Regulation has facilitated the 
implementation  of  the  three  instruments  and  simplified  the  management  of  the  Funds. 
Nevertheless,  the  evaluations  also  find  that  there  is  further  room  for  improvement  for 
simplifying  the  implementation  of  the  Funds,  notably  by  ensuring  a  coherent  approach 
with  rules  applicable  to  the  management  of  other  EU  Funds  and  by  ensuring  the 
eligibility rules under shared management make full use of simplified cost options. 

2.4  Ensuring  more  coherence  and  synergies  between  actions  supported  by  EU 

funding instruments 

Findings from the ex-post evaluations and the interim evaluations of AMIF and ISF show 
that there is still  potential for improving the coherence between actions  in a number of 
areas. 

In the field of asylum and integration, establishing the necessary shifting of resources in 
the  programmes  of  Member  States  under  ESIF  to  include  new  priorities  relating  to 
asylum and integration has proven challenging (through shared management). 

56  

These lump-sums are provided in accordance with Articles 17 and 18 of Regulation (EU) No 516/2014. 

16 

 
                                                            
As  regards  the  external  dimension,  certain  areas  of  support  with  regard  to  border 
protection,  pre-integration,  return  and  reintegration  measures  as  well  as  developing 
protection systems in third countries could not be fully covered by the different funding 
instruments.  Accompanying  measures  in  third  countries  which  support  the  Union’s 
efforts to protect its borders and enhance sustainable returns could not be fully covered.  

While  the  available resources  in  AMIF  and  ISF  for  actions  with  an external  dimension 
have  been  limited,  the  Union’s  external  financing  instruments  were  in  some  cases  not 
fully optimal for different reasons. Available allocations for migration could not, at least 
initially,  meet  the  increased  needs  in  partner  countries  and  fragmentation  exists  among 
the  available  external  action  instruments.  This  was  to  a  certain  extent  mitigated  by 
pooling  resources  into  EU  Trust  Funds  and  using  an  integrated  and  holistic  approach. 
Given  the  limited  allocations  available  to  migration,  priority  was  given  to  capacity 
building support over large scale investment in equipment and infrastructure. In addition, 
according  to  the  Financial  Regulation,  entities  that  subsequently  implement  EU  Funds 
must  undergo  a  prior  assessment  to  ensure  they  fulfil  a  number  of  criteria  such  as 
International  Organisations,  third  countries,  development  agencies  of  Member  States  or 
civil  society  organisations.  While  the  possibility  to  access  such  funding  is  open  for  all 
agencies  of  EU  Member  States,  mainly  development  agencies  have  opted  for  this 
possibility and it is therefore more difficult to provide funding to others, for example to 
assist  services  of  Member  States  needing  support  to  return  irregular  migrants.  As  a 
consequence, the implementation modalities of the external financing instruments did not 
always allow for an adequate response to the Union’s increased needs in third countries 
as regards migration and security.  

Since 2015, allocations for migration management have increased in programmes under 
the  external  financing  instruments,  for  instance  under  the  Development  Cooperation 
Instrument (DCI) in Asia and with the creation of the EU Emergency Trust Fund (EUTF) 
for  Africa57,  which  has  improved  the  situation  by  increasing  the  available  financial 
support  and  streamlining  implementation.  However,  the  EUTF  for  Africa  has  a  limited 
geographical coverage58 and while its use has significantly speeded up the delivery times 
compared to standard external action funding, a certain period of time is still required for 
the coordination with beneficiary partner countries, implementing partners, including EU 
Member State agencies and the signature of contracts.   

Key security priorities, such as security infrastructure, the prevention of and fight against 
radicalisation, cybercrime or the protection of public spaces are also partially covered by 
other EU Funds than ISF Police. As the evaluations show, coverage by other EU Funds 

57  

58  

Established  at  the  Valletta  Summit  on  Migration  in  November  2015,  the  EUTF  for  Africa  was  created  to 
address the root causes of instability, forced displacement and irregular migration and to contribute to better 
migration  management.  The  Valletta  Summit  brought  together  European  and  African  Heads  of  State  and 
Government  in  an  effort  to  strengthen  cooperation  and  address  the  current  challenges  but  also  the 
opportunities of migration. 
The  EUTF  was  created  to  support  the  priorities  of  the  Valletta  Declaration  and  its  Action  Plan,  which 
included clearly identified countries, i.e. the main origin and transit countries in Africa. It identifies eligible 
countries in Africa, encompassing the major migration routes to Europe; the Sahel region and Lake Chad, the 
Horn of Africa and the North of Africa. 

17 

 
                                                            
within  their  scope  of  intervention,  clear  dividing  lines  and  coordination  mechanisms 
leave  room  for  improving  the  efficiency  of  allocating  resources  and  targeting 
interventions in these areas. 

Finally, there will also be a need to ensure better coherence and complementarity of the 
new  customs  control  equipment  funding  programme  with  other  EU  Programmes  and 
Funds,  in  particular  with  the  Customs  programme  and  the  new  Single  Anti-Fraud 
Programme that also address challenges related to customs policy and the protection of 
the Union’s financial interests.  

2.5  Achieving the highest level of EU added value with a focus on performance 

Evaluations  show  that  the  scope  of  the  Funds  is  adequate  to  support  activities  that 
maximise the EU added value in their areas of intervention. However, ensuring that the 
Funds  support  the  implementation  of  the  policy  priorities  of  the  Union  will  require 
improving  the  monitoring  and  evaluation  framework  in  a  way  which  also  supports  a 
strengthened  performance  based  management.  To  do  so,  the  monitoring  and  evaluation 
framework needs to be established at the beginning of the programming period in order 
to facilitate a swift start and indicators should allow for better measuring the performance 
of  national  programmes,  with  a  view  to  monitor  EU  added  value.  There  is  a  need  to 
better  enable  tracking  of  whether  the  Funds  deliver  the  intended  results  and  informing 
any future revisions of policy interventions, both under direct and shared management. In 
addition, a new monitoring and evaluation framework will need to be established for the 
new customs control equipment component of the IBMF.  

3  ARCHITECTURE OF THE FUNDS AND OBJECTIVES 

3.1  The EU’s right to act and the necessity for the EU to act 

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

  External borders and common policy on visa (in particular Article 77(2) TFEU); 
  Common  policy  on  asylum,  subsidiary  protection  and  temporary  protection, 
including the partnership and cooperation with third countries (Article 78 TFEU); 
  Common  immigration  policy  and  return  policy,  including  the  conclusion  of 
readmission agreements with third countries (in particular Article 79(2), (3) and 
(4) TFEU); 

  Judicial cooperation in criminal matters (in particular Article 82(1) TFEU); 
  Crime prevention (Article 84 TFEU); 
  Measures regarding police cooperation (in particular Article 87(2) TFEU); 
  Cooperation  with  third  countries  and  the  competent  international  organisations 

(Article 212(3) TFEU). 

In addition, the EU’s right to act as regards customs control equipment derives from:  

  Customs cooperation (in particular Article 33 TFEU); 
 
Internal Market (in particular Article 114 TFEU); and 

18 

 
  Commercial Policy (in particular Article 207 TFEU).  

The  challenges  in  the  areas  of  asylum,  migration,  the  management  of  the  external 
borders,  the  prevention  of  and  fight  against  serious  and  organised  crime,  terrorism  and 
other security-related risks are by their nature interlinked, transnational phenomena and 
cannot be adequately addressed by the Member States acting alone. 

The abolition of internal border controls must be accompanied by common measures for 
the  effective  control  and  surveillance  of  the  Union’s  external  borders  as  well  as  a 
common  asylum  and  migration  policy.  This  is  necessary  in  order  to  preserve  the 
Schengen area as an area without internal border controls, preventing and addressing any 
secondary  movements.  Article  80  TFEU  states  that  the  common  policies  on  asylum, 
migration and external borders are based on the principle of solidarity and fair sharing of 
responsibilities between Member States. EU funding is the mechanism which gives effect 
to the financial implications of this principle. In addition, the integrated management of 
the Union’s external borders and the completion of a Common European Asylum System 
are  the  most  effective  ways  to  fairly  share  these  responsibilities  and  their  financial 
implications  between  Member  States.  Finally,  EU  funding  in  the  area  of  integration  of 
third-country nationals is indispensable to increase the quality of support to newcomers 
in  the  early  stages  after  their  arrival,  which  is  a  crucial  component  of  the  strategy  to 
ensure their full inclusion in the European societies in the long run.  

The  EU  is  designed  to  create  an  area  of  freedom,  security  and  justice,  without  internal 
borders for its citizens. In an era where terrorism and other serious crime operate across 
borders, both the EU and its Member States have a responsibility towards their citizens to 
deliver  an  area  of  security  where  individuals  are  protected,  in  full  compliance  with  the 
Charter  of  Fundamental  Rights  of  the  European  Union59.  In  this  regard,  the  Treaties 
envisage  the  need  to  ensure  a  high  level  of  security,  including  through  preventive 
measures,  and  through  coordination  and  cooperation  between  police,  judicial  and  other 
competent  authorities.  Member  States  have  the  frontline  responsibility  for  security,  but 
cannot address transnational threats effectively acting on their own. The tools need to be 
built  at  European  level  through  which  national  authorities  and,  where  relevant, 
International Organisations can effectively work together to tackle shared challenges; an 
effective  and  genuine  Security  Union  in  which  the  rights  and  freedoms  of  citizens  are 
well protected.  

Finally, the current imbalances at EU external  borders as regards customs controls – as 
identified  through  consultations  –  cannot  be  addressed  individually  by  each  Member 
State. The EU Customs Union is only as strong as its weakest point. And this is all the 
more  important  when  it  comes  to  controls.  Disparity  in  available  control  equipment 
allows  customs  "shopping",  i.e.  creates  opportunities  for  ill-intentioned  citizens  or 
economic  operators  to  identify  the  weakest  BCPs  for  their  malpractices.  A  coordinated 
approach  among  Member  States  per  category  of  BCP  (land,  sea,  air,  postal  hubs)  is 

59  

OJ C 326/02, 26.10.2012, p. 391. 

19 

 
                                                            
therefore  necessary.  Such  a  high  degree  of  cooperation  and  coordination  can  only  be 
achieved with a centralised approach, ideally at Union level.  

3.2  Architecture of the Funds: the Asylum and Migration Fund, the Integrated Border 

Management Fund and the Internal Security Fund  

The future Funds are the Asylum and Migration Fund (AMF), the Internal Security Fund 
(ISF)  and  the  Integrated  Border  Management  Fund  (IBMF),  consisting  of  two 
components;  the  Border  Management  and  Visa  (BMVI)  component  and  the  Customs 
Control  Equipment  (CCE)  component.  Due  to  the  Treaty  provisions  that  apply  to  the 
home  affairs  area,  in  particular  different  voting  rules  in  the  Council  stemming  from 
variable geometry pursuant to Protocols 19 (on the Schengen acquis), 21 (on the position 
of  the  United  Kingdom  and  Ireland  in  respect  of  the  area  of  Freedom,  Security  and 
Justice) and 22 (on the position of Denmark, including in relation to Title V, part three of 
the  Treaty),  the  creation  of  the  Funds  requires  the  adoption  of  four  separate  legislative 
instruments.  Implementing  rules  for  shared  management,  currently  set-out  in  the 
Horizontal  Regulation,  will  be  included  in  the  future  Common  Provisions  Regulation 
(CPR)60.  

3.2.1  Asylum and Migration Fund 

The  interim  evaluation  of  the  current  AMIF  indicates  that  the  scope  of  the  Fund  is 
sufficiently broad to support the implementation of Union policy priorities, providing EU 
added value. The objectives of the Asylum and Migration Fund are based on this scope 
of intervention. It enables support for actions in the external dimension, complementary 
to  support  provided  by  the  external  Funds,  and  caters  to  specific  needs  of  vulnerable 
groups, such as victims of trafficking in human beings and children in migration.  

The general objective of the Asylum and Migration Fund will be to contribute to an 
efficient  management of  migration  flows, in  line with  the  Union acquis on asylum and 
migration and in compliance with the Union’s commitments on fundamental rights. The 
Regulation establishing the  Asylum and Migration Fund is based on Articles  78(2) and 
79(2) and (4) TFEU. 

The specific objectives of the Fund will be the following: 

  Strengthen and develop all aspects of the Common European Asylum System, 

including its external dimension;  

  Support  legal  migration  to  the  Member  States  and  contribute  to  the  
integration of third-country nationals. Integration measures will be focused on 
promoting  early  integration  measures  for  the  social  and  economic  inclusion  of 
third-country  nationals,  preparing  their  active  participation  to  the  receiving 
society,  their  acceptance  by  the receiving  society  and  their  social  and  economic 

60  

In  order  to  ensure  a  coherent  set  of  implementing  rules  for  the  EU  Funds  implemented  under  shared 
management,  such  implementing  rules  should  be  established  through  a  common  Regulation.  For  more 
information, please refer to section 4.1.3.1. 

20 

 
                                                            
inclusion, in particular with the involvement of local or regional actors and civil-
society organisations; 

  Contribute  to  countering  irregular  migration  and  ensure  sustainability  of 

return and effective readmission in third countries. 

The  scope  of  intervention  of  the  current  Asylum,  Migration  and  Integration  Fund  will 
remain  similar  in  the  new  instrument61.  However,  in  order  to  better  reflect  policy 
priorities set out in the European Agenda on Migration, the future AMF will have three 
specific  objectives:  asylum,  legal  migration  and  integration,  and  return.  The  separate 
specific objective of  the current AMIF on solidarity and responsibility sharing between 
Member  States  would  be  integrated  under  specific  objective  1  of  the  future  AMF 
(asylum),  incorporating  resettlement  and  relocation  to  reflect  policy  and  legislative 
initiatives,  namely  the  Union  Resettlement  Framework  and  the  Dublin  reform.  New 
Union  competences  following  the  reform  of  the  Common  European  Asylum  System 
would be supported through the Fund. 

There  are  minor  adaptations  to  the  priorities  and  actions  supported  to  reflect  policy 
developments and synergies and complementarities with other EU Funds. These are: 

1)  Resettlement:  the  possibility  for  financing  national  resettlement  schemes  under 
the  national  programmes  to  reflect  the  results  of  the  negotiations  on  the  Union 
Resettlement Framework; 

2)  Integration  of  third-country  nationals:  AMF  would  prioritise  early  integration 
measures  whereas  the  future  ESF+  would  cater  for  their  long-term  integration 
(please refer to section 3.3 for more information); 

3)  External  dimension  –  legal  migration  and  pre-departure  measures:  possibility  to 
support  the  development  of  migration  mobility  schemes  to  the  EU  (i.e.  circular 
and temporary migration schemes) through national programmes; 

4)  External  dimension  –  return:  possibility  to  support  actions  in  third  countries 
including  on  infrastructure,  equipment  and  other  measures  provided  these 
contribute  to  effective  cooperation  between  third  countries  and  the  EU  and  its 
Member States on return and readmission. 

AMF would introduce a higher EU co-financing rate (up to 90%) as a way to incentivise 
Member  States  to  take  action  for  some  strategic  priorities  such  as  alternatives  to 
detention,  protection  of  children  and  measures  targeting  vulnerable  persons  as  well  as 
integration  measures  implemented  by  local  and  regional  authorities  as  well  as  civil 
society  organisations.  The  arrival  of  migrants,  particularly  when  high  numbers  are 
concerned,  has  an  immediate  effect  on  the  local  infrastructure,  provision  of  services, 
housing,  education,  healthcare,  family  benefits,  job  search,  or  transport,  and  budget  of 
regional  and  local  authorities.  The  arrival  of  asylum  seekers  in  recent  years  has  added 
further  pressure  on  local  authorities  to  cater  for  their  reception  and  integration.  In 
addition, migrants are usually concentrated in urban areas. Providing the possibility of a 
higher EU co-financing rate for integration measures implemented by local and regional 

61  

For a comparison between the objectives of the future Funds and the objectives of the current Home Affairs 
Funds, please refer to Annex 5. 

21 

 
                                                            
authorities as well as civil society organisations  would increase the effectiveness of the 
Fund,  as  the  development  of  national  integration  policies  would  be  complemented  by 
sufficient support for integration measures at regional and local level. 

3.2.2 

Integrated Border Management Fund 

The  Integrated  Border  Management  Fund  will  consist  of  two  components.  The 
component  for  Border  Management  and  Visa  supports  measures  related  to  external 
border  management  and  the  common  policy  on  visa.  The  component  for  Customs 
Control  Equipment  supports  enhancing  customs  controls  through  the  financing  of  the 
purchase,  maintenance  and  evolution  of  customs  control  equipment.  These  components 
are established through:  

  A Regulation establishing, as part of the Integrated Border Management Fund, the 
instrument  for  financial  support  for  border  management,  based  on  Article  77(2) 
and 79(2)(d) TFEU; 

  A Regulation establishing, as part of the Integrated Border Management Fund, the 
instrument for financial support for customs control equipment, based on Articles 
33, 114 and 207 TFEU. 

The  general  objective  of  the  Integrated  Border  Management  Fund  –  Border 
Management and Visa, will be to contribute to guaranteeing a high level of security in 
the  Union  by  ensuring  strong  and  effective  integrated  border  management  while 
safeguarding the free movement of persons within it, in full compliance with the Union's 
commitments on fundamental rights. 

The specific objectives of the Fund will be the following: 

  Supporting  effective  European  integrated  border  management  implemented 
by  the  European  Border  and  Coast  Guard  (consisting  of  the  Member  States 
and the EU Agency) to facilitate legitimate border crossings, to prevent and detect 
illegal  immigration  and cross-border  crime  and  to  effectively  manage  migratory 
flows; 

  Supporting  the  common  visa  policy  to  facilitate  legitimate  travel  and  prevent 

migratory and security risks. 

The objectives of the  BMVI are based on the scope of ISF Borders and Visa, which is 
considered  sufficiently  broad  to  support  the  implementation  of  Union  policy  priorities, 
providing EU added value.  

There  are  minor  adaptations  to  the  priorities  and  actions  supported  to  reflect  policy 
developments and synergies and complementarities with other EU Funds: 

1)  The scope of the Fund takes into account recent policy developments, such as the 
modernisation and digitalisation of the common policy on visas and the setting up 
of new interoperable large-scale IT systems; 

2)  A  bigger  emphasis  is  foreseen  for  EU  added  value  projects,  including  through 
financial  incentives,  such  as  higher  co-financing  rates  for  projects  under  the 
national programmes which support strategic Union priorities, or top-up funding 

22 

 
for Member States that initiate transnational projects of benefit to the Union as a 
whole; 

3)  There  is  a  strong  focus  on  supporting  capacity  building  and  functioning  of  the 
newly created European Border and Coast Guard as well as moving towards the 
uniform application of the relevant Schengen acquis as regards borders and visa.   

This includes conditionalities ensuring that: 

  Equipment purchased with the support of the Fund is put at the disposal of 

the Agency for an adequate amount of time; 

  Trainings supported by the Fund are implemented in line with the relevant 

uniform European standards; 

  Recommendations  or  deficiencies  stemming  from  quality  control 
mechanisms  (such  as  the  Scheval  mechanism  and  the  European  Border 
and  Coast  Guard  Agency's  vulnerability  assessment)  are  addressed  with 
the support of the Fund.  

In view of the specific legal basis under the Treaties, a second legislative instrument will 
be  necessary  for  establishing  the  new  Customs  Control  Equipment  component  of  the 
IBMF. 

The  general  objective  of  the  Integrated  Border  Management  Fund  –  Customs 
Control  Equipment  will  be  to  support  the  customs  union  and  customs  authorities  to 
protect  the  financial  and  economic  interests  of  the  Union  and  its  Member  States,  to 
ensure  security  and  safety  within  the  Union  and  to  protect  the  Union  from  unfair  and 
illegal trade while facilitating legitimate business activity. 

The  specific  objective  of  the  Fund  will  be  to  contribute  to  adequate  and  equivalent 
customs controls through the purchase, maintenance and upgrade of relevant, state-
of-the-art and reliable customs control equipment. 

The creation of two instruments under one Fund will ensure strong synergies between the 
two Funds and will support Member States' capacities at the external borders as regards 
strengthening the control on persons and goods. 

3.2.3 

Internal Security Fund  

The Internal Security Fund will support measures ensuring a high level of security in the 
Union  especially  by  tackling  and  preventing  serious  crime  with  a  cross-border 
dimension,  such  as  terrorism  and  radicalisation,  organised  crime,  corruption  and 
cybercrime, and by assisting and protecting victims of crime. The Regulation establishing 
the Internal Security Fund is based on Articles 81(2), 82(1), 84 and 87(2) TFEU. 

The general objective of the Internal Security Fund will be to contribute to ensuring a 
high level of security in the Union, in particular by tackling terrorism and radicalisation, 
serious and organised crime and cybercrime, and by assisting and protecting victims of 
crime. 

23 

 
 
 
The specific objectives of the Fund will be the following: 

 

 

Increase the exchange of information among and within the EU law enforcement 
and other competent authorities and other relevant Union bodies, as well as with 
third countries and international organisations; 
Intensify  cross-border  joint  operations  among  and  within  the  EU  law 
enforcement and other competent authorities in relation to serious and organised 
crime with a cross-border dimension; 

  Support effort at strengthening the capabilities to combat and prevent crime 

including terrorism, in particular through increased cooperation.  

The objectives of the Internal Security Fund are based on the scope of ISF Police, which 
is considered sufficiently broad. Its scope will be enlarged as it will also include the non-
health related demand side of drugs, taking over a part of the drugs component of the 
Justice  Programme62.  This  change  in  scope  enables  further  synergies  between  actions 
supported  through  ISF  Police  and  actions  supported  through  the  current  anti-drugs 
component. It brings together support for the reduction of drug supply in one Instrument. 
Actions that support the reduction of drug demand, in its health related aspects, fall under 
the  scope  of  interest  of  the  Health  component  of  the  Single  Market  Programme.  Such 
change also brings more clarity for potential applicants. Close coordination is needed to 
reach  synergies  with  regard  to  actions  that  aim  to  reduce  drug  demand,  but  are  not 
directly health-related, such as information campaigns and preventive measures.  

Currently, ISF Police has one general objective with two security specific objectives. As 
the  interim  evaluation  confirms  that  these  are  considered  overlapping  and  unclear,  the 
future  ISF  structure  will  contain  a  single  general  objective  reflecting  the  Security 
Agenda's policy priorities and the following three horizontal specific objectives:  

1)  Better information exchange; 
2)  Increased operational cooperation; and 
3)  Increased  national  and  collective  capacities  including  training  and  non-standard 

equipment.  

Implementation  measures  reflect  the  concrete  measures  to  be  implemented  in  order  to 
reach the specific objectives (e.g. set up and maintain national and EU security relevant 
IT-systems,  measures  to  improve  and  facilitate  the  use  of  Joint  Intervention  Teams 
(JITs), creation of specialised Union networks and cooperation structures etc.). 

The Fund will continue to place emphasis on fighting serious and organised crime with a 
cross-border  dimension  and,  in  particular,  on  ensuring  a  collective  Union  response  to 
security threats as well as on improving the Union's preparedness and resilience. 

The role of EU Agencies 

The role of the Home Affairs Agencies as key operational arms in the implementation of 
the EU migration and security policies is expected to increase. The Union launched new 
policy  and  legislative  initiatives.  It  has  also  reviewed  and  substantially  expanded  the 

62  

Regulation (EU) No 1382/2013 of 17 December 2013 (OJ L 354, 28.12.2013, p. 73). 

24 

 
                                                            
mandate of some Agencies, notably EASO and the EBCGA and has expanded the tasks 
of Europol and eu-LISA.  

Following  the  interim  evaluation  processes  of  the  Agencies  and  recent  Commission 
initiatives,  the  Agencies  may  receive  further  tasks.  The  expanded  mandate  of  the 
Agencies would not have as purpose to substitute the current tasks performed by Member 
States but rather to enhance and upgrade actions of the EU and its Member States in the 
area  of  migration,  border  management  and  security.  For  example,  Europol  will  further 
develop the capacity of systematically bringing together intelligence of Member States to 
improve the overall EU capacity to fight and prevent terrorism. This does not imply that 
Member States will have to do less in this area, but more. Member States in the future 
will not only have to continue collecting evidence and data but also share it in a uniform 
format with Europol and other Member States, which is not the case to date.  

Similarly, the expanded function of the EBCGA will not in the medium term replace the 
action  of  customs  and  border  guards  in  Member  States  but  will  enhance  border 
surveillance capacities that are not performed up to the right standards today and that will 
necessitate more effective action by both Member States and the Agencies. As presented 
in the Communication A new, modern Multiannual Financial Framework for a European 
Union that delivers efficiently on its priorities post-202063, the future development of the 
European  Border  and  Coast  Guard  will  depend  on  the  decisions  taken  on  the  future 
Financial Framework. With the increased capacities of the Agency, the need for financial 
support  and  training  for  the  increase  of  the  national  border  guard  component  in 
vulnerable Member States, the creation of bigger and more operational expert pools and 
reinforced own equipment would increase. 

The  Agencies  would  have  an  important  role  during  the  programming  of  the  national 
programmes.  Furthermore,  the  (new)  monitoring  roles,  such  as  the  assessments 
performed by the EBCGA and the future EU Asylum Agency would feed into mid-term 
review processes and may be cause for a revision of relevant national programmes. 

The role of IT systems in the areas of migration, border management and security 

The central components of the EU IT systems will be established and be interoperable in 
2020,  while  the  national  components  will  be  rolled  out  in  2020  and  2021.  Adequate 
financial  support  is  needed  for  a  full  deployment  of  the  new  systems  beyond  2020. 
Additional funding will be needed for further development and maintenance of new and 
existing systems. Furthermore, achieving full interoperability between these systems will 
require  significant  investments.  The  success  of  information  exchange  depends  on  the 
quality  of  data  entered  into  the  systems  as  well  as  the  regularity  of  input  and  use. 
Therefore, investment will continue to be needed in training and capacity building. The 
systems  would  also  need  to  be  adapted  to  new  requirements  and  innovations  such  as 
facial recognition, encryption and decryption and development of capabilities to analyse 
big data. 

63  

COM(2018) 98. 

25 

 
                                                            
Impact of an insufficient level of funding on priorities 

Overall,  both  evaluations  and  consultations  carried  out  in  the  context  of  this  Impact 
Assessment show that the scale of the challenges to be addressed under the next MFF 
will increase. Current levels of support would therefore not be sufficient to address the 
needs  nor  enable  to  meet  the  political  ambitions  expressed  in  the  areas  of  migration, 
border  management  and  security  and  to  support  the  objectives  outlined  above. 
Furthermore,  if  funding  levels  were  reduced,  dependent  on  its  extent,  current 
operations would be impacted as choices would need to be made. For example, in the 
field  of  migration,  in  order  to  maintain  funding  for  asylum,  integration  and  return, 
funding incentives for the resettlement of beneficiaries of international protection might 
need  to  be  cut.  In  external  border  management,  funding  for  consular  cooperation 
would  have  to  be  significantly  cut,  as  well  as  incentives  to  Member  States  to  invest  in 
EBCGA equipment. As regards security, less funding for developing the Member States' 
technical and human capacities would certainly hamper the effective cooperation among 
law  enforcement  authorities  (both  nationally  and  transnationally)  in  areas  where 
collective intelligence and action will be necessary, such as in the area of anti-terrorism 
(including  the  fight  against  radicalisation),  trafficking  in  human  beings  and  crisis 
preparedness  and  response,  including  the  protection  of  critical  infrastructure  and  soft 
targets. 

3.3  Coherence and complementarities with other EU funding instruments 

Preferred option:  
The objectives of the Union in the areas of migration, border management and security 
will be supported through a fully coordinated set of funding instruments, including both 
their internal and external aspects. 

Alternative option: 
All aspects of migration, border management or security would be supported through a 
single Instrument respectively, namely AMF, BMVI and ISF.  

Preferred option: 

Priorities in the areas of migration, border management and security need to be supported 
through a fully coordinated and coherent set of funding instruments, including both 
their  internal  and  external  aspects.  It  is  important  to  avoid  overlaps  with  funding 
provided  through  other  EU  instruments,  by  establishing  dividing  lines  and  effective 
coordination  mechanisms.  AMF,  BMVI  and  ISF  will  act  as  the  Union's  dedicated 
instruments  in  the  areas  of  migration,  border  management  and  security,  in  addition  to 
other  relevant  funding  instruments  which,  from  their  own  perspectives  and  areas  of 
support, reinforce the migration and security policy objectives. This is the best option to 
ensure  effective  implementation  of  the  objective  within  legal  constraints,  since  it  will 
allow that the different Funds integrate fully the parts of migration and security which are 
closer  to  their  scope  of  action  in  their  objectives  and  implementation  structures.  It  will 
also  mobilise  the  Member  States’  administrations  and  stakeholders’  expertise  from 
different angles to address the migration, borders and security challenges.  Furthermore, 

26 

 
 
this option takes into account the variable geometry that applies to the home affairs area 
and  the  different  Treaty  bases  determining  the  scope  of  intervention  of  the  various  EU 
Funds.  However,  under  this  option  beneficiaries  would  still  potentially  need  to  access 
funding  from  different  sources,  requiring  coordination  efforts  to  ensure  consistency  of 
action.  Furthermore,  the  design  of  AMF,  BMVI  and  ISF  will  have  to  duly  take  into 
account  the  reinforced  mandates  of  the  relevant  Union  Agencies,  most  notably  the 
EBCGA, EASO and Europol as well as the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) 
and  the  European  Fisheries  Control  Agency  (EFCA)  and  ensure  coherence  and 
complementarities  with  actions  carried  out  by  these  Agencies  in  the  areas  of  migration 
and asylum, border management and security. 

In  this  context,  overlaps  need  to  be  avoided  with  funding  provided  through  other  EU 
instruments,  by  establishing  dividing  lines  and  effective  coordination  and  governance 
mechanisms within the Commission and managing authorities. Information and support 
towards (potential) beneficiaries would be facilitated through establishing a single entry 
or information point at national level. 

Alternative option: 

An  alternative  option  would  be  to  support  all  aspects  of  either  migration  under  AMF, 
border management under BMVI or security under ISF. The advantage of such a funding 
architecture  would  be  that  would  ensure  full  coherence  of  action  and  consistency  of 
measures  inside  the  migration,  border  management  and  security  areas.  However,  such 
option  would  have  several  disadvantages;  the  connection  with  other  Funds  and 
interconnections with other support measures in other policy fields would be weakened. 

In the sections below the advantages and disadvantages of the options above are applied 
to some areas of particular importance64. 

1.  Support for migration and security through the successors of the European 

Structural and Investment Funds. 

Preferred option: 
The  successors  of  the  European  Structural  and  Investment  Funds  support  objectives 
related  to  migration  and  security  within  their  scope  of  intervention  through  a  menu  of 
policy objectives. In the area of integration, long-term needs are covered with dedicated 
budget, including earmarking. 

Alternative option: 
Support  for  all  aspects  of  either  migration,  border  management  or  security  within  the 
Union will be implemented through AMF, BMVI and ISF. 

Preferred option: 

The  interventions  through  the  successors  to  the  European  Structural  and  Investment 
Funds are structured by a menu of policy objectives. These Funds will include migration 
and security in its menu of policy objectives, to be supported from their respective scopes 

64  

For further information regarding the delineation between the Asylum and Migration Fund and the Internal 
Security Fund with the successors to ESIF, please refer to Annex 4. 

27 

 
                                                            
of intervention. Please refer to Annex 4 for the delineation of interventions in the post-
2020 MFF. 

The  advantage  of  this  option  is  that  migration  and  security  would  become  a  prominent 
focus  area  of  Funds  with  larger  volumes  of  resources  and  synergies  with  other  policy 
areas would be maximised. This option would ensure a strong and consistent support to 
Member  States  for  the  development  and  implementation  of  their  policies  to  face  the 
migration, border management and security challenges. 

For example, the future European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) is better placed 
than  ISF  to  incorporate  the  security  considerations  in  the  construction  of  a  bridge,  a 
community centre or a railway station. 

For instance, when the population of a small rural area is doubled in a matter of days due 
to the high influx of refugees and there is a need to transform a public or private building 
into a reception centre, the EAFRD, or the future European Maritime and Fisheries Fund 
(EMFF)  in  coastal  areas,  might  be  a  suitable  alternative  funding  source  to  AMF  and 
closer to the local decision making authority. 

The particular case of integration 

Integration  is  a  particular  case  since  it  would  involve  large  volumes  of  investments  as 
opposed  to,  for  instance,  reception  capacity,  where  capacities  are  in  place  to  a  large 
extent. Integration support for third-country nationals is currently funded by a variety of 
EU  Funds,  among  which  AMIF  is  the  only  Fund  targeting  third-county  nationals 
specifically. Other Funds, in particular ESIF, but also Erasmus+, are intervening in their 
respective domains (employment, education, infrastructure, etc.) but without having  the 
integration of third-country nationals as a specific or priority objective. 

The large influx of third-country nationals to the EU since 2014 has triggered additional 
needs for integration support in Member States. As integration is a long-term process, the 
need for investing in this area will continue or even increase in the 2021-2027 period.  

The groups that are the most in need of integration support are asylum applicants likely 
to  be  in  need  of  international  protection,  as  well  as  beneficiaries  of  international 
protection  and  migrants  arriving  in  the  EU  through  family  reunification  procedures. 
These  groups  of  persons  have  specific  needs.  Dedicated  funding  to  benefit  this  target 
group  continues  to  be  necessary,  in  particular  in  the  early  stages  of  the  integration 
process.  

Therefore, AMF should provide dedicated funding for actions specifically targeting third-
country nationals, in particular in the early integration phase for the social and economic 
inclusion  of  third-country  nationals,  including  by  providing  support  for  education  to 
children, as well as for horizontal measures supporting integration policies and strategies 
of Member States. For asylum applicants covered by the reformed Dublin scheme, which 
may  include  in  certain  cases  also  through  its  corrective  allocation  mechanism,  AMF 

28 

 
would cover first reception measures, basic assistance and training and will also provide 
support for those that would need to be returned65. 

Interventions  in  different  thematic  areas  for  longer  term  measures,  such  as  integration 
into  the  labour  market  and  social  inclusion  support  for  the  integration  of  third-country 
nationals  are  proposed  to  be  supported  through  the  successors  to  ESIF  and  other  EU 
Funds  (see  Annex  466).  Furthermore,  for  asylum  seekers  covered  by  the  corrective 
allocation  mechanism  of  the  Dublin  scheme,  the  successors  to  ESIF  would  provide 
support covering longer term basic assistance.   

Alternative option: 

Supporting  migration  management,  border  management  and  security  through  the 
respective  internal  Instruments  would  mean  that  all  needs  in  the  areas  of  security, 
migration including integration, and border management would be covered under AMF, 
BMVI and ISF. This option would guarantee full consistency of all interventions under 
the objectives of migration, border management and security. However, it would be less 
effective  in  terms  of  policy  purposes.  For  example,  should  all  actions  supporting  the 
integration  of  third-country  nationals  be  supported  through  AMF,  while  no  other 
instruments would provide support within their scope of intervention, it would result in 
integration processes that are supported in isolation  from social inclusion measures that 
are  applied  to  the  rest  of  society.  This  has  proven  to  be  less  effective  for  successful 
integration outcomes. Similarly, anti-radicalisation efforts directed at the target groups of 
the  Instrument  would  be  delinked  from  broader  efforts  on  social  inclusion  and  anti-
radicalisation. In a similar vein, support for the security of critical infrastructures and the 
protection  of  public  spaces  would  be  delinked  from  investments  through  other 
Instruments  in  the  development  of  such  infrastructures.  Therefore,  there  is  a  need  for 
various EU Funds to  support the migration and security objectives  of the Union within 
their scope of intervention.  

2.  The  external  dimension  of  the  Asylum  and  Migration  Fund,  the  Integrated 

Border Management Fund and the Internal Security Fund  

Preferred option: 
The  main  investments  in  the  external  aspects  of  migration,  border  management  and 
security  will  be  the  single  external  Instrument  and  AMF,  BMVI  and  ISF  will  have  a 
sizeable external component to support the internal objectives of the Union within their 
scope of intervention but complementary to the external Instrument.  

Alternative option: 
Supporting  migration,  border  management  and/or  security  will  be  implemented 
exclusively through a single external Instrument. 

65  
66  

Dependent on the negotiations of the Recast Dublin Regulation. 
Support for local communities needs to be provided for larger communities as well as smaller or/and poor 
hosting communities like in some rural areas. 

29 

 
 
                                                            
Preferred option: 

The drafting of new internal Instruments should include policy objectives that enable the 
external  projection  of  internal  Union  policies  through  these  Instruments.  As  a 
consequence,  there  is  a  need  for  AMF,  BMVI  and  ISF  to  have  a  sizeable  external 
component  to  support  the  internal  objectives  of  the  Union  within  their  scope  of 
intervention.  

Such interventions will be designed and implemented in coherence with  Union external 
action and foreign policy, in particular with the  Union’s external Instrument. Migration 
and security would be covered in the different components (geographical, thematic, and 
non-programmable)  of  the  external  financial  instruments.  More  specifically,  this 
Instrument would contain an unallocated share for emerging challenges. The unallocated 
share  would  contain  a  programmable  thematic  component  with  a  strong  focus  on 
migration. Actions supported through this component need to contribute to the attainment 
of  the  Sustainable  Development  Goals.  Through  AMF  it  is  not  intended  to  support 
actions  which  are  development  oriented  but  to  complement,  when  appropriate,  the 
financial assistance  provided through  the  external  Instruments.  The use  of an EU  Trust 
Fund for actions in the external dimension is a potentially useful tool through which part 
of the support from AMF, BMVI and ISF may be channelled, in coordination with other 
funding  sources.  The  future  Funds  would  not  contain  a  separate  Trust  Fund.  However, 
future Trust Funds should have the capacity of reacting with more agility and speed and 
have a large geographical scope. 

Support  through  the  future  AMF,  BMVI  and  ISF  would  cover  the  following  actions, 
complementary to support through the external Instrument: 

1)  AMF would continue to support resettlement, capacity building of third-countries 
to  manage  migration  flows  and  ensure  migrant  protection  and  pre-departure 
measures by Member States, aimed at facilitating the integration of third-country 
nationals  in  the  EU.  In  the  area  of  return,  it  would  continue  to  support  the 
implementation  of  readmission  agreements  with  third  countries  and  the 
reintegration  of  returnees,  as  well  as  actions  preventing  irregular  migration  (i.e. 
information campaigns, data collection and tracking of flows and routes, etc.). An 
example where support of the Fund may be needed is in case of large numbers of 
forced  returns,  including  returns  with  specific  medical  needs.  As  a  novelty,  the 
Instrument would provide the possibility to support the development of mobility 
schemes  to  the  EU  in  the  area  of  legal  migration  and  a  possibility  to  provide 
incentives  and  support  to  (and  in)  third  countries  to  accept  and  reintegrate 
returnees from the EU in the area of return. 

2)  BMVI would continue to support sharing of information and best practices with 
third  countries,  improve  operational  cooperation,  including  through  joint 
operations,  support  capacity  building  of  third  countries  to  protect  their  borders 
through  training  and  purchase  of  equipment  as  well  as  other  operational 
necessities. 

3)  ISF would continue supporting cooperation with third countries on anti-terrorism 
and  anti-radicalisation  activities,  cooperation  of  law  enforcement  authorities  in 

30 

 
the  fight  against  terrorism  as  well  as  trafficking  in  human  beings  and  migrant 
smuggling, including through joint investigation teams. 

Alternative option: 

Supporting  migration,  border  management  and  security  through  a  single  external 
Instrument  would  have  as  an  advantage  that  migration  and  security  objectives  would 
become a more prominent component of the external Instrument of the Union. However, 
it will also leave some areas uncovered and will decrease the degree of autonomy of the 
EU to act rapidly when needed in the migration, border management and security areas. 

Furthermore, these external interventions would be decoupled from interventions in the 
internal  dimension,  while  the  implementation  of  the  current  Funds  has  shown  the  need 
for  immediate  links  in  areas  such  as  pre-integration,  legal  migration,  return  and 
reintegration as  well as border management and security. This  would increase the need 
for coordination between interventions under the various Instruments. 

3.  Support for customs control equipment 

Preferred option: 
Establishing  the  new  Customs  Control  Equipment  component  will  allow  a  coordinated 
and operational approach between customs authorities and with related policy areas for 
integrated border management. 

Alternative option: 
Customs control equipment will be implemented exclusively through a single Instrument. 

Preferred option: 

Funding of customs control equipment presents a clear EU added value, considering that 
the functioning of an efficient and secure Customs Union constitutes a European public 
good.  Since  the  establishment  of  the  Customs  Union  50  years  ago, the  role  of  customs 
authorities in the management of the external border has now extended well beyond their 
traditional  role  of  collecting  EU  own  resources  and  in  supervising  and  facilitating  EU 
trade.  Customs  are  nowadays  active  in  the  field  of  safety  and  security,  controlling  the 
cross-border  movement  of  restricted  and  prohibited  goods  and  (narcotic)  substances, 
including activities potentially supporting terrorists and organised crime. State-of-the-art 
customs control equipment is crucial for customs to perform in a more secure, faster and 
more cost-effective way.  

All these objectives are actively supported by the Customs programme, which provides a 
comprehensive framework for cooperation as well as IT and human capacity building  – 
with the exception thus of customs control equipment. As the Customs programme will 
be extended beyond 2020, a proper coordination will need to be established between, on 
the  one  hand,  that  programme  and  its  horizontal  wide-reaching  objectives  and,  on  the 
other  hand,  the  new  customs  control  equipment  component  and  its  specialised  area  of 
intervention.  By  extension,  coordination  shall  also  be  foreseen  with  the  future  Single 
Anti-Fraud  Programme,  which  will  also  include  funding  of  equipment  as  regards 
specifically the protection of the Union's financial interests.   

31 

 
Creating a support for customs control equipment however does not impact only customs 
authorities but reaches out as well to other departments or agencies such as police, border 
guards,  health  and  consumer  protection  authorities;  the  economic  impact  of  cigarette 
smuggling represents a budgetary loss of around 10 billion Euros per year.  In addition, 
counterfeit  and  pirated  products  represent  up  to  5%  of  all  EU  imports,  worth  up  to     
EUR 85 billion. Brands that suffer the most from Intellectual Property infringements are 
primarily registered in the EU67. 

Therefore,  when  establishing  the  new  CCE  component,  there  is  a  need  to  ensure  a 
coordinated  approach  between  customs  and  related  policy  areas  such  as  security,  fight 
against  fraud,  integrated  border  management.  This  applies  all  the  more  as  control 
equipment  usually  allows  for  dual  or  multiple  use.  A  more  integrated  and  coordinated 
border  and  customs  management  as  well  as,  as  far  as  possible,  co-sharing  of  control 
equipment  between  all  concerned  stakeholders,  whether  customs  authorities,  border 
guards, EBCGA, will also be aimed for. Exploring compatibility and inter-operability of 
customs  control  equipment  would  not  only  address  respective  issues  more  effectively, 
efficiently and consistently but also create shared expertise in view of better mobilising 
EU and national funds. Such a coordinated approach shall however respect the different 
legal bases for the Customs Union and the Schengen area.  

Alternative option: 

Implementing the Customs control equipment exclusively through a single Instrument – 
such  as  the  future  Customs  programme  –  would  present  the  advantage  of  ensuring 
coherence among all customs activities. 

However,  if  customs  equipment  is  contemplated  into  the  sole  future  Customs 
programme,  operational  cooperation  and  coordination  with  the  related  policy  areas  for 
border  management  will  not  further  develop.  It  will  thus  not  favour  a  sound  integrated 
border management approach. 

4.  Other areas of coherence and complementarities 

Preferred option:  
AMF, BMVI and ISF ensure full coherence and complementarity with other EU Funds in 
the areas of migration, border management and security.  

Alternative option: 
AMF, BMVI and ISF do not ensure full coherence and complementarity with other EU 
Funds in the areas of migration, border management and security. 

Preferred option: 

AMF,  BMVI  and  ISF  ensure  full  coherence  and  complementarity  with  relevant  EU 
Funds, such as in the area of education for migrants, maritime security and surveillance, 
cybersecurity  and  judicial  cooperation.  The  Funds  will  be  complementary  to  the  future 
Emergency Support Instrument (ESI). 

67  

2017 Situation Report on Counterfeiting and Piracy in the European Union (Europol). 

32 

 
                                                            
The  post-2020  MFF  should  support  a  coherent  EU  policy  for  maritime  security  and 
surveillance. Such coherence is needed given the wide array of coastguard functions and 
the involvement of more than 300 responsible entities at national level.  The BMVI and 
the  future EMFF should continue supporting improved  interoperability and information 
exchange across borders and sectors, as well as between civil and military actors. Such 
support  needs  to  be  implemented  with  strong  involvement  of  the  EBCGA,  EMSA  and 
EFCA.  The  primary  objectives  of  those  activities  would  determine  which  Fund  would 
support  them.  Legal  provisions  in  the  respective  Funds  should  support 
joint, 
multipurpose  operations  and  also  the  dual  or  multi-use  of  equipment.  For  example, 
surveillance aircrafts which can detect and off-shore patrol vessels which can address a 
multitude of challenges, such as oil spills, fisheries control, search and rescue of life at 
sea,  and  border  control.  By  promoting  such  investments  for  multipurpose  assets, 
deploying  more  costly  and  labour  intensive  assets  (such  as  Navy  vessels),  which  are 
often  not  fit  for  purpose  to  carry  out  civilian  duties,  could  be  avoided.  In  addition, 
cooperation  between  bodies  operating  on  the  maritime  security  dimension  would  be 
promoted. 

With  regard  to  cybersecurity,  synergies  will  be  established  between  ISF  and  a  future 
Digital  Europe  Programme,  the  next  Research  and  Innovation  Framework  Programme 
(Horizon Europe) and the Defence Fund. Synergies may cover the inclusion of civilian, 
law  enforcement  and  military  cyber  defence  research  entities  becoming  part  of  an  EU 
network  to  jointly  carry  out  research,  solving  law  enforcement  challenges  and  possibly 
creating a cluster of expertise involving law enforcement actors. 

Given  the  close  connections  between  security  and  justice,  synergies  will  be  ensured 
with  future  Funds,  such  as  the  future  Justice  Programme  and  the  Rights  and  Values 
programme,  supporting  adequate  protection  to  victims  of  crime,  JITs  and  judicial 
training,  ensuring  interoperability  with  ECRIS  and  improving  detention  conditions. 
Police-justice  cooperation  activities,  including  via  Justice-related  Agencies,  such  as 
Eurojust  and  the  European  Public  Prosecutor’s  Office  (EPPO),  both  at  Union  and 
national  level,  should  be  enhanced.  Synergies  exist  between  measures  against 
radicalisation and terrorism and measures fighting racism, xenophobia and hate speech. 
The  promotion  and  protection  of  the  rights  of  the  child  in  a  vulnerable  situation,  i.e. 
unaccompanied  minors,  and  the  prevention  of  violence  against  women  and  children  is 
also important while dealing with the migration crisis. Trafficking in human beings has a 
gender  and  age  dimension  that  links  this  phenomenon  to  actions  to  combat  violence 
against women and children.   

Alternative option: 

In the alternative option, the synergies and complementarities between AMF, BMVI and 
ISF with other relevant Funds would not be ensured. Given the need for maximising the 
EU added value and avoiding overlaps such option is not considered realistic. 

33 

 
4  DELIVERY MECHANISMS OF THE INTENDED FUNDING 

This section presents the mechanisms to deliver funding under the Asylum and Migration 
Fund,  the  Integrated  Border  Management  Fund  and  the  Internal  Security  Fund, 
demonstrating  how,  first,  flexibility  and  performance  would  be  increased  and,  second, 
how the implementation of the Funds would be simplified. 

4.1  Enhancing flexibility within a stable framework 

Preferred option: 
AMF,  BMVI  and  ISF  will  be  designed  in  such  a  way  that  they  are  better  equipped  to 
react  to  unforeseen  circumstances  and  are  able  to  address  changes  in  spending 
priorities,  applying  the  elements  for  increasing  flexibility  that  are  presented  in  this 
section. This option will include the flexibility mechanisms depicted below: a solid mid-
term review with a technical adjustment and a thematic facility to ensure a good steer of 
the Funds and additional flexibility.  

Alternative option: 
AMF,  BMVI  and  ISF  will  be  designed  in  such  a  way  that  they  provide  a  high  level  of 
predictability,  including  an  initial  allocation  and  a  technical  adjustment  during  a  mid-
term  review  for  shared  management.  This  option  will  not  include  other  elements  of 
flexibility than the technical adjustment.  

Both options will be delivered through a mix of shared, direct and indirect management 
and emergency assistance will continue to exist in both options. 

Other  options  that  present  different  combinations  of  the  elements  presented  below  are 
possible; i.e. a mid-term review with only a technical adjustment plus a thematic facility 
or a mid-term review that also includes a dedicated performance reserve. 

Preferred option: 

AMF, BMVI and ISF need to be designed in such a way that they are better equipped to 
react to unforeseen circumstances and are able to address changes in spending priorities. 
The  components  listed  below  contribute  to  increasing  the  flexibility  of  the  Funds.  The 
preferred option is to apply all those elements in  the new Funds. The advantage of this 
option is that the Commission would be able to react quickly, adapt to changing needs, 
reward performance and steer more effectively the Funds towards high EU added value 
objectives.  The  disadvantage  of  this  option  would  be  that,  for  shared  management, 
revisions of national programmes will be needed on a regular basis and the administrative 
burden for the Member States and the Commission might be high. To accommodate that 
disadvantage  the  current  rules  for  revising  national  programmes  should  be  simplified. 
Member  State  authorities  responsible  for  implementing  the  national  programmes  have 
indicated that, in general, more flexibility in the methods for allocation and implementing 
Funds is needed, while retaining a necessary level of predictability for long-term support. 

Alternative option: 

The alternative option would have the advantage of giving a high level of predictability 
to Member States while keeping some flexibility and reducing the administrative burden 

34 

 
for  Member  States  and  the  Commission.  Furthermore,  the  ability  to  choose  the  best 
implementation  mode  according  to  the  objectives  and  needs  would  be  substantially 
reduced.  The  capacity  for  the  Commission  to  steer  the  Funds  to  high  EU  added  value 
priorities  would  be  reduced,  but  not  annulled.  The  Commission  would  still  be  able  to 
negotiate  priorities  with  Member  States  through  Policy  Dialogues  and  to  influence 
choices  by  Member  States  through  higher  co-financing  rates,  conditionalities  and 
legislative  and  policy  requirements  embedded  in  the  legal  acts.  Furthermore,  the 
implementation  of  policies  such  as  the  'Dublin  reform'  or  resettlement,  which  require 
regular  top-up  funding  to  Member  States  might  become  challenging  and  might  require 
frequent additions from the general budget of the Union.  

4.1.1 

Implementation modalities 

4.1.1.1  AMF, BMVI and ISF 

Preferred option: 
AMF,  BMVI  and  ISF  will  retain  the  current  mix  of  shared,  direct  and  indirect 
management with a number of improvements. 

Alternative option: 
AMF, BMVI and ISF will be implemented through direct management only. 

Preferred option: 

The  preferred  option  is  to  retain  the  current  mix  of  shared,  direct  and  indirect 
management  with  a  number  of  improvements.  A  mix  of  shared,  direct  and  indirect 
management in the areas of migration, border management and security provides for the 
best set of delivery mechanisms to achieve the objectives of the Funds. Through shared 
management  Member  States  implement  programmes  that  contribute  to  the  policy 
objectives of the Union, which are tailor-made to their national context. Through direct 
and indirect management transnational, Union-wide actions are supported.  

Through direct management, the Commission  has a more direct influence on the use of 
funding,  ensuring  it  contributes  to  the  common  policy  objectives  of  the  Union  when 
compared  to  shared  management.  At  the  same  time,  shared  management  ensures  that 
financial support is available in all participating States and reduces the adverse effects of 
competition for funding, which would result in funding going mostly to a small number 
of  active  and  well-organised  Member  States  that  are  effective  in  bidding  for  budgets. 
Furthermore,  shared  management  allows  for  funding  predictability  and  for  Member 
States, who are most knowledgeable of the challenges they are faced with, to plan their 
long-term endowments accordingly. It is essential to guarantee the necessary support in 
all  Member  States,  while  securing  the  ability  to  implement  EU  priorities  across  the 
Union. Through indirect management, the Funds retain the possibility to delegate budget 
implementation  tasks  to,  among  others,  International  Organisations  and  Home  Affairs 
Agencies  for  particular  purposes.  Without  prejudice  to  decisions  of  the  Budgetary 
Authority, this would allow for supporting the Agencies in exceptional cases. 

In  order  to  improve  the  'steer'  of  Funds  that  are  implemented  under  shared 
management, the dialogue between the Commission and the managing authorities of the 

35 

 
Funds needs to be improved, including more frequent high-level dialogues and the use of 
periodical review meetings. In addition, AMF, BMVI and ISF need to be equipped with 
adequate  conditionalities  and  incentives,  such  as  higher  co-financing  rates  for  a  small 
number  of  actions  with  high  EU  added  value  (Specific  Actions  as  defined  in  the 
Instruments,  operating  support  for  public  services  that  are  for  the  benefit  of  the  Union 
and  emergency  assistance)68.  While  some  actions,  such  as  operating  support,  would  be 
part  of  the  basic  allocation,  to  be  part  of  the  Policy  Dialogue,  other  actions,  such  as 
Specific  Actions  and  Emergency  Assistance  would  be  dedicated  top-up  funding.  This 
needs to be implemented while retaining the benefits of multiannual programming. These 
improvements  compared  to  AMF  and  ISF  would  make  the  Funds  more  flexible, 
achieving higher efficiency and effectiveness. Member States have confirmed the need to 
continue implementing the Funds through shared management, in order to ensure that the 
needs  can  be  addressed  across  the  Union,  contributing  to  EU  objectives.  International 
organisations and NGOs have indicated that, in addition, direct support from the  Union 
budget, via direct management, should be part of the future Funds.  

Considering  the  need  to  retain  all  implementing  modalities,  it  should  be  noted  that 
implementing  shared  management  through  annual  programmes  instead  of  multiannual 
programmes  would  allow  for  a  more  real-time  needs  assessment  of  the  needs  on  the 
ground  during  the  programming  exercise.  However,  this  would  imply  returning  to  the 
system  that  was  applied  during  the  2007-2013  programming  period.  The  ex-post 
evaluations  of  the  SOLID  Funds  and  the  interim  evaluations  of  AMF  and  ISF  confirm 
that  annual  programming  entails  a  high  level  of  administrative  burden  to  both  the 
Member  States  and  the  Commission,  while  it  reduces  flexibility  in  using  the  Funds.  In 
addition,  annual  programming  lacks  the  level  of  predictability  of  allocations  that  is 
needed in shared management. This would be detrimental to ensuring that the long-term 
support  and  structural  solutions  are  implemented  that  are  necessary  for  improving  and 
maintaining the Union’s migration and security systems. 

Alternative option: 

An  alternative  option  would  be  that  AMF,  BMVI  and  ISF  would  be  implemented 
through direct management only (through Union Actions  and  emergency assistance). 
Such option would increase the influence of the Commission on the use of the Funds and, 
by doing so, direct it to support Union priorities. In that case, the possibility to delegate 
the implementation of (part of) the funding to an executive agency, to alleviate the heavy 
burden on the limited Commission resources, would be necessary.  

implementing  all  funding  under  direct  management  would  not  be 
However, 
proportionate  and  would  not  ensure  that  the  available  funding  is  implemented 
successfully, tailor-made to a national context, in accordance with the findings of the ex-
post  and  interim  evaluations,  which  confirm  that  a  mix  of  direct,  indirect  and  shared 
management  was  effective  in  order  to  ensure  support  for  the  Union’s  priorities  and 
implementation of the acquis in all Member States. In this field of shared competences 

68  

By reducing the level of co-financing that beneficiaries need to provide the implementation of such actions is 
stimulated. 

36 

 
                                                            
managing authorities in Member States are closer to the beneficiaries, enabling the Funds 
to reach a larger number of beneficiaries. As a result, actions can be better adjusted to the 
needs  and  the  best  placed  implementing  partner  can  be  selected.  In  addition, 
implementing all funding through direct management would require significant increases 
in  staffing  of  the  responsible  services  of  the  Commission  in  order  to  manage  and 
monitoring  its  implementation.  The  need  to  retain  these  management  modes  was 
confirmed in the stakeholder consultations for the Impact Assessment. 

4.1.1.2  Customs Control Equipment 

Preferred option: 
The  IBMF  –  Customs  Control  Equipment  will build  on  direct  management  through  the 
provision of grants to national authorities for the purchase, maintenance and evolution 
of customs control equipment.  

Alternative option: 
The  IBMF  –  Customs  Control  Equipment  will  be  implemented  through  shared 
management. 

Preferred option: 

As  regards  the  Customs  Control  Equipment  component,  the  preferred  option  is  direct 
management  through  the  provision  of  grants  to  national  authorities  for  the 
purchase, maintenance and evolution of customs control equipment.  

The new EU intervention aims at addressing current imbalances between Member States 
and ensuring equivalence in the performance of customs controls throughout the Customs 
Union.  Such  an  objective  requires  obviously  coordination  beyond  national  borders, 
which a centralised approach through direct management is best placed to deliver. As the 
national authorities – and not the Union – should continue to own directly the equipment 
they use for carrying out their duties at EU borders, EU intervention would take the form 
of  grants  to  Member  States  supporting  the  purchase,  maintenance  and  upgrade  of 
customs control equipment in accordance with predefined standards per border type.   

It is  also  an appropriate approach  as, in  the case at hand, it will only  involve  a limited 
number  of  beneficiaries,  the  27  Member  States,  thereby  allowing  the  application  of 
several simplifications foreseen by the Financial Regulation and its rules for application, 
in particular the exceptions to calls for proposals. Direct management is furthermore the 
delivery mechanism for existing actions in the customs field, whether under the Customs 
or Hercule III programmes. 

In order to build thoroughly on the knowledge and operational experience of the national 
authorities  and  thereby meet  their actual  needs,  direct  management  by  the  Commission 
will  be  supported  by  expert  teams/task  forces  composed  of  Member  States  for 
preparatory  tasks  (e.g.  assessment  of  needs  and  definition  of  standards  of  minimum 
equipment by border type). The final policy decision will be taken by the Commission, 
which will allocate  the  funds through grants  based  on customs policy priorities,  threats 
and volumes under a comitology procedure.  

37 

 
Co-funding  –  i.e.  national  contributions  on  top  of  EU  intervention  –  and  ex-ante 
conditionalities – such as the demonstration of adequate administrative capacity in terms 
of  e.g.  staff  number  and  skills  –  will  be  considered  as  well  where  deemed  appropriate. 
This  ensures that the provision of customs  control equipment takes  place only with the 
full commitment of Member States and where  conditions are met, thereby securing the 
actual use of equipment and a real impact for EU intervention.  

Alternative option for the delivery mechanism: 

through 

shared  management.  Discussions  with  other 

An  alternative  option  would  be  to  implement  the  Customs  Control  Equipment 
component 
services 
implementing  this  delivery  mechanism  showed  clearly  that,  apart  from  its  complexity, 
shared  management  would  not  provide  the  overall  coherence  and  cross-border 
coordination needed for customs given the requirement to ensure an equivalent level of 
control  across  all  Member  States.  Moreover,  in  the  absence  of  cooperation  between 
Member States as each of them would draft its own national plan independently, shared 
management  does  not  foster  the  sharing  of  experiences  and  exchange  of  expertise  and 
best practices, which are important benefits expected from this intervention for a uniform 
application of EU customs rules.  

4.1.2  The thematic facility69 

69  

The  thematic  facility  does  not  address  needs  in  relation  to  the  Customs  Union  and  its  policy  as  they  are 
covered separately by the customs programme. 

38 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
Preferred option: 
The flexibility of the management of AMF, BMVI and ISF will be increased through the 
introduction of the thematic facility. 

Alternative option: 
Methods  for  providing  additional  funding  for  AMF,  BMVI  and  ISF  will  remain 
unchanged compared to the current Funds. 

Preferred option: 

Of the total envelope of AMF, BMVI and ISF 60% should be reserved for the national 
programmes. A critical mass is needed for the Funds to allow for Member States to plan 
long-term support through shared management, providing legal and financial certainty, in 
particular for structural  and  large, multiannual investments  in  line with Member States' 
needs for further developing their migration and security systems. 

The remaining 40% should be managed through a thematic facility – this would not 
apply  to  the  customs  control  equipment  Instrument.  During  consultation  activities 
Member  States  have  indicated  to  be  generally  supportive  of  the  need  to  increase 
flexibility,  while  indicating  there  is  a  need  to  provide  predictability  and  financial 
certainty  in  order  to  successfully  implement  national  programmes.  These  needs  are 
accommodated  through  providing  a  multiannual  allocation  of  funding  to  the  national 
programmes  and  complementing  it  with  a  mechanism  that  increases  flexibility  by 
disbursing  funding  periodically  to  a  number  of  themes  defined  in  the  legal  bases.  The 
term 'thematic facility' should not be understood as a facility in the way it is used under 
financial instruments. It is a mechanism that offers flexibility in the management of the 
Fund by allowing to disburse Funds through the following mechanisms: 

  Support for Specific Actions, providing additional funding for dedicated actions 
of high EU added-value, through the national programmes of Member States; 
  Support for Union Actions, managed through direct and indirect management; 
  The provision of emergency assistance; 
  Support for technical assistance at the initiative of the Commission70; 
  For  AMF,  to  provide  financial  support  for  the  implementation  of  resettlement 

and relocation activities. 

The  programming  of  the  actions  under  the  thematic  facility  would  be  implemented 
through Work Programmes71, adopted by Commission Implementing Decision following 
the  consultation  of  Member  States  through  the  AMIF-ISF  Committee.  The  thematic 
facility  would  allow  for  addressing  new  priorities  or  urgent  actions  and  to  implement 

70  

71  

For  the  preparation,  monitoring,  administrative  and  technical  assistance,  evaluation,  audit  and  control 
measures and activities necessary for the implementation of the Funds.  
Support  for  resettlement  activities  should  be  provided  in  accordance  with  the  methods  agreed  during  the 
negotiations  on  the  Union  Resettlement  Framework.  In  the  proposal,  the  Commission  is  authorised  to 
establish each year one or more targeted Union resettlement schemes. This should occur as soon as possible 
after the adoption of and consistent with the annual Union resettlement plan adopted by the Council and also 
taking  into  account  the  discussions  within  the  High-Level  Resettlement  Committee.  The  Commission  may 
adopt  one  or  more  targeted  Union  resettlement  scheme(s)  during  the  period  covered  by  an  annual  Union 
resettlement plan. 

39 

 
                                                            
them through the delivery mode that is best placed to achieve the policy objective. As a 
result, the thematic facility would allow for providing support in line with the needs of a 
particular  Fund.  In  the  current  programming  period,  the  share  of  direct  management  in 
ISF Police is higher than for the current AMF and ISF Borders and Visa. Should these 
needs  continue  to  differ,  as  would  be  outlined  in  the  Work  Programmes,  the  thematic 
facility would cater for Fund-specific needs. In order to ensure sufficient predictability, 
minimum  percentages  for  Specific  Actions  and  Union  Actions  and  a  maximum 
percentage for technical assistance at the initiative of the Commission could be set by the 
legal bases72. 

Alternative option: 

In the absence of a thematic facility and considering that the mix of delivery mechanisms 
would be retained, the distribution of funding would be implemented as under the current 
AMIF  and  ISF.  This  has  proven  to  provide  an  insufficient  level  of  flexibility  and,  as  a 
result, more recourse to the use of emergency assistance was needed compared to what 
was  originally  foreseen.  Currently,  transfers  of  funding  between  direct  and  shared 
management  are  not  possible  which  leads  to  inefficiencies  (money  not  implemented 
under shared management or under direct management). Furthermore, top-ups to national 
programmes require a formal revision and cannot be adjusted to needs to the necessary 
extent. 

4.1.3  Emergency assistance73 

Preferred option: 
AMF,  BMVI  and  ISF  will  retain  the  possibility  to  provide  emergency  assistance,  to  be 
implemented through all implementing modalities. 

Alternative option: 
AMF, BMVI and ISF will not retain the possibility to provide emergency assistance. 

Preferred option: 

In order to react to unforeseen circumstances or emergency situations, the Funds would 
need  to  be  able  to  assist  at  short  notice  by  providing  emergency  assistance.  The  Funds 
will define what is considered an emergency situation within their scope of intervention. 
If  such  conditions  are  met,  the  Union  will  be  able  to  provide  swift  financial  assistance 
(up to 100% of indicated needs), with a certain level of retroactivity.  The possibility to 
provide  support  retroactively  is  included  in  the  current  Funds  and  would  be  retained74. 

72  

73  

74  

Such  levels may  be  set  in  accordance  with  rules  for  shared  management  laid  down in  the  future  Common 
Provisions Regulation. 
The  emergency  assistance  does  not  address  needs  in  relation  to  Customs  Union  and  its  policy  as  they  are 
covered separately by the customs programme. 
In  accordance  with  Article  7(4)  of  Regulation  (EU)  No  514/2014:  “Emergency  assistance  may  support 
expenditure  which  was  incurred  prior  to  the  date  of  submission  of  the  grant  application  or  the  request  for 
assistance, but not prior to 1 January 2014, when necessary for the implementation of the action.” Recital 15 
of  that  Regulation  further  states:  “To  ensure  an  adequate  framework  for  providing  rapidly  emergency 
assistance, this Regulation should allow support for actions the expenditure of which was incurred before the 
application for such assistance was made, but not before 1 January 2014, in accordance with the provision in 

40 

 
                                                            
 
Due to its emergency nature, the Funds should be able to support measures that needed to 
be undertaken prior to the submission of a grant application, in duly substantiated cases. 
Since  the  volatile  character  of  the  migration  and  security  policy  areas  will  not  change 
soon,  it  is  important  that  the  Funds  retain  the  possibility  of  quickly  deploying  funding. 
This emergency mechanism will exist within the funding envelopes of each of the three 
Instruments for migration and security. Member States have confirmed that the provision 
of  emergency  assistance  increased  the  flexibility  in  managing  the  Funds  to  respond  to 
urgent needs and that such possibility should be retained in the future Funds. 

Such  assistance  should  be  complementary  to  the  future  Emergency  Aid  Reserve  at  the 
level  of  the  Union  budget,  which  could  be  mobilised  to  provide  additional  funds.  It  is 
important  that  the  Emergency  Aid  Reserve  would  support  AMF,  BMVI  and  ISF  in 
exceptional  and  well  defined  circumstances,  such  as  support  for  the  reformed  Dublin 
scheme in crisis situations.  

The Emergency Aid Reserve would bring together the internal and external response of 
the  Union  to  crisis  situations  by  topping-up  the  respective  Instruments  with  additional 
funding,  but  no  earmarking  of  funding  for  specific  policy  areas  within  this  reserve  has 
been foreseen. In the current programming period, emergency funding was often the only 
mechanism  through  which  additional  funding  could  be  deployed  quickly  to  Member 
States  or  other  actors  to  address  pressing  needs  stemming  from  migratory  or  security 
challenges. 

Different  from  the  current  situation,  it  should  be  possible  to,  in  addition  to  direct 
management, also provide emergency assistance through shared management, relying on 
the management and control system in place.  The managing authorities would have the 
possibility to decide on the nature, duration and scope of the actions within limits set by 
the  Commission.  Providing  emergency  assistance  through  shared  management  would 
facilitate  further  coordination  and  complementarity  between  the  emergency  assistance 
and other actions that are implemented through the national programmes, since it would 
be provided through the same management and control system at national level. 

In the future Funds, there is no dedicated envelope foreseen for emergency assistance. It 
would  rather  be  a  possibility  to  deploy  funding  from  the  thematic  facility  envelope  as 
emergency  assistance,  in  case  of  urgent  need.  This  is  more  likely  in  the  areas  of 
migration  and  border  management,  but  also  for  internal  security  it  is  important  to 
maintain the possibility to use emergency assistance in case of acute security threats. The 
use  of  emergency  assistance  is  expected  to  be  more  limited  in  the  next  programming 
period due to the additional flexibility mechanisms, through the thematic facility, which 
would be built into the design of the future Funds.  

Alternative option: 

The absence of a possibility to provide emergency assistance would reduce the ability of 
the  Funds  to  assist  in  well-defined  emergency  situations.  This  would  reduce  the 

Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council, which allows such 
flexibility in duly substantiated exceptional cases. […]”. 

41 

 
                                                                                                                                                                                 
flexibility  of  the  Funds.  Only  using  an  Emergency  Aid  Reserve,  an  Instrument  at  the 
level  of  the  Union  budget,  would  have  the  advantage  of  streamlining  the  provision  of 
emergency  assistance  at  the  level  of  the  Union.  However,  it  cannot  fully  replace  the 
emergency  assistance  mechanism  embedded  in  AMF,  BMVI  and  ISF.  It  would  not  be 
exclusively  dedicated  to  the  home  affairs  policy  area  and  may  therefore  not  be  able  to 
make additional support available in time. Furthermore, it would only be activated in the 
event of major crises. 

4.1.4  A strengthened mid-term review of national programmes  

Preferred option: 
The national programmes of AMF, BMVI and ISF will be subject to a strengthened mid-
term review, consisting of a technical adjustment. 

Alternative option: 
The national programmes of AMF, BMVI and ISF will be subject to a strengthened mid-
term  review,  consisting  of  a  technical  adjustment  and  of  a  mechanism  that  rewards 
performance towards agreed objectives. 

Preferred option: 

During  the  2021-2027  programming  period,  60%  of  the  envelope  of  AMF,  BMVI  and 
ISF will be reserved for the national programmes. In order to ensure the balance between 
predictability  and  flexibility  in  disbursing  these  Funds,  50%  of  the  envelope  of  these 
Funds will be allocated to the national programmes at the beginning of the programming 
period. The remaining 10% of the envelope will be allocated to the national programmes 
during  the  mid-term  review.  This  amount  is  intended  to  respond  to  changing  needs  of 
Member States during the programming period. 

The initial allocation of 50% of the envelope of the Funds will be distributed across the 
national  programmes  based  on  the  most  recent  statistical  data  available,  for  which  the 
criteria  will  be  set  out  in  the  Regulations  establishing  the  Funds.  These  criteria  will 
reflect, to the extent relevant statistics are available for all participating States, the areas 
of intervention of the Funds. The initial allocation should take into account data from the 
last  three  reference  years  for  which  data  is  available  on  the  date  of  adoption  of  the 
Instruments. This would allow for taking into account the most recent data available at 
the time of adoption. 

Technical adjustment of the allocation keys 

In addition to the basic allocation of 50%, 10% of the envelope of AMF, BMVI and ISF 
would be used as a technical adjustment to the basic allocation. It is foreseen to conduct 
this exercise in 2024, calculating the distribution across the national programmes based 
on updated statistical data for the criteria set out in the distribution key of each Fund. The 
aim  is  to  provide  additional  support  to  Member  States  that  reflects  their  needs  in  the 
middle  of  the  programming  period.  This  would  contribute  to  a  better  match  between 
allocation  of  funding  and  needs  on  the  ground.  The  technical  adjustment  would  not 
directly reward performance in reaching the Funds' objectives, however, it would require 
national programmes to reach a minimum level of absorption in order to benefit from the 

42 

 
mid-term  review.  When  disbursing  Funds  through  the  thematic  facility,  achievements 
towards key performance indicators would be taken into account where appropriate. 

Member  States  have  confirmed  that  in  order  to  address  changes  throughout  the 
programming  period,  additional  Funds  in  the  mid-term  review  were  needed  for  AMIF 
and ISF Police, however, the Funds did not include such a possibility. For ISF Borders 
and  Visa  the  available  envelope  was  not  considered  sufficient  to  cover  the  additional 
needs by Member States. The absence of a strengthened mid-term review would reduce 
the  responsiveness  of  the  Funds  to  address  potential  policy  developments.  Without  a 
technical adjustment the Funds would have no mechanism to address the need for up-to-
date statistics to reflect the needs on the ground, while the evaluations have indicated the 
need for such an update. In order for the Fund to address changing needs, the technical 
adjustment needs to have critical mass. 

Alternative option: 

An  alternative  option  would  be  to  have  the  strengthened  mid-term  review  consist  of  a 
technical adjustment and a performance review, each endowed with 5% of the envelope 
of  a  Fund.  In  order  to  ensure  that  such  review  would  effectively  incentivise  Member 
States  to  achieve  the  common  objectives,  the  mid-term  review  needs  to  have  critical 
mass. 

The performance review would be conducted in 2025 and include an assessment of the 
programmes in line with the most recent policy developments and any recommendations 
with  regard  to  funding  needs  that  would  stem  from  evaluations.  The  aim  would  be  to 
reward  those  Member  States  that  have  performed  well  in  the  implementation  of  the 
programmes  with  additional  funding  and,  on  the  other  hand,  to  provide  support  to 
Member  States  undergoing  significant  changes  compared  to  their  baseline  situation  by 
adjusting  their  basic  allocation  to  better  fit  their  needs.  By  rewarding  performance, 
considering  that  actions  implemented  under  the  national  programmes  bring  EU  added 
value,  those  Member  States  that  have  proven  to  successfully  implement  such  actions 
would receive additional funding. It is expected that this would increase the effectiveness 
of the Fund to achieve its objectives. 

Measuring performance would be conducted through taking into account implementation 
rates  of  the  programmes75  and  by  measuring  progress  towards  the  achievement  of 
performance targets for the programming period 2021-202776. Performance targets would 
be  agreed  between  the  Commission  and  Member  State  and  indicated  in  the  national 
programmes for a common set of indicators that is selected for the performance review. 
For an overview of what indicators might be used for such purpose, please refer to Annex 
7.  

Introducing a performance review would increase the performance based management of 
the  Fund.  In  order  to  ensure  that  such  review  would  effectively  incentivise  Member 
States  to  achieve  the  common  objectives,  the  mid-term  review  needs  to  have  critical 

75  
76  

Based on information included in the accounts that are submitted by Member States. 
Based on information included in the annual implementation reports that are submitted by Member States. 

43 

 
                                                            
mass.  However,  the  use  of  dedicated  performance  reserves in  the  current  programming 
period  in  other  EU  Funds  appears  unsuccessful  to  date.  The  future  Funds  would  be 
subject  to  common  rules  for  shared  management  Funds.  In  this  framework,  it  is  not 
foreseen to reserve a dedicated funding envelope for a performance review. As outlined 
in  the  preferred  option,  performance  based  management  would  be  pursued  through  the 
thematic facility. 

4.1.5  Use of financial instruments 

Preferred option: 
The Funds should be designed in such a way to offer the  possibility to use grants, both 
through direct and shared management, to complement financial instruments channelled 
via ‘Invest EU’ or outside it. 

Alternative option: 
The  Funds  would  not  offer  the  possibility  to  use  grants  to  complement  financial 
instruments channelled via ‘Invest EU’ or outside it. 

Preferred option: 

Currently,  AMIF  and  ISF,  due  to  the  nature  of  operations  supported,  channel  most 
funding  through  grants.  Other  modalities,  such  as  market-based  financing  with  an  EU 
guarantee, equity investment or a risk-sharing arrangement do not appear to be the most 
appropriate  models  of  support  in  migration,  border  management  and  security  policies. 
While  such  other  modalities  address  market  failures  by  investing  in  potentially 
economically viable projects that are unable to obtain sufficient funding on the market, 
migration,  security  and  border  management  are  likely  to  attract  the  interest  of  private 
investors  only  to  a  limited  extent.  Home  Affairs  policies  are  not,  in  general,  revenue-
generating  activities.  In  addition,  the  concept  of  ‘market  failure’  or  ‘suboptimal 
investment  situation’  to  justify  public  intervention  in  the  market  is  not  applicable  to 
migration and security where only public goods are delivered. Funding in the future must 
therefore to a large extent rely on grants.  

However,  there  may  be  circumstances  in  which  it  would  be  beneficial  to  blend  grants 
from  the  Funds  with  support  through  financial  instruments.  This  should  be  mainly 
channelled via the Single Investment Fund ‘Invest EU’, on a voluntary basis. The Funds 
should  be  designed  in  such  a  way  to  offer  the  possibility  to  use  grants,  both  through 
direct  and  shared  management  to  complement  the  financial  instruments  channelled  via 
‘Invest EU’ or outside it. 

Alternative option: 

In  this  option,  the  Funds  would  not  be  able  to  use  grants  to  complement  financial 
instruments.  While  the  occasions  where  such  possibility  may  be  used  are  considered 
limited, not being able to use the Funds for this purpose would prevent the Funds from 
supporting  certain  activities  that  would,  through  a  combination  of  grants  and  financial 
incentives, be able to benefit from increased amounts of funding available. Therefore, the 
preferred option is to allow for the Funds to have such possibility. 

44 

 
4.2  Further simplifying the rules for implementing EU Funds 

Preferred option: 
Implementing  rules  for  the  Funds  will  be  aligned  as  much  as  possible  with  the 
implementing rules of other EU Funds, both for shared and direct management. 

Alternative option: 
Implementing  rules  for  the  Funds  will  be  fully  aligned  with  the  implementing  rules  of 
other EU Funds, both for shared and direct management. 

Preferred option: 

In  order  to  simplify  the  implementation  of  AMF,  BMVI  and  ISF,  the  Funds  should 
function  as  much  as  possible  with  identical  delivery  mechanisms  and  have  a  structure 
that resembles as closely as possible that of other EU financial instruments under shared 
and  direct  management.  Current  rules  leave  room  to  simplify  the  management  of  the 
Funds,  as  confirmed  by  the  interim  evaluations.  As  a  newly  created  tool,  the  customs 
control equipment component is not subject to simplification but its design will rely on 
experience  gained  from  similar  experience  and  remain  as  simple  as  possible.  The 
preferred and alternative options are assessed below, for shared and direct management 
respectively. 

4.2.1  Common provisions for shared management 

Preferred option: 
Simplify  the  implementation  of  AMF,  BMVI  and  ISF,  by  using  implementing  rules  that 
are  aligned  as  much  as  possible  with  those  of  other  EU  financial  instruments  under 
shared management. 

Alternative option: 
The  implementing  rules  of  AMF,  BMVI  and  ISF  will  be  partially  aligned  with  those  of 
other EU financial instruments under shared management. 

Preferred option: 

As  indicated  in  the  Reflection  paper  on  the  future  of  EU  finances,  the  implementation 
rules  in  the  next  MFF  should  be  based  on  a  "single  rule  book"  governing  all  similar 
processes  and  instruments  across  the  Funds  and  management  modes.  This  can  be 
achieved by grouping all Funds managed under shared management under one umbrella 
Regulation or by agreeing a single rule for a given process.  

The successor to the Common Provisions Regulation (CPR)77 that is currently governing 
the  implementation  of  the  European  Structural  and  Investment  Funds,  would  contain  a 

77  

The current CPR is laid down in Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of 17 December 2013 laying down common 
provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the 
European  Agricultural  Fund  for  Rural  Development  and  the  European  Maritime  and  Fisheries  Fund  and 
laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the 
Cohesion Fund and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 320). 

45 

 
                                                            
coherent  set  of  common  financial  rules  for  shared  management.  The  legal  basis  of  this 
CPR would be Article 322 TFEU. 

The  preferred  option  is  therefore  to  align  with  the  rules  applicable  to  other  shared 
management  Funds.  This  option  allows  for  moving  towards  a  single  set  of  rules  that 
equally  fits  all  EU  Funds  in  shared  management.  To  address  particular  needs,  these 
common  provisions  will  be  complemented  by  rules  set-out  in  the  Fund-specific 
Regulations while avoiding any duplication.  

AMF, BMVI and ISF will fall under the rules set out in this Regulation as regards shared 
management.  This  will  have  the  benefit  that  rules  for  potential  beneficiaries  will  be 
identical  for  all  shared  management  Funds.  Managing  authorities  and  potential 
beneficiaries have indicated that different implementing rules continue to be an obstacle 
in achieving synergies between the interventions of EU Funds. 

However,  considering  the  rules  of  the  current  CPR,  various  thresholds  and  percentages 
would  not  be  suitable  for  the  successors  of  AMF  and  ISF.  These  relate  to  the  level  of 
technical assistance for both the Commission and the Member States (dependent on the 
financial envelope of the Funds), the thresholds for proportional controls and the level of 
pre-financing payments. Furthermore,  certain provisions from the current CPR, such  as 
those with regard to macroeconomic conditionality, the use of financial instruments and 
certain ex-ante conditionalities may constitute an unnecessary increase in administrative 
burden when compared to the current legal framework of the Home Affairs Funds78.  

The  common  rules  for  shared  management  should  therefore  be  complemented  with  a 
small number of rules that are specific to AMF, BMVI and ISF, which will be included 
in  the  Fund-specific  Regulations.  This  approach  ensures  that  rules  for  shared 
management  are  aligned  to  the  rules  for  other  shared  management  Funds  to  the  extent 
possible,  but  allow  for  some  flexibility  that  is  needed  due  to  the  special  nature  of  the 
Home Affairs Funds. 

Stakeholders  have  indicated  that  the  provision  of  information  on  EU  funding 
opportunities  and  actions  that  have  been  implemented  under  the  Funds  should  be 
improved.  Access  to  EU  funding  for  potential  beneficiaries  should  be  facilitated  by 
creating a single entry point for beneficiaries at national level. Cooperation between the 
different managing authorities of the future Funds should be facilitated by the existence 
of the common rules.  

Based  on  the  findings  of  the  interim  evaluations  of  AMIF  and  ISF  as  well  as  on  other 
consultation activities carried out, the provisions of the future framework need to ensure 
a  sufficient  level  of  pre-financing  payments,  clear  indication  of  decommitment 
procedures,  more  efficient  control  and  audit  procedures,  the  application  of  national 
eligibility rules that make use of the possibilities for simplification embedded in the legal 
bases  to  the  extent  possible,  the  ‘roll  over’  of  the  current  management  and  control 

78  

Considering  the  difference  in  size  of  the  current  envelopes  of  AMIF  and  ISF  compared  to  ESIF  and  the 
administrative  procedures  linked  to  fulfilling  ex-ante  conditionalities  that  need  to  be  completed  before 
funding can be disbursed.  

46 

 
                                                            
systems enabling a swift start of implementation; enabling the use of 'operating support' 
to  public  authorities  responsible  for  accomplishing  the  tasks  and  services  which 
constitute  a  public  service  for  the  Union79,  further  promotion  of  the  use  of  Simplified 
Cost  Options,  and  linking  the  technical  assistance  at  both  the  initiative  of  the 
Commission  and  at  the  initiative  of  the  Member  State  to  the  volume  of  financial 
envelopes to a certain extent. 

Alternative option: 

Partially  aligning  (only  in  relation  to  the  management  and  control  system)  the  rules  of 
other future shared management Funds would ensure that AMF, BMVI and ISF keep an 
additional level of flexibility as regards a few rules to adjust to some specificities of these 
Funds  namely:  higher  need  of  pre-financing  for  the  NGOs  in  the  field  of  integration, 
which tends to be limited, or giving more time for decommitting the Funds for areas such 
as resettlement or relocation that depend on migratory flows and are politically sensitive. 
However,  beneficiaries  and  managing  authorities  would  have  to  consult  and  apply 
different  legislative  acts  for  an  overview  of  applicable  rules,  increasing  administrative 
burden.  

4.2.2  Simplification of the rules applicable to direct management 

Preferred option: 
Simplify  the  implementation  of  AMF,  BMVI  and  ISF,  by  using  implementing  rules  that 
are  aligned  as  much  as  possible  with  those  of  other  EU  financial  instruments  under 
direct management. 

Alternative option: 

Do not simplify the implementation of AMF, BMVI and ISF. 

Preferred option: 

A similar approach would be followed for direct management, aligning rules to the extent 
possible with other EU Funds insofar as it would not increase the administrative burden 
for  beneficiaries.  This  would  facilitate  the  implementation  of  EU  funding  by 
beneficiaries. It corresponds to needs expressed by international organisations and NGOs 
during  the  consultation  activities,  especially  with  regard  to  activities  in  the  external 
dimension  and  with  rules  that  are  applied  under  the  successor  to  the  Horizon  2020 
Programme. This would be achieved through aligning rules for all direct management in 
the  Regulations  for  the  future  Funds.  In  addition,  it  should  be  possible  to  provide 
operating grants to organisations whose activities represent a clear EU added value. 

Alternative option: 

One  of  the  main  challenges  for  the  next  MFF  is  to  simplify  the  management  of  the 
Funds. Therefore, this option is not considered realistic. 

79  

This type of support enables 100% financing by the Union and has lighter reporting requirements. 

47 

 
                                                            
4.3  The need for an adequate level of funding 

The past and ongoing efforts in the different fields outlined above will have to continue, 
as migration and security risks remain highly significant and the need for the EU to act is 
still there. Europeans indicate that security and safety are a top priority for their Union80. 
The size, structure and content of the future Union budget will have to correspond to the 
political  ambitions  in  these  policy  fields,  taking  into  consideration  that  migration  and 
security will remain defining issues for the Union for the years to come.  

Therefore, in order to adequately support the policy response to the increased challenges 
in the area of migration, border management and security, an increase in the level of EU 
funding is needed when compared to the current programming period. 

Ensuring  a  sustainable  implementation  of  a  genuine  Security  Union,  including  the 
development and maintenance of various databases and IT systems, has required and will 
still require financial support. As the terrorist attacks of the past years have shown, the 
Union’s  exposure  to  such  violence  is  increasing  and  has  to  be  mitigated  adequately, 
particularly  through  preventive  work.  Support  continues  to  be  needed  to  combat 
cybercrime as well as serious and organised crime.  

In the area of border management, the future development of the European Border and 
Coast  Guard will depend on the decisions  taken  on the future MFF. While the level  of 
funding  needs  depends  on  the  level  of  ambition,  it  is  certain  that  significant  financial 
support is needed. The choice to upgrade the European Border and Coast Guard would 
allow  support  for  a  fully  integrated  EU  border  management  system,  which  would  be 
based  on  a  revised  legal  framework  with  an  expanded  mandate.  In  accordance  with 
scenario  2  outlined  in  the  MFF  Communication,  that  covered  the  upgrading  of  the 
EBCGA,  substantial  funding  support  would  be  needed  to  reinforce  the  existing  tools 
related to risk assessment and situational pictures; provide financial support and training 
for  the  increase  of  the  national  border  guard  component  in  vulnerable  Member  States; 
bigger and more operational expert pools; and reinforced equipment for the Agency and 
Member States.  

In the area of customs control equipment imbalances exist between Member States and 
are  reinforced  by  objective  geographical  differences.  Depending  on  the  nature  of  the 
external  border,  Member  States  have  different  resources  and  needs  for  their  customs 
control equipment. For example, large ports with huge volumes generate higher revenue, 
which  increase  the  amounts  available  to  customs  authorities  to  cover  their  collection 
costs and at the same time allows synergies in the use of equipment. Long land borders 
with  a  high  number  of  small  border  crossing  point,  require  a  lot  of  material  and 
equipment  to  be  fully  operational,  generate  less  revenue  and  therefore  less  resources 
available  to  customs  authorities  to  cover  their  collection  costs.  The  six  Member  States 
with the large seaports collect more than 75% of all customs duties and therefore retain 
the  largest  part  of  the  collection  fees.  These  imbalances  and  the  lack  of  a  specific  EU 

80  

Special Eurobarometer 464b: European’s attitudes towards security, December 2017. 

48 

 
                                                            
instrument  for  equipment  thus  impair  dramatically  equivalence  in  the  performance  of 
customs controls throughout the customs union.  

Securing  equivalent  customs  equipment  and  infrastructure  is  an  important  aspect  for 
ensuring  that  all  points  of  the  external  border  are  equipped  in  a  way  which  allows  a 
uniform  level  of  protection.  Using  modern  equipment  would  facilitate  the  quick  and 
efficient  implementation  of  physical  checks,  thus  securing  the  control  of  restricted  and 
prohibited goods and facilitating the flow and speed of legitimate trade. Achieving these 
objectives within the Customs Union can only be done by ensuring that even the weakest 
link is strong enough to fulfil its function. 

EU  funding  should  also  support  the  integration  of  third-country  nationals  legally 
residing  in  the  EU,  in  particular  beneficiaries  of  international  protection  (refugees  and 
beneficiaries  of  subsidiary  protection)  and  family  members  who  come  to  the  EU  for 
family reunification purposes. Support is also needed to step up the use of legal avenues 
for persons in need of protection to come to Europe, while continuing efforts to decrease 
irregular  migration.  Successfully  implementing  the  reform  of  the  Common  European 
Asylum  System,  including  the  reform  of  the  Dublin  system,  the  Action  plan  on  the 
integration  of  third-country  nationals  and  the  renewed  Action  plan  on  a  more  effective 
return policy in the European Union will also require financial support. 

Overall,  both  evaluations  and  consultations  carried  out  in  the  context  of  this  Impact 
Assessment  show  that  the  scale  of  the  challenges  to  be  addressed  under  the  next  MFF 
will be increasing. Current levels of support would therefore not be sufficient to address 
the needs nor enable to meet the political ambitions expressed in the areas of migration, 
security and border management. 

5  HOW WILL PERFORMANCE BE MONITORED AND EVALUATED? 

5.1  Practical arrangements of the evaluation: when and by whom  

The  current  monitoring  and  evaluation  framework,  establishing  common  indicators  for 
shared  management,  needs  to  be  improved  in  such  a  way  that  it  allows  for  better 
performance  based  management  of  the  Funds  and  covers  all  management  modes  in  a 
timely fashion.  

The Commission should ensure that systems are in place to monitor the implementation 
of  the  funding  instruments  and  evaluate  them  against  the  main  policy  objectives, 
covering  all  management  modes.  The  implementation  of  the  Specific  Regulations  shall 
be evaluated by the Commission in cooperation with the Member States.  

Provisions  of  AMF,  IBMF  and  ISF  should  be  established  for  the  evaluations  of  the 
funding  instruments.  The  timing  of  the  mid-term  review,  taking  into  account  available 
evaluations,  should  be  fixed  in  advance  to  guarantee  predictability  for  the  Member 
States, and to encourage Member States to implement measures at the beginning of the 
financial period.  

In  order  to  monitor  the  progress  and  measure  the  relevance,  effectiveness,  efficiency, 
added  value,  coherence  and  sustainability  of  the  actions,  a  set  of  indicators  should  be 

49 

 
used.  A  first  set  of  indicators  is  included  as  Annexes  to  the  Regulations  and  the 
Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in order to develop further the 
monitoring  and  evaluation  framework.  Such  implementing  powers  enable  flexibility  to 
adapt to changing circumstances and changing availability of data in view of achieving a 
robust  monitoring  and  evaluation  framework,  while  reducing  the  administrative  burden 
for the Responsible Authorities and beneficiaries in Member States. The monitoring and 
evaluation  framework  will  build  on  the  provisions  for  monitoring  and  evaluation 
included in the future Common Provisions Regulation, covering shared management. 

The  measurement  of  the  success  of  the  programmes  will  be  based  on  objectives  set 
between Commission and Member States, to be agreed in the national programmes, and 
the subsequent measurement of achievements towards those objectives. The achievement 
of  the  specific  objectives  and  implementation  measures  of  the  Fund  are  measured 
through  result  and  output  indicators  respectively.  The  measurement  of  achieving  the 
policy objectives of the Funds, assessing their impact, would follow from an analysis of 
these result and output indicators. 

The  obligation  and  roles  for  Member  States  and  Agencies  to  systematically  gather  and 
provide  data  that  are  necessary  to  measure  the  effectiveness  of  the  actions  will  be  laid 
down  in  the  Regulations. Member  States  will  report  on  the  relevant  output  and  result 
indicators in the framework of the annual reporting requirements that will be laid down 
in the future CPR.  

The Commission shall also issue guidance on the monitoring and evaluation framework. 
Learning  from  the  implementation  of  the  current  funding  instruments,  such  guidance 
should  be  available  at  the  beginning  of  the  financial  period  in  order  to  offer  certainty, 
predictability and assistance to the Member States and beneficiaries, in view of gathering 
the data needed for monitoring and evaluation. 

5.2  Monitoring indicators   

Data for the monitoring indicators for AMF, IBMF, and ISF are to be collected on an on-
going basis by the Member States or Agencies. For evaluation purposes yearly statistics 
will be computed and compared between successive years. Where possible, a comparison 
with  a  baseline  situation  can  be  used.  A  set  of  core  performance  indicators  will  be 
developed per Specific Regulation. 

Monitoring indicators are not sufficient to provide an adequate evaluation of the effects 
of  the  programme.  For  this  reason,  it  is  foreseen  to  plan  for  impact  evaluations  of  the 
(measured  on 
effects  of  specific  projects/interventions  on  selected  outcomes 
intermediate/end users), along with the relevant data collection at the appropriate level of 
granularity. The details of the evaluation and data plans will be defined before 2020  in 
collaboration with the Joint Research Centre of the Commission. 

Building  on  the  existing  and  best  performing  indicators,  as  well  as  the  availability  of 
data,  a  first  set  of  core  performance  indicators  as  well  as  a  set  of  output  and  result 
indicators  per  Specific  Regulation  is  proposed.  For  the  indicators  listed,  experience 

50 

 
confirms  that  such  information  is  available.  The  source  of  data  is  indicated  between 
brackets in the overview below. 

5.2.1  Core performance indicators for the Asylum and Migration Fund 

1.  Number of persons resettled with the support of the Fund (Data source: Member 

States). 

2.  Number of persons in the reception system as compared to the number of asylum 

applicants (Data source: EASO). 

3.  Convergence of protection recognition rates for asylum applicants from the same 

country (Data source: Eurostat). 

4.  Number  of  persons  who  participated  in  pre-departure  measures  supported  under 

the Fund (Data source: Member States). 

5.  Number of persons who participated in integration measures supported under the 
Fund  reporting  that  the  measures  were  beneficial  for  their  early  integration  as 
compared  to  the  total  number  of  persons  who  participated  in  the  integration 
measures supported by the Fund (Data source: Member States). 

6.  Number of returns following an order to leave compared to the number of third-

country nationals ordered to leave (Data source: Member States). 

7.  Number  of  returnees  whose  return  was  co-financed  by  the  Fund,  persons  who 
returned  voluntarily  and  persons  who  were  removed  (Data  source:  Member 
States). 

8.  Number of returnees who have received pre or post-return reintegration assistance 
co-financed by the Fund, as compared to the total number of returns supported by 
the Fund (Data source: Member States). 

5.2.2  Core performance indicators for Integrated Border Management Fund – Border 

Management and Visa Instrument 

In the area of border management: 

1.  Number  of  irregular  border  crossings  detected  at  the  EU  external  borders  a) 
between the border crossing points; b) at the border crossing points (Data source: 
European Border and Coast Guard Agency). 

2.  Number  of  persons  using  fraudulent  travel  documents  detected  at  the  border 

crossing points (Data source: European Border and Coast Guard Agency). 

In the area of visa: 

1.  Number  of  persons  using  fraudulent  travel  documents  detected  at  consulates 

supported by the Fund (Data source: Member States). 

2.  Average decision time (and trends) in the visa procedure (Data source: Member 

States). 

51 

 
5.2.3  Core  performance  indicators  for  the  Integrated  Border  Management  Fund  – 

Customs Control Equipment 

The customs control equipment will be supported by an assessment of needs (see Annex 
6  for  more  details),  consisting  in  particular  in  establishing  joint  standards  for  customs 
control equipment for each type of BCP and each type of equipment.  

Once  such  standards  are  established,  it  is  proposed  to  monitor  the  performance  of  the 
new Instrument by comparing the equipment gap between these standards and the actual 
availability of equipment by type of BCP: 

1.  Availability at land BCPs of customs control equipment meeting agreed standards 

(by type of equipment). 

2.  Availability at sea BCPs of customs control equipment meeting agreed standards 

(by type of equipment). 

3.  Availability at air BCPs of customs control equipment meeting agreed standards 

(by type of equipment). 

4.  Availability at post BCPs of customs control equipment meeting agreed standards 

(by type of equipment). 

5.  Availability at rail BCPs of customs control equipment meeting agreed standards 

(by type of equipment). 

5.2.4  Core performance indicators for the Internal Security Fund  

1.  Use  of  EU  and  international  information  exchange  mechanisms  (Data  sources: 

Europol, eu-LISA, Council, Member States). 

2.  Number  of  joint  operational  actions  supported  by  the  Funds  (Data  sources: 

Europol, Eurojust, Member States). 

3.  The estimated value of assets frozen, estimated value of assets confiscated with 

the help of the Fund (Data source: Member States). 

4.  Value  of  illicit  drug  seizures  achieved  with  involvement  of  cross-border 
cooperation  between  law  enforcement  agencies  (Data  source:  Member  States, 
Union action grant beneficiaries). 

5.  Number  of  Schengen  Evaluation  Recommendations  with  a  financial  implication 
in the area of security addressed with the support of the Fund, as compared to the 
total  number  of  recommendations  with  a  financial  implication  in  the  area  of 
security (Data source: Member States). 

6.  Number  of  law  enforcement  officials  that  completed  training,  exercises,  mutual 
learning  or  specialised  exchange  programmes  on  cross-border  related  topics 
provided with the support of the Fund (Data source: Member States). 

7.  Number  of  critical  infrastructures  and  public  spaces  of  which  the  protection 
against  security-related  incidents  has  been  improved  with  the  help  of  the  Fund 
(Data source: Member States). 

8.  Number of initiatives to prevent radicalisation leading to violent extremism (Data 

source: Radicalisation Awareness Network). 

52 

 
 
 
 
Annex 1: Procedural information 

1  LEAD DG(S), DeCIDE PLANNING/CWP REFERENCES 

The lead department for this Impact Assessment is the Directorate-General for Migration 
and Home  Affairs (DG HOME) and the  Directorate-General for Taxation and Customs 
Union  (DG  TAXUD).  In  particular  the  assessment  has  been  carried  out  by  Units 
HOME.E3  (National  Programmes  for  North  and  West  Europe;  Evaluations;  MFF) 
TAXUD.E3 (Management of programmes and EU training). 

2  ORGANISATION AND TIMING 

As indicated in the Better Regulation Guidelines on Impact Assessments, an inter-service 
steering  group  (ISSG)  was  set  up  to  follow  the  assessment  process.  The  ISSG  was 
created and held its first meeting at the end of June 2017. Members of the ISSG are the 
following  services:  AGRI,  BUDG,  CNECT,  DEVCO,  EAC,  ECFIN,  ECHO,  EEAS, 
EMPL,  FPI,  GROW,  JRC,  JUST,  MARE,  MOVE,  NEAR,  OLAF,  REGIO,  RTD, 
SANTE, SG, SJ, SRSS and TAXUD. The ISSG met on 26 June 2017, 30 August 2017, 
26  October  2017,  22  February  2018  and  22  March  2018.  It  has  been  involved  and 
provided  feedback  on  the  deliverables  of  the  MFF  post-2020  study  and  in  the  overall 
process of drafting the Staff Working Document. The minutes of the last meeting of the 
ISSG are annexed to this Impact Assessment. 

3  CONSULTATION OF THE RSB 

An  informal  upstream  meeting  was  held  on  24  January  2018  with  RSB  representatives 
and the participation of SG, DG BUDG and JRC. During this discussion Board members 
and representatives of the horizontal Services provided early feedback and advice on the 
basis  of  the  inception  impact  assessment  (or  scoping  paper).  The  feedback  by  Board 
members did not prejudge in any way the subsequent formal deliberations of the RSB. 

On 13 April 2018, the RSB gave a positive opinion on the draft Impact Assessment and 
recommended to further improve the report with respect to the following key aspects. 

(B) Main considerations 

Implementation of recommendations 

(1) The  report  does  not  sufficiently 
explain  the  new  instrument  for 
customs  control  equipment.  It  does 
not  say  why  a  direct  management 
mode is appropriate. 

(2) The  report  does  not  explain  how 
increasing  EU  competence  in  these 
areas and expanded role of agencies 

Section  4.1.1  has  been  revised  in  order  to 
explain  why  shared  management  is  not  fit 
for customs. 

For  AMF,  BMVI  and  ISF,  section  3.2  has 
been  revised  to  explain  how  the  extension 
of  EU  competence  and  larger  role  of 
agencies  affects the roles  of  the  respective 

53 

 
 
will affect the overall system. 

programmes. 

For  Customs  Control  Equipment,  Section 
4.1.1  has  been  revised  in  order  to  explain 
the benefits of the new Union intervention. 

The RSB provided further considerations and recommendations for improvement. 

(C) Further considerations and 
recommendations for improvement 

Implementation of further 
considerations and recommendations 

Section  4.1.1  has  been  revised  in  order  to 
clarify  the  reasons  for  selecting  direct 
management. A dedicated annex (Annex 6) 
has  been  added  to  present  the  overall 
design,  including  implementation  model 
and  governance,  of  the  chosen  delivery 
mechanism. 

text 

fund 

current 

(1) The  report  should  clarify  how  the 
new 
for  customs  control 
equipment  will  be  managed.  It 
should  explain  why  it  considers 
direct  management  to  be  the  most 
appropriate  delivery  mechanism. 
the 
The 
impression that an executive agency 
is  a  possibility.  This  is  reportedly 
not  the  case,  so  the  text  should  be 
adjusted to not mislead. As customs 
control  equipment  is  a  new  area  of 
intervention  in  these  funds,  the 
report should add a dedicated annex 
on  customs  control  equipment  and 
on the chosen delivery mechanism. 

gives 

(2) The  report  should  present  the  main 
changes in the programme structure 
and  the  priorities  compared  to  the 
period. 
programming 
current 
Moreover, the  report  should  clarify 
the scope of the external component 
of 
its 
programme, 
complementarity  with  the  external 
instruments. 

the 

i.e. 

to 

Section 3.2 has been revised to present the 
main  changes  to  the  programme  structure 
compared 
the  current  programming 
period. Section 3.3 is revised to clarify the 
scope  of  the  external  component  and  its 
complementarity  with 
external 
instruments. 

the 

roles 

(3) The report should also explain how 
the  extension  of  EU  competence 
and  larger  role  for  agencies  affects 
the 
respective 
programmes.  Does  it  increase  the 
need  for  actions  at  national  level, 
for  delegation  to  the  agencies,  or 
reduce 
some 
the  priority  of 
interventions? 

the 

of 

(4) The Board understands that the new 
performance 
for 
under 
the 

mechanism 
was 
reserves 
development  when  drafting 

still 

54 

Section  3.2  has  been  revised  to  explain 
how  the  extension  of  EU  competence  and 
larger  role  of  agencies  affects  the  roles  of 
the respective programmes. 

Section  4.1.4  has  been  revised  to  update 
and clarify the preferred mechanism, taking 
into  account  experience  from  other  EU 
Funds and developments in the framework 

 
report.  Its  final  version  should 
however  update  and  clarify  the 
chosen  mechanism  and  justify  it  in 
the  light  of  experience  from  other 
EU funds (as orally explained to the 
Board). 

of preparing the future Common Provisions 
Regulation for shared management. 

Section  4.1.3  has  been  revised  to  provide 
clarifications  on  how  the  new  emergency 
mechanism will function. 

the 

three 

funds 

(5) The  report  should  clarify  how  the 
new  emergency  mechanism  will 
function  within  the  envelopes  of 
each  of 
for 
migration and security, and that the 
use of emergency assistance should 
be limited due to the new flexibility 
provided by the thematic facility. It 
should explain the advantage of this 
emergency 
over 
mechanism 
funding 
previous 
programming period. 

the 

in 

(6) The  monitoring  arrangements  are 
not  well  developed.  The  report 
should 
the 
how 
success  will  be 
programmes’ 
defined and measured. 

clarify 

Section  5.1  has  been  revised  to  provide 
further 
the  monitoring 
arrangements 
and  how  programmes’ 
success will be defined and measured. 

information  on 

Some  more  technical  comments  have  been 
transmitted directly to the author DG. 

technical  comments  have  been 
report, 

throughout 

the 

More 
accommodated 
where applicable. 

4  EVIDENCE, SOURCES AND QUALITY 

The analysis presented in this document was based on evidence supported by: 

 

Interim  evaluations  of  the  current  funds:  AMIF,  ISF  Borders  and  Visa  and  ISF 
Police; 

  Study of an external consultant; 
  Consultations  with  Member  States  and  stakeholders  (including  an  open  public 

consultation). 

55 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 2: Stakeholder consultation  

Following the Better Regulation Guidelines, this Annex will summarise DG HOME's and 
DG  TAXUD's  consultation  activities  with  the  aim  (i)  to  inform  policy  making  on  the 
outcome of the consultation activities; and (ii) to inform stakeholders on how their input 
has  been  taken  into  account  and  to  explain  why  certain  suggestions  could  not  be  taken 
up. 

1. 

Objectives and scope of the consultation strategy 

The  objective  of  the  consultations  undertaken  by  DG  HOME  and  DG  TAXUD  was  to 
gather input from stakeholders and ensure that the general public's interest of the Union 
is  well  reflected  in  the  future  design  of  the  funding  instruments.  The  aim  of  the 
consultation  activities  was  to  feed  the  stakeholders'  input  into  the  drafting  of  the 
legislative proposals and the accompanying Impact Assessment. 

These consultations gave relevant stakeholders the opportunity to present their views to 
the Commission on how well the existing programmes meet the needs of migration and 
security  and  how  they  could  be  improved  to  address  future  challenges  and  adequately 
support the Union's objectives in these areas.  

The  consultations  covered  general  topics  related  to  the  design  of  the  instruments  and 
future policy priorities, as well as more specific topics related to the delivery mechanisms 
and practical implementation. 

2. 

Identified stakeholders 

The  consultation  was  based  on  a  stakeholders  mapping,  which  covers  the  main  EU 
organisations  and  institutions  working  in  the  field  of  migration  and  security,  public 
authorities  at  all  levels  of  government,  social  partners,  civil  society  organisations,  and 
funding beneficiaries. 

Contributions were, in particular, sought from the following stakeholders: 

  Member States and Schengen Associated Countries: 

  National  Authorities  (e.g.  Ministry  of  Interior,  Ministry  of  Justice, 

Ministry of Labour/ Employment); 

  Responsible  Authorities  for  the  implementation  of  national  programmes 

under AMIF and ISF; 

  Audit Authorities for AMIF and ISF; 
  Delegated Authorities for AMIF and ISF; 
  Managing  Authorities  for  the  European  Structural  and  Investment  Funds 

(ESIF); 

  Local and regional authorities. 
  National Coordinators for the Customs 2020 Programme 

  European  Institutions  and  bodies,  including  Home  Affairs  Agencies  (EBCGA, 

EASO, EUROPOL, CEPOL, eu-LISA and EMCDDA); 

56 

 
 

International Organisations, such as the International Organisation for Migration 
(IOM) and the United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR); 

  Beneficiaries of AMIF and ISF (but also other EU Funds, in particular ESIF); 
  Civil society (NGOs/civil society organisations); 
  Social partners (trade and employers' unions); 
  Academic institutions and think tanks, including experts in the fields of migration 

and security; 

  EU citizens at large and third-country nationals in the EU. 

3. 

Consultation methods and activities 

The  stakeholder  consultation  involved  a  range  of  methods  and  tools  in  order  to  ensure 
that a sufficient variety and number of stakeholders would be reached, and that opinions 
would be cross-checked.  

 The consultation activities included: 

  Open Public Consultations; 
  Stakeholder workshops; 
  Webinars; 
  Surveys; 
  Case studies. 

4.  

Open Public Consultations 

The  aim  of  the  web-based  public  consultations  was  to  gather  feedback  from  a  broad 
range of stakeholders. They were available in all EU languages. 

The public consultations on EU Funds post-2020 were launched as a mandatory element 
of  the  stakeholder  consultation.  The  consultations  were  based  on  both  closed  and  open 
questions  on  the  policy  challenges,  subsidiarity,  objectives  of  the  programmes  and 
obstacles to reach them, simplification and synergy between the programmes.  

The  standard  12-week  open  public  consultation  was  shortened  to  9  weeks  by  the 
Commission due to the limited time for preparing the new programmes. The open public 
consultations were launched on 10 January 2018 and remained open until 9 March 2018. 

4.1.  Open Public Consultation on EU Funds in the area of migration 

The Open Public Consultation (OPC) on EU Funds in the area of migration81 received a 
total  of  351  replies82.  This  consultation  was  open  to  the  general  public  and  all 
stakeholders  with  an  interest  and/or  involvement  in  migration  issues.  The  scope  of  the 

81  

82  

The results of the open public consultation are available online:  
https://ec.europa.eu/info/consultations/eu-funds-area-migration_en 
Specifically,  165  respondents  replied  as  individuals  in  their  personal  capacity,  while  186  replied  in  their 
professional  capacity  or  behalf  of  an  organisation  (19  international  or  national  public  authorities;  81  non-
governmental  organisations,  platforms  or  networks;  3  private  enterprises;  1  professional  consultancy/law 
firm,  self-employed  consultant;  34  regional  or  local  authorities;  10  trade,  business  or  professional 
associations;  2  churches  and  religious  communities;  6  respondents  from  research  and  academia;  30  other 
organisations). 

57 

 
                                                            
OPC was not limited to AMIF but also included other EU Funds supporting objectives in 
the area of migration. 

On  assessing  the  importance  of  identified  migration  policy  challenges  that  the  Funds 
could address, respondents identified the following priorities, listed by the percentage of 
respondents  who  assessed  them  as  ‘very  important’  or  ‘rather  important’  (sum  of 
percentages into brackets):83  

 

 

 

 

 

‘Ensuring solidarity with MSs facing the greatest migration pressure’ (79%). 
The majority of respondents believes that the current Funds successfully address 
this challenge either fully (4%), fairly well (14%), or to some extent only (47%).  
19% considers that the challenge is currently not addressed at all. 
‘Strengthening  and  developing  the  Common  European  Asylum  System’ 
(70%). The majority of respondents believes that the current Funds successfully 
address this challenge either fully (9%), fairly well (33%), or to some extent only 
(37%). 26% considers that the challenge is currently not addressed at all. 
‘Supporting  the  work  of  MSs  to  accept  and  integrate  migrants  into  their 
societies’  (63%).  The  majority  of  respondents  believes  that  the  current  Funds 
successfully  address  this  challenge  either  fully  (14%),  fairly  well  (22%),  or  to 
some extent only (33%). 32% considers that currently it is not addressed at all. 
 ‘Engaging  with  countries  outside  the  EU  to  stem  irregular  migration, 
including  tacking  smuggling  networks’  (60%).  The  majority  of  respondents 
believes  that  the  current  Funds  successfully  address  this  challenge  either  fully 
(9%),  fairly  well  (12%),  or  to  some  extent  only  (36%).  19%  considers  that  the 
challenge is currently not addressed at all. 
‘Meeting  reception  needs  of  asylum  seekers,  refugees  and  other  migrants’ 
(58%). The majority of respondents believes that the current Funds successfully 
address  this  challenge  either  fully  (11%),  fairly  well  (24%),  or  to  some  extent 
only (42%). 12% considers that the challenge is currently not addressed at all.  

According  to  almost  half  of  the  respondents  (47%),  the  current  EU  Funds  create  EU 
added value, either to a fairly large extent, or to a large extent, compared to what MSs 
could achieve at national, regional and/or local levels. A significant share of respondents 
replied  that  EU  Funds  generate  EU  added  value  to  some  extent  only  (33%),  while  a 
minority (15%) believes that they do not generate added value. Among the groups with 
the  largest  number  of  respondents,  more  than  half  of  the  representatives  from  non-
governmental organisations, platforms or  networks  selected ‘to a  large extent’ or ‘to a 
fairly  large  extent’  (62%),  while  stakeholders  responding  as  individuals  are  those  who 
selected the most the option ‘not at all’ (30%). 

83  

Selected  from  a  pre-defined  list  of  options  based  on  the  sum  of  the  percentages  of  respondents  indicating 
‘very  important’  or  ‘rather  important’,  on  a  scale  including:  ‘very  important’,  ‘rather  important’,  ‘neither 
important nor unimportant’, ‘not very important’, ‘no opinion’. The percentage per answer is calculated as 
the number of persons who selected the relevant answer over total number of respondents, unless otherwise 
specified. 

58 

 
                                                            
‘Complexity  of  rules  and  high  administrative  burden’  (66%)  and  ‘lack  of  flexibility  to 
respond  to  changing  circumstances’  (66%)  are  identified  as  the  main  obstacles84,  
preventing  the  current  Funds  from  successfully  achieving  their  objectives,  followed  by 
‘difficulty in combining EU and national/regional interventions’ (52%). On the contrary, 
the  ‘insufficient  institutional  capacity  to  manage  the  funds’  and  ‘insufficient  focus  on 
incentivising  performance  and  results’  are  the  options  for  which  the  largest  number  of 
respondents selected that it was not at all an obstacle (19% each).  

As  regards  simplification,85  according  to  the  respondents,  ‘clearer  rules  and  simplified 
procedures’  is  the  most  important  measure  to  help  further  simplify  and  reduce 
administrative  burden  for  beneficiaries  (77%),  followed  by  ‘simpler  access  to  funding’ 
(65%), and ‘wider scope for interventions able to be funded’ (59%). 

Strategies  suggested  by  stakeholders  to  enhance  synergies  among  funding  instruments 
include  grouping/merging  some  programmes  to  avoid  possible  overlaps/duplication, 
increasing  exchange  of  information  both  at  national  and  EU  level,  and  simplifying  the 
Funds, programmes and related processes in order to reduce the risk of overlaps. 

4.2.  Open Public Consultation on EU Funds in the area of security 

The  Open  Public  Consultation  (OPC)  on  EU  Funds  in  the area  of  security86  received  a 
total of 155 replies87. The scope of the OPC was not limited to ISF but included also the 
following EU Funds and programmes in the area of security: the European Defence Fund 
(EDF),  the  Emergency  Support  Instrument  (ESI),  the  Hercule  Programme  and  the 
Pericles Programme. 

When  assessing  the  importance  of  identified  security  policy  challenges  that  the  Funds 
could address, respondents identified the following priorities, listed by the percentage of 
respondents who assessed them as ‘very important’  or 
(sum  of 
percentages into brackets)88: 

important’ 

‘rather 

 

‘Fighting  cross-border  crime,  including  terrorism,  with  more  cooperation 
between  law  enforcement  authorities’  (87%).  The  majority  of  respondents 

84  

85  

86  

87  

88  

Selected  from  a  pre-defined  list  of  options  based  on  the  percentage  of  respondents  indicating  ‘to  a  large 
extent’ and ‘to a fairly large extent’, on a scale including: ‘to a large extent’, ‘to a fairly large extent’, ‘to 
some extent only’, ‘not at all’, ‘no opinion’. 
Selected  from  a  pre-defined  list  of  options  based  on  the  percentage  of  respondents  indicating  ‘to  a  large 
extent’ and ‘to a fairly large extent’, on a scale including: ‘to a large extent’, ‘to a fairly large extent’, ‘to 
some extent only’, ‘not at all’, ‘no opinion’. 
The results of the open public consultation are available online:  
https://ec.europa.eu/info/consultations/eu-funds-area-security_en. 
Specifically,  39  respondents  replied  as  individuals  in  their  personal  capacity,  while  116  replied  in  their 
professional  capacity  or  behalf  of  an  organisation  (42  international  or  national  public  authorities;  16  non-
governmental  organisations,  platforms  or  networks;  25  private  enterprises;  1  professional  consultancy/law 
firm, self-employed consultant; 7 regional or local authorities; 7 trade, business or professional associations; 
1 church and religious community; 8 other organisations). 
Selected  from  a  pre-defined  list  of  options  based  on  the  sum  of  the  percentages  of  respondents  indicating  
‘very  important’  or  ‘rather  important’,  on  a  scale  including:  ‘very  important’,  ‘rather  important’,  ‘neither 
important nor unimportant’, ‘not very important’, ‘no opinion’. The percentage per answer is calculated as 
the number of persons who selected the relevant answer over total number of respondents, unless otherwise 
specified. 

59 

 
                                                            
 

 

 

believes  that  the  current  Funds  successfully  address  this  challenge  either  fully 
(13%), fairly well (32%), or to some extent only (31%). 
‘Protection  of  people,  public  spaces  and  critical  infrastructure’  (87%).  The 
majority of respondents believes that the current Funds successfully address this 
challenge either fully (7%), fairly well (29%), or to some extent only (37%). 
‘Promoting strong cyber-security’ (85%). The majority of respondents believes 
that the current Funds successfully address this challenge either fully (6%) fairly 
well (26%), or to some extent only (41%). 
‘Supporting  security  at  the  external  borders’  (82%).  The  majority  of 
respondents  believes  that  the  current  Funds  successfully  address  this  challenge 
either fully (10%), fairly well (32%), or to some extent only (32%). 

On  the  EU  added  value  of  the  Funds,  the  majority  of  respondents  consider  that  they 
provide EU added value either to a large (31%) or fairly large extent (37%), compared to 
what  MSs  alone  could  achieve  at  national,  regional  and/or  local  levels.  In  particular, 
some  stakeholders  underline  how  EU  Funds  act  as  facilitators  of  transnational 
partnerships, and enable MSs to face common and cross-border challenges.  

‘Complex procedures leading to high administrative burden and delays’ are identified as 
the  main  obstacle89  preventing  the  current  Funds  from  successfully  achieving  their 
objectives (71%), followed by ‘lack of flexibility to react to unforeseen circumstances or 
new  priorities’  (55%),  ‘difficulty  to  ensure  the  sustainability  of  projects  when  the 
financing period ends’ (46%), and ‘difficulty of combining EU action with other public 
interventions’ (46%). On the contrary, the ‘insufficient focus on performance and results’ 
is the option for which the highest number of respondents selected that it was not at all an 
obstacle (25%). 

As  regards  simplification,90  respondents  consider  ‘fewer,  clearer  and  simpler  rules’ 
(78%),  ‘simpler  application  and  reporting  procedures’  (73%),  ‘alignment  of  rules 
between  EU  Funds’  (66%),  and  ‘more  flexibility  of  activity  once  funding  is  eligible’ 
(66%)  as  the  main  steps  to  further  simplify  and  reduce  administrative  burden  for 
beneficiaries.  

The strategies proposed by respondents to strengthen the synergies with other Funds to 
avoid  possible  overlaps  or  duplication  include  providing  more  information  on  EU 
funding  opportunities;  standardisation  of  procedures;  combining  Funds,  especially  for 
common areas; or stronger management at the EU level. 

89  

90  

Selected  from  a  pre-defined  list  of  options  based  on  the  percentage  of  respondents  indicating  ‘to  a  large 
extent’ and ‘to a fairly large extent’, on a scale including: ‘to a large extent’, ‘to a fairly large extent’, ‘to 
some extent only’, ‘not at all’, ‘no opinion’.  
Selected  from  a  pre-defined  list  of  options  based  on  the  percentage  of  respondents  indicating  ‘to  a  large 
extent’ and ‘to a fairly large extent’, on a scale including: ‘to a large extent’, ‘to a fairly large extent’, ‘to 
some extent only’, ‘not at all’, ‘no opinion’.  

60 

 
 
 
                                                            
4.3.  Open  Public  Consultation  on  EU  funds  in  the  area  of  customs  control 
equipment 

A  centralised  multi-programme  Open  Public  Consultation  (OPC)  was  led  and  managed 
by the Secretariat General: the public consultation on EU funds in the area of investment, 
research  &  innovation,  SMEs  and  single  market.  This  consultation  contributed  to  the 
evaluations  of  existing  EU  financial  programmes  covering  several  policy  areas  and  the 
Impact Assessment in preparation of the sectoral programmes and contemplated also the 
customs issues.  

Out  of  the  4  052  respondents  to  this  multi-clustered  OPC,  13  reported  on  customs  and 
underlined  –  inter  alia  –  that  allowing  for  the  acquisition  of  equipment  for  customs 
control would greatly contribute to better use of the possibilities offered under the current 
Customs programme and to increasing the effectiveness of the opportunities offered by 
this  programme.  The  current  lack  of  programme  and  funds  that  directly  supports  the 
purchase  of  customs  equipment  was  underlined.  It  was  mentioned  that  purchase  of 
equipment  necessary  for  customs  controls  could  be  supported  by  programmes  for  the 
support for the functioning of various aspects of the single market. As to the importance 
of  strengthening  synergies  among  programmes/funds  in  order  to  avoid  possible 
overlaps/duplication, it was mentioned that it is fundamental to group/merge those with 
similar scope. 

5. 

Stakeholder workshops 

Consultations with Member States and Schengen Associated Countries took place in the 
framework of the AMIF-ISF Committee, which is comprised of the representatives of the 
Responsible  Authorities  for  the  implementation  of  the  AMIF  and  ISF  national 
programmes. Member States had the possibility to provide feedback through a series of 
workshops.  On  23-24  November  2016  Member  States  provided  initial  ideas  on  the 
preparation of the next home affairs funds. On 13 March 2017 Member States provided 
feedback  on  the  main  funding  priorities.  On  6  December  2017  Member  States  had  the 
opportunity  to  provide  input  on  the  architecture  of  the  funds,  delivery  modes  and  new 
priorities.  

In  the  customs  domain,  consultation  with  Member  States  took  place  in  Workshops 
organised under the auspices of the Customs 2020 Programme. 

5.1.  Workshop I on the Horizontal provisions for the post-2020 HOME funds 

As a general remark, Responsible Authorities (RAs) demonstrate overall satisfaction on 
the current implementing rules of the Funds, and express consensus on the importance to 
limit the changes in the post-2020 Funds. The late approval of the Horizontal Regulation 
affected  the  design  of  the  National  Programmes  and  RAs  call  for  any  possible 
modification of the Horizontal Regulation and the negotiations on National Programmes 
well in advance the beginning of the implementation.  

61 

 
With  regards  to  management  and  control  systems,  RAs  agree  that  there  are  too  many 
controls  to  be  performed  at  national  level  (i.e.  administrative  controls,  operational  and 
financial on-the-spot controls, controls  of the Audit  Authority) and suggest considering 
giving on-the-spot controls to Audit Authorities, while not re-introducing the Certifying 
Authority. In addition, the use of Simplified Cost Options (SCOs) is challenging for RAs, 
which  suggest  the  introduction  of  guidance  and  “off-the-shelf”  solutions  from  the 
Commission.  The  introduction  in  the  Regulation  of  lump  sums  (as  already  done  for 
resettlement) is considered a good example of simplification and need to be considered 
for the future MFF (e.g. lump sums for asylum seekers, trainings, awareness campaigns).  

On the financial management, MSs stress that the de-commitment rule (Year N+2) is not 
very clear and that the adoption of payment claims based on payments moved the burden 
from  the  Commission  to  RAs.  The  pre-financing  rate  is  too  low  and  the  possibility  to 
submit  accounts  only  once  a  year  limits  RAs’  room  for  action.  The  low  level  of  pre-
financing  brought  some  RAs  to  ask  for  financial  resources  in  advance  to  national 
ministries in order to pay beneficiaries and avoid de-commitment. RAs suggest either to 
set a higher annual pre-financing rate (e.g. 15%), or allow intermediate payments as it is 
done for ESIF.  

Finally, a few issues have been raised when discussing programme implementation. RAs 
stress that there are too many reports to be submitted to the Commission and duplications 
of efforts between the mid-term review and the interim evaluation have been identified as 
an issue. 

5.2.  Workshop II on the Specific Regulations: AMIF 

The  workshop  showed  a  general  consensus  among  Responsible  Authorities  (RAs) on  a 
proposal to not allocate the entire funding envelope as initial allocation and distribute the 
remaining  allocation via top-up funding, according to  emerging  needs and/or  following 
the mid-term review exercise. RAs stress that more flexibility to transfer money among 
different Specific Objectives is welcome, while no substantial problems have been raised 
regarding minimum percentages for the allocation of funding to Specific Objectives.  

As  far  as  the  architecture  of  EU  funding  for  migration  is  concerned,  multiannual 
programmes are perceived as very effective by MSs. National Programmes cover a broad 
spectrum  of  issues  and  the  current  list  of  eligible  actions  is  comprehensive  and  allows 
sufficient  interpretation.  Complementarity  with  other  EU  Funds  is  more  likely to  occur 
with the European Social Fund. 

Commenting  on  delivery  modes,  according  to  most  RAs,  EMAS  is  a  useful  and 
responsive tool, however it is not always easy to estimate how much funding is needed to 
react to an emergency situation.  

A  focus  on  countering  radicalisation  -  currently  covered  mainly  under  ISF  -  could  be 
included under the successor to AMIF as a new priority. 

62 

 
 
 
5.3.  Workshop III on the Specific Regulations: ISF 

To  enhance  the  flexibility  of  ISF,  it  is  proposed  to  allocate  50%  of  resources  at  the 
beginning of the programming period, and to distribute the remaining 50%  periodically 
according  to  risk  assessments.  RAs  stressed  that  the  thresholds  for  the  allocation  of 
resources  among  Specific  Objectives  limits  the  instrument’s  flexibility.  It  is  suggested 
that  the  template  for  the  design  of  the  next  National  Programmes  could  include  a 
“glossary” that clarifies what should go under each National Objective. The threshold for 
investments  in  IT  maintenance  in  ISF  Police  appears  to  be  too  low.  RAs  demonstrate 
consensus on the idea to have clear indications on the amount of resources available to 
MSs for the procurement of the equipment, consistently with the budget period and the 
role of the EBCGA according to the renewed mandate.  

When  commenting  on  delivery  modes,  several  elements  contribute  to  the  workload  of  
managing  the  National  Programmes  (NP):  (i)  several  changes  occurred  following  top-
ups,  internal  redistribution  of  resources,  results  of  the  Schengen  evaluations  (ii)  the 
reporting is not synchronised with the changes RAs make to the National Programmes, 
(iii)  indicators  are  not  always  relevant,  (iv)  results  of  Schengen  evaluations  are  often 
available  when  most  of  national  resources  have  been  already  committed,  (v)  the  initial 
approval  of  the  National  Programmes  took  too  long  and  created  a  blockage  in  the 
implementation for the first year.  

There  is  consensus  on  the  fact  that  ISF  is  wide  enough  and  cover  all  relevant  policy 
priorities. However, actions such as infrastructure for ISF Police, actions resulting from 
the  Schengen  evaluation  system,  and  actions  to  fund  migration  issues  within  the 
Schengen  area  could  be  identified  as  new  priorities.  Cybercrime  and  financial  crimes 
should gain more importance, while priorities of the ISF Police should be better aligned 
with the EU Policy Cycle priorities. 

5.4.  Workshop with Home Affairs Agencies on post-2020 MFF 

Home Affairs Agencies were consulted through a dedicated workshop that took place on 
24 November 2017 where they had the opportunity to present their views and to submit 
position papers. 

level  priorities  and  policy  commitments  and  should  support 

Stakeholders concurred that in order to maximise EU added value, EU spending should 
the 
reflect  EU 
implementation of the EU home affairs acquis. Stakeholders called for sufficient funding 
to  be  made  available  to  the  home  affairs  agencies,  in  particular  the  European  Asylum 
Support Office (EASO), the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation 
(Europol)  and  the  European  Border  and  Coast  Guard  Agency  (EBCGA),  in  line  with 
their increasing activities. Stakeholders agreed on the need for more flexibility embedded 
within the structure of the Funds. 

63 

 
 
  
5.5.  Workshop with international organisations and third sector representatives 

on the post-2020 MFF 

Representatives of international and civil society organisations, as well as think tanks and 
research centres working in the field of migration and security were consulted through a 
dedicated workshop, which took place on 15 December 2017 in Brussels. The workshop, 
in  the  form  of  an  informal  round-table  discussion,  aimed  at  gathering  the  participants' 
views  on  the  scope,  funding  priorities  and  delivery  modes  of  the  future  home  affairs 
funding instruments, taking into account the lessons learned from the implementation of 
the current Funds. 

With regards to flexibility, the attendees agreed that more flexibility is needed to address 
emerging  challenges  and  new  priorities.  The  participants  welcome  the  idea  of  not 
allocating  the  full  amount  upfront  and  keeping  a  certain  percentage  of  the  Funds  for 
allocation during the programing period.  

At the same time, participants asked for more simplification in the delivery mechanisms. 
Attendees agreed that harmonisation of rules among different funding instruments should 
be  one  of  the  key  objectives  for  the  next  MFF.  Union  actions  are  a  good  tool  to  fund 
policy priorities. Some attendees indicated that through Direct Management, in particular 
Union  Actions,  it  is  easier  to  have  an  overview  of  what  is  being  implemented  and  to 
coordinate  in  order  to  avoid  overlaps,  while  this  is  more  complicated  under  Shared 
Management. Compared to Union actions, Shared Management is more challenging for 
beneficiaries. According to some attendees, AMIF funding is difficult to access in some 
MSs. 

There was an overall consensus among key stakeholders on the need for a wider scope of 
actions for EU funding, including its external dimension, enhancing the impact of home 
affairs policies. Participants agreed that it is needed to do more concerning the external 
dimension,  in  particular  to  ensure  adequate  sustainability  of  such  actions.  A  thematic 
approach is preferred over a geographical approach. With regards to synergies with other 
Funds,  the  risk  of  overlaps  should  be  reduced  by  introducing  a  clear  distinction  of  the 
scope  of  the  interventions  managed  by  DEVCO,  NEAR,  ECHO  or  HOME.  Attendees 
suggested that a distinct instrument should be developed to deal with the external area. 
Participants  also  added  that  before  launching  any  intervention  in  third  countries,  it  is 
necessary to ensure that fundamental rights are observed. 

5.6.  Workshops  under  the  Customs  2020  programme  –  customs  control 
equipment 

A workshop was organised on 21-23 June 2016 with all Participating Countries under the 
Customs  2020  programme  (Member  States  and  Candidate  countries).  The  workshop 
consisted in identifying all challenges that Customs administrations are likely to face in 
the 10/15 coming years, in classifying them in clusters and in considering how the future 
customs programme could contribute to replying to these – or part of these –  clusters of 
challenges. For what concerns equipment and infrastructure, the workshop identified that 
the challenge will be to obtain EU funds for obtaining necessary EU funds for necessary 

64 

 
national investments. Indeed, being faced with globalisation, security threats and possibly 
economic migration issues, the EU needs a customs policy to support common or at least 
coordinated  operational  border  management  to  effectively  adapt  to  these  trends.  Given 
the  general  lack  of  national  resources  to  deal  with  new  ways  and  areas  of  control,  for 
what concerns the required equipment necessary for customs to perform their core duties, 
the challenge will be to obtain EU funds for necessary national investments. The possible 
solutions identified are to have a dedicated customs fund for financing, to develop a joint 
usage of equipment and infrastructure and to support Member States to benefit from non-
customs EU funds.  

Another  workshop  took  place  on  27-29  September  2017.  Member  States  highlighted 
again  that  funds  should  provide  easy  access  and  fair  distribution  mechanisms  to 
access/purchase customs control equipment. 

6. 

Webinars 

Two webinars have been organised and managed by the external contractor (EY) through 
the videoconferencing tool ‘Zoom’ on 13-14 November 2017, involving Member States  
Responsible Authorities (RAs), EU Agencies, and individual experts:  

-  Webinar  on  AMIF,  with  the  participation  of  8  RAs  (BG,  CY,  EL,  FI,  HU,  LV, 

MT, PT) and 3 EU Agencies (EASO, eu-LISA, EBCGA). 

-  Webinar on ISF, with the participation of 12 RAs (BG, CY, CZ, ES, FI, HU, LV, 
MT, PT, RO, SE, SI), 4 EU Agencies (CEPOL, eu-LISA, EUROPOL, EBCGA), 
and 1 security expert. 

The discussions focused on stakeholders’ views on aspects concerning the size and scope 
of the Funds, as well as implementation issues. 

6.1.  Webinar on AMIF 

The participants stressed the importance of flexibility and simplification of procedures in 
facing  evolving  needs.  A  number  of  participants  highlighted  that  the  current  national 
allocations have been defined based on a baseline scenario which changed dramatically. 
Areas where the level of funding was identified as sub-optimal are asylum, integration, 
and return. 

Participants agreed that, overall, the priorities identified in the legal basis are in line with 
the needs of MSs, and that there are no priorities which should be discarded. Some RAs 
commented  that  they  would  like  higher  pre-financing.  Regarding  monitoring  and 
reporting,  an  issue  encountered  by  some  RAs  is  that  preparing  accounts  and 
implementation  reports  within  few  weeks  of  distance  is  considered  as  a  duplication  of 
effort. Moreover, the delegated act, as well as the guidance, on the common monitoring 
and evaluation framework was introduced after several projects were already launched.  

Participants did not share a common view on whether the existence of multiple funding 
instruments  covering  similar  policy areas creates problems. Participants, who consider 
that  the  fragmentation  of  funding  may  create  problems,  highlighted  that  several  EU 
Funds  address  similar  target  groups.  Those  participants  believe  that  this  fragmentation 
makes it difficult for MSs to establish national priorities, and hinders their understanding 

65 

 
of  funding  opportunities,  generating  administrative  burden.  Participants  who  consider 
that the existence of multiple funding instruments is not problematic explained that they 
do  not  experience  overlaps  in  terms  of  target  groups  between  AMIF  and,  for  example, 
ESF and FEAD.  

6.2.  Webinar on ISF 

There is consensus among participants on the need for more resources in the future MFF, 
in order to meet the objectives of the Funds. In particular, the current size of ISF Border 
and Visa is no longer adequate to deal with the ongoing setting and upgrading of EU IT 
systems in the field. Similarly, on ISF Police, there is consensus that the current level of 
funding is low in relation to security needs. 

On priorities, there is also consensus among the participants that both ISF Police and ISF 
Borders and Visa cover all important priorities in the area of security, borders and visa. It 
has been suggested by some participants to improve  the current structure of objectives, 
and  to  better  align  the  priorities  included  in  the  Annex  of  the  Regulation  with  the 
priorities of the EU policy cycle. 

Some participants  believe that synergies with other funding instruments are not easy to 
identify and exploit. Since the scope of ISF is wide, checking for double funding creates 
a  disproportionate  burden  for  MSs.  Moreover,  in  each  policy  area,  there  is  often  a 
different  administrative  set  up  at  national  level,  and  cooperation  between  national 
ministries and departments may be difficult. 

Some  issues  have  been  identified  regarding  the  flexibility  of  ISF.  In  terms  of 
programming, the request from the Commission to clearly identify the share of expenses 
linked  to  each  Specific  Objective  makes  it  too  complex  to  have  actions/projects 
supported  under  several  Specific  Objectives.  As  regards  the  de-commitment  rule, 
participants  raised  concerns  on  the  changes  occurred  during  the  implementation, 
concerning the calculation base to be used and the use of the expenditures as a basis for 
calculation. Furthermore, the current level of pre-financing is considered low and creates 
pressure  on  national  budgets.  Some  participants  consider  that  there  is  significant 
administrative  burden  related  to  the  management  and  implementation  of  the  Funds,  in 
particular with regards to the number of audits and controls. 

Survey  addressed  to  customs  administrations  of  Member  States  and 

7. 
Candidate Countries and the question of customs control equipment 

A  general  survey  addressed  the  challenges  and  trends  that  customs  would  face  in  the 
coming years. 

In particular, the results to the survey indicated that a majority of respondents – 17 out of 
25  –  currently  recur  to  other  programmes  for  funding  equipment.  The  most  common 
funding  programme  recurred  to  by  customs  administration  is  Hercule,  with  11 
respondents out of 25. Three respondents have also declared recurring to structural funds, 
two to ESF and one to IPA.  

66 

 
Most of the respondent declared, however, not having an easy access to other source of 
funding.  The  main  obstacles  reported  by  the  respondents  are  related  to  complicated 
procedures or bureaucracy, internal competition or different priorities. A respondent also 
emphasized  that  these  funds  are  not  designed  to  support  customs  needs  or  only  very 
partially. 

Case  studies  addressed  to  customs  administrations  of  Member  States  and 

8. 
Candidate Countries and the question of customs control equipment. 

In  the  context  of  the  impact  assessment  study  conducted  for  setting  up  the  future 
Customs  programme,  case  studies  in  specific  countries  were  conducted,  addressing  the 
protection of the various types of external borders (land, sea, air).  

With  regards  to  customs  control  equipment,  the  case  studies  pointed  towards  diverse 
challenges  faced  by the customs  administrations  in  different  EU  Member  States.  These 
challenges  range  from  the  financing  of  ‘hard’  equipment,  to  the  lack  of  data  on 
availability  or  experience  with  equipment,  procurement,  maintenance  as  well  as  shared 
use of equipment.  

The  case  studies  have  shown  that  whilst  equipment  needs  in  the  context  of  CELBET 
(expert  team  under  Customs  2020  for  land  border  enhanced  operational  cooperation  - 
Eastern and South Eastern Europe) supported the insights into equipment, there is a need 
for  additional  comprehensive  study  to  provide  insights  on  the  size  of  the  equipment 
related problems for other Member States and/or sea and air border specific perspectives. 
The  changing  trade  landscape  especially  demands  for  a  continuous  monitoring  of 
equipment availability, also to respond to new types of crises and threats, and support the 
broadening of roles and responsibilities of customs. 

67 

 
Annex 3: Home Affairs Funds in the 2007-2013 and 2014-2020 
Multiannual Financial Framework 

Table 1 – Summary overview of the Home Affairs Funds in the 2007-2013 and 2014-2020 programming periods 

General 
Programme 

Policy 
area 

Fund / Specific Programme 
Budget, Participation & Objectives 

Previous Funds (2007-2013) 

Curent Funds (2014-2020) 

European Refugee Fund (ERF III) 
EUR 614 million91, All MS except DK 

Asylum 

  Support  and  encourage  MS  in  receiving  refugees  and 

displaced persons 

  Emergency  measures  to  address  sudden  mass  influx  if 

migrants and asylum seekers 

European Fund for the Integration of Third-Country 
Nationals (EIF) 
EUR 825 million, All MS except DK 

  Support  the  integration  of  third-country  nationals  into 

European societies 

European Return Fund (RF) 
EUR 676 million, All MS except DK 

  Improve return management 
  Encourage  development  cooperation  between  MS  and 

countries of return 

External Borders Fund (EBF) 
EUR 1 820 million, All MS (including RO & BG and the 
Schengen associated states from 2010) except the UK and 
IE 

  Financial solidarity amongst Schengen countries 
  Manage  efficient  controls  and  the  flows  at  the  external 

borders 

  Improve management of the consular authorities 
Specific Programme Prevention of and Fight against 
Organised Crime (ISEC) 
EUR 600 million, All MS 

  Crime  prevention,  law  enforcement,  witness  protection 

and support, victims protection 

Specific Programme Prevention, Preparedness and 
Consequence Management of Terrorism and Other 
Security-related Risks (CIPS) 
EUR 140 million, All MS 

  Protection  of  citizens  and  critical  infrastructure  from 

terrorist attacks and other security incidents 

Integration 
of third-
country 
nationals, 
legal 
migration 

Return  

Integrated 
border 
manageme
nt and visa  

Prevention 
of and 
fight 
against 
organised 
crime 

Combating 
terrorism 
and other 
security-
related 
risks 

Asylum Migration and Integration 
Fund (AMIF) 
EUR 3 137 million (initial) 
All MS except DK 

  Strengthen and develop all aspects of 

the CEAS 

  Support  legal  migration  to  the  MS 
and  promote  effective  integration  of 
third-country nationals 

  Enhance  fair  and  effective  return 
to 

strategies 
contribute 
and 
combating illegal immigration 

  Enhance solidarity and responsibility 
sharing  between  MS,  particularly 
those most affected by the migratory 
flows 

Internal security Fund (ISF) 
EUR 3 764 million (initial) 

ISF Borders and Visa 
All MS except IE and UK plus the 
Schengen associated states CH, IS, LI, 
NO 

  Ensuring  a  high  level  of  security  in 
legitimate 

the  EU  and  facilitate 
travel 

  Visa  and  support  integrated  border 

management 

ISF Police 
All MS except DK and UK 

  Ensure a high level of security in the 
EU,  fight  against  crime,  manage 
risks and crisis 

General 
Programme 
Solidarity and 
Management 
of Migration 
Flows 

(93% to 96% 
shared 
management; 
remainder 
under 
centralised 
direct 
management) 

General 
Programme 
Security and 
Safeguarding 
Liberties 
(centralised 
direct 
management) 

91  

After adoption of EASO; takes account of Decision No 458/2010/EU amending the European Refugee Fund basic act. 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Overview allocations AMIF and ISF 

Please  find  below  the  comparison  between  the  original  allocations  to  AMIF  and  ISF  and  the 
current allocations. 

The funding available for AMIF and ISF originally amounted to EUR 6.9 billion for the 2014-
2020 programming period. As a response to the migratory and security crises and to support 
the  EU  initiatives  addressing  these  crises,  the  financial  programming  for  AMIF  and  ISF 
reached EUR 11.2 billion in the course of 2017. Support for the Home Affairs Agencies in the 
2014-2020 programming  period  increased  from  EUR  2.1  billion  to  EUR  4.1  billion92.  Put  in  a 
broader  context  though,  and  considering  that  the  overall  value  of  the  EU  budget  for  the  2014-
2020  programming  period  is  approximately  EUR  1  087  billion,  the  Home  Affairs  Funds  only 
represent approximately 1%.  

After  taking  into  account  the  adjustment  made  to  support  the  new  tasks  of  the  Home  Affairs 
Agencies93  in  implementing  ‘smart  borders’  initiatives  (EES,  ETIAS,  revision  of  SISII  and 
interoperability), the level of funding for the two Funds amounts to EUR 10.8 billion94. 

92  
93  

94  

This support is provided directly to the Agencies, it is not part of the Funds. 
The transfer of funding mainly concerns the transfer to the European Agency for the operational management of large-
scale IT Systems in the area of freedom, security and justice (eu-LISA) for the management of the EES, ETIAS and the 
interoperability of IT systems. 
Information based on the financial programming annexed to the Budget 2018. 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
Table 2 – Summary overview of the Home Affairs Funds in the 2014-2020 programming period (initial and current 
allocation)95 

Fund 
Asylum, Migration and 
Integration Fund 

Initial budget 
EUR 3.137 
billion 

Current budget 
EUR 6.88896 
billion 

Participation 
All EU Member States with the 
exception of Denmark. 

All EU Member States with the 
exception of Ireland and the United 
Kingdom, and with the participation 
of the Schengen Associated 
Countries97. 

All EU Member States with the 
exception of Denmark and the United 
Kingdom. 

Internal Security 
Fund 

Borders 
and Visa 

Police 

Total Internal Security Fund 

Total Home Affairs Funds 

(EUR 459.47 
million for 2018 
budget)  
EUR 2.760 
billion 

(EUR 453.23 
million for 2018 
budget) 
EUR 1.004 
billion 

(EUR 133.93 
million for 2018 
budget) 
EUR 3.764 
billion 

(EUR 587.16 
million for 2018 
budget) 
EUR 6.901 
billion 

(EUR 719.15 
million for 2018 
budget) 
EUR  2.764 
billion 

(EUR 565.06 
million for 2018 
budget) 
EUR  1.135 
billion 

(EUR 154.93 
million for 2018 
budget) 
EUR  3.900 
billion 

(EUR 719.96 
million for 2018 
budget) 
EUR 10.788 
billion 

(EUR 1,046.64 
million for 2018 
budget) 

(EUR 1,439.14 
million for 2018 
budget) 

95  
96  

97  

Financial programming as of 31 January 2018, as annexed to the Budget 2018. 
Excluding the allocation to the AMIF national programme of the United Kingdom, the total allocation of AMIF would 
be approximately EUR 6.358 billion. 
Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Overview Subsidies Home Affairs Agencies 

Please find below the comparison between the original subsidies to the Home Affairs Agencies 
and the current level of subsidies. 

Table 3 – Summary overview of the Home Affairs Agencies in the 2014-2020 programming period98 

Home Affairs Agency 

European Border and Coast 
Guard Agency (EBCGA) 

European Union Agency for Law 
Enforcement Cooperation 
(Europol) 

European Union agency for law 
enforcement training (CEPOL) 

European Agency for the 
operational management of large-
scale IT systems in the area of 
freedom, security and justice  
(eu-LISA) 
European Asylum Support Office 
(EASO) 

European Monitoring Centre for 
Drugs and Drug Addiction 
(EMCDDA) 

Total 

EU subsidy 2014-2020 
(initial) 
EUR 626.4 million 

EU subsidy 2014-2020 
(current) 
EUR 1,683.56 million 

(EUR 91.27 million for 2018 
budget) 
EUR 656.54 million 

(EUR 298.29 million for 2018 
budget) 
EUR 753.02 million 

(EUR 94.8 million for 2018 
budget) 
EUR 62.16 million 

(EUR 120.38 million for 2018 
budget) 
EUR 62.34 million 

(EUR 9.13 million for 2018 
budget) 
EUR 574.19 million 

(EUR 9.22 million for 2018 
budget) 
EUR 1,079.78 million 

(EUR 85.72 million for 2018 
budget) 

(EUR 200.67 million for 2018 
budget) 

EUR 109.34 million 

EUR 455.69 million 

(EUR 15.95 million for 2018 
budget) 
EUR 104.43 million 

(EUR 90.84 million for 2018 
budget) 
EUR 105.78 million 

(EUR 14.79 million for 2018 
budget) 
EUR 2,133.06 million 

(EUR 15.45 million for 2018 
budget) 
EUR 4,140.16 million 

(EUR 311.66 million for 2018 
budget) 

(EUR 734.83 million for 2018 
budget)  

98  

Financial programming as of 31 January 2018, as annexed to the Budget 2018. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Overview implementation AMIF and ISF national programmes 

Table 4 – Implementation of AMIF and ISF national programmes 

Request for payment of 
the annual balance99 
2014/2015 
Request for payment of 
the annual balance 
2016100 
Request for payment of 
the annual balance 
2017101 
Total 
Committed by form of 
agreement at national 
level102 
Percentage of 
allocation103 

Asylum, Migration 
and Integration Fund 
EUR 100.59 million 

Internal Security Fund 
– Borders and Visa 
EUR 47.01 million 

Internal Security Fund 
– Police  
EUR 15.59 million 

EUR 358.21 million 

EUR 137.04 million 

EUR 47.92 million 

EUR 604.56 million 

EUR 186.61 million 

EUR 94.93 million 

EUR 1,063.36 million 
EUR 2,180.08 million 

EUR 370.66 million 
EUR 905.29 million 

EUR 158.44 million 
EUR 471.63 million 

48.06% 

49.81% 

60.08% 

99  

100  

101  

102  

103  

As included in the Commission Implementing Decision on the clearance of accounts C(2016) 3504 final, in accordance 
with  Article  45  of  Regulation  (EU)  No  514/2014,  covering  the  implementation  period  1  January  2014  –  15  October 
2015. 
As included in the Commission Implementing Decision on the clearance of accounts C(2017) 4490 final, in accordance 
with Article 45 of Regulation (EU) No 514/2014, covering the implementation period 16 October 2015 – 15 October 
2016. 
As  included  in  the  requests  by  Member  States  for  payment  of  the  annual  balance,  in  accordance  with  Article  44  of 
Regulation (EU) No 514/2014, covering the implementation period 16 October 2016 – 15 October 2017.  
As  included  in  the  Annual  Implementation  Reports  by  Member  States,  submitted  in  accordance  with  Article  54  of 
Regulation EU (No) 514/2014, presenting the level of commitments by form of agreement at national level as of  31 
March 2018. For AMIF, data for Greece is as per 28 April 2017, for ISF Borders and Visa, data for Greece is as per 28 
April 2017, for ISF Police, data for Greece is as per 28 April 2017 and data for Ireland is as per 1 December 2017. 
Compared to the total allocation to the national programmes at the time of submission of the information by Member 
States. 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Annex 4: Delineation of interventions in the post-2020 Multiannual Financial Framework 

Overview of delineation between the Migration and Integration Fund and the future European Structural and Investment Funds104 

Common areas of 
intervention 
Integration of third-
country nationals 

Future AMIF 

ESF/EAFRD 

Programming 

Monitoring 

Early stage integration 
(support services and 
assistance, civic orientation 
courses, etc.) 

Horizontal integration 
measures (integration 
strategies, capacity building, 
awareness raising, etc.) 

Medium to long-term 
integration 

  Earmarking  in  the  ESF  regulation: 
The  percentage  of  the  total  ESF 
resources in each MS allocated to the 
integration of TCN should be at least 
equal to the percentage of the TCN in 
the population of each MS. 

  For  example,  in  Germany  in  2016, 
percentage  of  TCN 
total 
the 
population 
corresponding  percentage  from  the 
total ESF allocated in the operational 
programme should be 6%. 

in 
5.9% 

the 
so 

is 

 

  Common indicator in the ESF: number of third 
country nationals only  i.e. participants directly 
benefiting from ESF intervention. 
Indicators  should  be  aligned  between  AMIF 
and ESF to measure the same target group. 
  Amounts committed and spent at MS level for 
integration  of  TCN  in  ESF  should  be  tracked 
(e.g. through categories of intervention). 

  EAFRD  will  monitor 
interventions in rural areas. 

social 

inclusion 

  EAFRD will continue to intervene for 
social  inclusion  in  rural  areas.  Those 
interventions  will  also  benefit  third-
country nationals. 

104  

Overview prepared at technical level by the respective Commission services. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Relocation under 
Dublin 

MS receives a 10 000 EUR 
lump sum per relocated 
applicant for international 
protection who is granted 
the status/rejected and needs 
to be returned (up to a year) 

MS receives an amount of 
funding to cover the 
integration needs equivalent 
to 20,000 EUR for each 
applicant for international 
protection that has been 
granted a status. A simplified 
cost option, i.e. lump sum, 
could be used if justified 
under ESF. 

  The lump sums should be 

N/A 

implemented through ad-hoc top-ups 
to the national ESF allocations  

  Proposed solution (in case of 

difficulties in implementation by 
ESF): Each year ESF can transfer to 
AMIF amount estimated by DG 
HOME based on MS reporting on the 
status and DG HOME will top up MS 
NPs 

Common areas of 
intervention 

Infrastructure 
(reception/detention 
centres) 

Future AMIF 

ERDF 

Programming 

Monitoring 

All the detention and 
reception infrastructure 
(as default) 

In case of significant needs in 
a MS where AMIF funding is 
not sufficient 

In the ERDF Regulation this type of 
infrastructure should be eligible 

Categories of intervention to capture the amounts 
committed and spent in this field 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Overview of delineation between the Internal Security Fund and the future European Structural and Investment Funds105 

Common areas of 
intervention 

Future Security Fund 

ESIF 

Programming 

Monitoring 

ERDF 

Earmarking in the ERDF regulation for security:  YES 

Cyber security 

protection of critical infrastructure 
from cyber attacks 

Security deployment and 
development of ICT including 
(cyber)security 

prevent and combat cybercrime 

Cyber protection of 
transport/energy/environment/ICT 
networks and transport hubs 

ERDF policy objective N° 1 
Smarter Europe,  

Common Indicators in ERDF 
regulation:  

ERDF policy objective N° 3 More 
connected Europe  

Requirement to take into 
consideration security aspects in the 
design and construction of any 
infrastructure 

N° of ICT systems fulfilling either 
pertinent cyber-security standards or 
on which a cyber-security audit has 
been performed that indicated 
sufficient resilience to cyberattacks. 

N° of ICT specialists trained 

N° of end-users trained 

N° of public transport networks and 
infrastructure with improved 
protection measures 

Financial monitoring through 
categories of intervention 

public spaces 

projects on innovative integration 
of security into design of new 
building/public space (excluding 

construction and security 
equipment 

ERDF policy objective N° 5 Europe 
closer to citizens 

Common Indicators in ERDF 
regulation: 

105  

Overview prepared at technical level by the respective Commission services. 

 
 
                                                            
building cost) 

purchase of CCTV, concrete 
bollards and other preventive 
equipment such as cyber-attack 
resilient ICT-systems 

Requirement to take into 
consideration security aspects in the 
design and construction of any 
infrastructure 

N° of public spaces and related 
infrastructures (such as transport 
hubs, shopping malls, public squares 
or pedestrian zones) with improved 
protection measures 

N° of critical infrastructures with 
improved protection measures 
(understood as an asset, system or 
part thereof located in a Member 
State which is essential for the 
maintenance of vital societal 
functions, health, safety, security, 
economic or social well-being of 
people, and the disruption or 
destruction of which would have a 
significant impact in a Member State 
as a result of the failure to maintain 
those functions).  

Financial monitoring through 
categories of intervention 

Common Indicators in ERDF 
regulation: 

N° of security relevant laboratories 
and training facilities equipped with 
the help of the fund 

In case of significant needs in a 
MS where ISF funding is not 
sufficient 

construction  and refurbishment of 
security and border management 
relevant buildings 

resilience against CBRNE 
incidents 

'centre of excellence' training 
facilities where other MS will be 
invited to train (e.g. special force 
training hangar or shooting range, 
CBRNE training ground)  

refurbishment of existing buildings 
to make them qualified to house 
security and border management 
large-scale IT-systems 

construction CBRNE/forensic 
laboratories, treatment facilities, 

 
 
 
training grounds 

border management 

construction, upgrading and 
maintenance of BCP 

construction of 'enablers' around 
BCPs, for example extra road 
lanes 

ERDF policy objective N° 3 More 
connected Europe 

Common indicators in ERDF 
Regulation:  

Protection of victims of crime 

limited assistance to specific target 
groups linked to  serious crimes 
with a cross-border dimension 
such as terrorism, organised crime, 
cybercrime 

ESF 

Assistance and protection of 
victims e.g. medical, 
psychological treatment, 
counselling, and appropriate 
communication technology for 
their protection during criminal 
proceedings 

safe accommodation for victims of 
crime such as of trafficking in 
human beings 

N° of infrastructure projects 
contributing to facilitating smoother 
border crossings 

ESF policy objective N° 4 More 
social Europe 

Common Indicators in ESF 
regulation/ 

N° of victims assisted with the help 
of the fund 

capacity building for law 
enforcement, prosecution and 
judiciary including cross-border 
investigations 

training, staff exchanges, 
networking 

In case of significant needs in a 
MS where ISF funding is not 
sufficient 

ESF policy objective N° 4 More 
social Europe 

ERDF and ESF 

Anti-radicalisation 

measures focusing on root causes 
of radicalisation 

ESF/integration measures: 

ESF policy objective N° 4 More 
social Europe 

Common Indicators: 

networks to exchange best 

inclusive education for vulnerable 
groups 

ERDF policy objective N° 5 Europe 

Number of ex-offenders re-
employed with the support of the 

 
 
 
closer to citizens 

fund 

Number of best practices regarding 
prisoners and ex-offenders' 
reintegration and at improving 
transition from prison into the 
labour market and society 

Number of children and family 
members assisted 

number of social mappings, reports 
and analyses 

practices e.g. RAN 

operational projects between MS 
and with third countries 

operations with Europol's IRU to 
remove violent extremism content 
online 

reintegration of offenders into 
society, to enhance employability 
of ex-offenders, social follow-up 
of children raised in a radicalised 
environment/with parents and/or 
relatives in prison and families of 
offenders 

identification and analysis of 
drivers and social patterns of the 
radicalisation process at local level 
(mappings, reports, analysis) 

ERDF: 

regeneration of deprived 
communities  

Reduction of inequalities 

Increased quality of life 

identification and analysis of 
drivers and social patterns of the 
radicalisation process in particular 
at local level 

 
 
 
 
 
Note on integration support in the post-2020 Multiannual Financial Framework 

1.  General context 

Integration  is  currently  funded  by  a  variety  of  EU  Funds,  among  which  AMIF  is  the 
only Fund targeting specifically third-county nationals. Other Funds, in particular ESIF 
Funds  but  also  Erasmus+  are  intervening  in  their  respective  domains  (employment, 
education,  infrastructure,  etc.)  but  without  having  the  integration  of  third-country 
nationals as specific or priority target group. 

The large influx of third-country nationals to the EU since 2014 has triggered additional 
needs for integration support in Member States. As integration is a long-term process, 
the  need  for  investing  in  this  area  will  continue  or  even  increase  over  the  2021-2027 
period. In such a context, complementarities between the different funding instruments 
in this area are essential in order to ensure a strong and consistent support to Member 
States for the development and implementation of their integration policy.  

2.  Proposed principles of intervention of EU Funds in the field of integration and 

delineation criteria between the future AMIF and ESIF Funds 

2.1 Principles of intervention 

The groups that are the most in need of integration support will remain in the years to 
come asylum applicants / beneficiaries of international protection and family migrants 
(largest group). These two groups have very specific needs in terms of integration and a 
specific funding to the benefit of these groups, such as the one existing currently under 
AMIF,  will  continue  to  be  highly  necessary,  in  particular  at  an  early  stage  of  the 
integration process. 

The suggested approach would combine interventions by the future AMIF and other EU 
Funds as follows: 

a)  dedicated funding for actions specifically targeting third-country nationals in the 
early  integration  phase  as  well  as  for  horizontal  measures  supporting  MS 
policies and strategies (ensured by the future AMIF); 

b)  interventions in different thematic areas for longer term measures, which are not 
necessarily  specific  only  to  third-country  nationals  and  that  would  be 
mainstreamed  -  subject  to  guaranteeing  such  expenditure  by  dedicated 
envelopes/relevant benchmarks/specific earmarking - under ESIF and other EU 
Funds.  

2.2 Delineation criteria between AMIF and ESIF Funds 

Following  the  principle  above,  the  future  AMIF  instrument  should  finance  integration 
actions responding to the following criteria: 

1.  They  are  tailor-made  to  the  needs  of  third-country  nationals  and  are  generally 

implemented in the early stage of integration; 

 
 
 
 
2.  They  are  of  a  horizontal/broad  nature,  covering  in  a  general  manner  the  key 
components of integration at the early stages; this means that they cannot concern 
only  specific  individual  themes  such  as  education  or  integration  into  the  labour 
market;  the  latter  should  be  covered  by  another  EU  Fund  (such  as  ESF  and 
Erasmus+106); 

3.  They  are  horizontal  actions  supporting  Member  States  capacities  in  the  field  of 
integration (including cooperation and mutual learning activities between MS). 

In the light of the above criteria, measures benefitting directly to third-country nationals 
would  be  funded  under  AMIF  only  in  relation  to  the  early  stage  of  integration  [to  be 
further  discussed  if  any  time  limit  is  included].  Medium  to  long  term  thematic 
integration interventions would then be fully mainstreamed into ESIF and other Funds, 
with measures and actions that can cover both EU citizens and third-country nationals.  

On  the  other  hand,  general/horizontal  integration  measures  such  as  capacity  building, 
exchanges  with  the  host  society,  awareness  raising  campaigns  or  cooperation/mutual 
learning activities between Member States on the integration of TCNs would continue 
to  be  financed  under  AMIF.  Due  to  their  horizontal  and  not  time-bound  nature  these 
actions would not be mainstreamed into other specific Funds. 

A  mapping  of  the  current  possible  interventions  of  ESIF  Funds  for  integration  and  a 
detailed list of activities to be financed under the future AMIF is included in the annex. 

2.3.  Specific  needs  of  applicants/beneficiaries  relocated  amongst  MS  following 
implementation of the Dublin reform 

The Commission has presented a proposal to reform the Dublin system that includes a 
relocation  component  (applicants  for  international  protection  relocated  from  Member 
States under particular pressure to other Member States). Ongoing negotiations include 
a  significant  financial  incentive  that  would  support  Member  States  in  accepting  and 
implementing  the  relocation  system.  It  is  not  envisaged  to  link  the  incentive  to  any 
specific costs, but to rather use it for covering a variety of needs in the Member States 
showing solidarity by accepting to receive relocated applicants. Such costs could relate 
to  increasing  the  processing  capacity  of  the  Member  States  for  examining  the 
applications for international protection, improving reception conditions, facilitating the 
integration of those recognised to be in  need  of international protection as  well as the 
return  of  those  who  prove  not  to  have  international  protection  needs.  The  financial 
incentives  provided  for  applicants  who  need  to  be  integrated  after  should  be 
significantly higher than those provided for applicants who will in the end be returned. 

It  is  likely  that  the  financial  incentive  will  become  a  determinant  factor  for  the  final 
compromise on the Dublin text, and a significant financial envelope will therefore need 
to be reserved for this purpose.  In this context, one possibility is to ensure that a part of 
the financial incentive is covered by future AMIF, and a part by future ESIF funds. The 
future AMIF could provide a dedicated financial incentive until the person is granted or 

106  

While noting that the future Erasmus+ cannot fund large-scale national integration activities. 

 
 
                                                            
refused  the  international  protection  status  (this  could  correspond  to  roughly  one  year 
following  the  relocation).  ESIF  funds  should  kick  off  with  a  dedicated  financial 
envelope  to  cover  the  medium/longer  integration  needs  of  those  relocated  and 
recognised to be in need of international protection (this could correspond to years 2 and 
3).  All these parameters might of course change in the course of the negotiations but it 
is  already  clear  that  both  AMIF  and  Structural  Funds  will  need  to  intervene  with 
significant amounts. 

3.  Guaranteeing  expenditure  under  other  EU  funds  on  integration  of  TCNs  and 

ensure effective implementation 

In this scenario where it is envisaged to mainstream a substantive part of the financing 
for  integration  of  TCNs  into  ESIF  and  other  EU  Funds,  it  is  necessary  to  include 
safeguards to ensure that the overall EU support for such integration remains significant 
and address the increasing MS' needs. 

For ESIF Funds and other Funds to effectively intervene for the integration of TCNs in 
full synergy with the future AMIF, it would be necessary to: 

  Provide for a form of earmarking in ESIF Funds to ensure that a certain amount 
of Funds is actually used by Member States for the integration of third-country 
nationals.  This  could  be  done  at the  level  of  the  Fund,  with  additional  flexible 
funding  for  which  Member  States  would  bid  or  as  part  of  the  operational 
programme (% or target) at the level of operational programmes. Other means of 
guaranteeing such expenditure could also be explored; 

  Trace expenditure which is benefitting third-country nationals with an adequate 

reporting system; 

  Align provisions and rules as much as possible between ESIF Funds and future 

AMIF; 

  Have a single information point at Member State level for access to integration 
funding,  to  make  the  access  to  EU  funding  for  integration  easier  and  more 
transparent. 

 
 
 
 
Annex 5: Objectives of the Funds 

Asylum and Migration Fund 

Objectives of the Asylum and Migration Fund 

Policy Objective 
To  contribute  to  an  efficient  management  of  migration  flows  in  line  with  the  Union  acquis  on 
asylum and migration and in compliance with the Union's commitments on fundamental rights. 

Specific Objective  
Strengthen  and  develop  all  aspects  of  the  Common  European  Asylum  System,  including  its 
external dimension. 

Implementation measures under this Specific Objective: 

1.  Ensuring  a  uniform  application  of  the  Union  acquis  and  of  the  priorities  related  to  the 

Common European Asylum System. 

2.  Supporting the capacity of Member States' asylum systems as regards infrastructures and 

services where necessary. 

3.  Enhancing solidarity and responsibility-sharing between the Member States, in particular 
towards those most affected by migratory flows, as well as providing support to Member 
States contributing to solidarity efforts. 

4.  Enhancing  solidarity  and  cooperation  with  third  countries  affected  by  migratory  flows, 
including through resettlement and other legal avenues to protection in the Union as well 
as  partnership  and  cooperation  with  third  countries  for  the  purpose  of  managing 
migration. 

Specific Objective 
Support  legal  migration  to  the  Member  States  and  contribute  to  the  integration  of  third-
country nationals. 

Implementation measures under this Specific Objective: 

1.  Supporting  the  development  and  implementation  of  policies  promoting  legal  migration 

and the implementation of the Union legal migration acquis. 

2.  Promoting  early  integration  measures  for  the  social  and  economic  inclusion  of  third-
country  nationals,  preparing  their  active  participation  in  and  their  acceptance  by  the 
receiving society, in particular with the involvement of local or regional  authorities and 
civil society organisations. 

Specific Objective 
To  contribute  to  countering  irregular  migration  and  ensure  sustainability  of  return  and 
effective readmission in third countries. 

Implementation measures under this Specific Objective: 

1.  Ensuring  a  uniform  application  of  the  Union  acquis  and  policy  priorities  regarding 

infrastructures, procedures and services. 

2.  Supporting  an  integrated  and  coordinated  approach  to  return  management  at  the  Union 
and Member States' level, to the development of capacities for effective and sustainable 
return and reducing incentives for irregular migration. 
3.  Supporting assisted voluntary return and reintegration. 

 
 
 
4.  Strengthening  cooperation  with  third  countries  and  their  capacities  to  implement 

readmission agreements and other arrangements, and enable sustainable return. 

Integrated Border Management Fund – Border Management and Visa 

Objectives of the Integrated Border Management Fund – Border Management and Visa 

Policy Objective 
Contribute to guaranteeing a high level of security in the Union by ensuring strong and effective 
integrated border management while safeguarding the free movement of persons within it, in full 
compliance with the Union's commitments on fundamental rights. 

Specific Objective  
Supporting effective European integrated border management implemented by the European 
Border and Coast Guard to facilitate legitimate border crossings, to prevent and detect illegal 
immigration and cross-border crime and to effectively manage migratory flows. 

Implementation measures under this Specific Objective: 

1.  Improving border control in line with Article 4(a) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1624 by: 

a)  reinforcing  the  capacities  for  carrying  out  checks  and  surveillance  at  the  external 
borders, including measures to prevent and detect cross-border crime, such as migrant 
smuggling, trafficking in human beings and terrorism; 

b)  supporting search and rescue in the context of carrying out border surveillance at sea; 
c)  implementing technical and operational measures within the Schengen area which are 

related to border control; 

d)  carrying out analyses of the risks for internal security and analysis of the threats that 

may affect the functioning or security of the external borders; 

e)  supporting,  within  the  scope  of  this  Regulation,  Member  States  facing  existing  or 
potential disproportionate migratory pressure at the EU’s external borders, including 
through  technical  and  operational  reinforcement,  including  by  deploying  migration 
management support teams in hotspot areas. 

2.  Further developing of the European Border and Coast Guard, through common capacity-
building, joint procurement, establishment of common standards and any other measures 
streamlining  the  cooperation  and  coordination  between  the  Member  States  and  the 
European Border and Coast Guard Agency. 

3.  Enhancing  inter-agency  cooperation  at  national  level  among  the  national  authorities 
responsible  for  border  control  or  for  tasks  carried  out  at  the  border,  and  at  EU  level 
between  the  Member  States,  or  between  the  Member  States,  on  the  one  hand,  and  the 
relevant Union bodies, offices and agencies or third countries, on the other. 

4.  Ensuring  the  uniform  application  of  the  Union  acquis  on  external  borders,  including 
through the implementation of recommendations from quality control mechanisms such 
as  the  Schengen  evaluation  mechanism  in  line  with  Regulation  (EU)  No  1053/2013, 
vulnerability  assessments  in  line  with  Regulation  (EU)  No  2016/1624,  and  possible 
national quality control mechanisms; 

5.  Setting  up,  operating,  and  maintaining  IT  systems  in  the  area  of  border  management, 
including the interoperability of these IT systems and their communication infrastructure. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Specific Objective  
Supporting  the  common  visa  policy  to  facilitate  legitimate  travel  and  prevent  migratory  and 
security risks. 

Implementation measures under this Specific Objective: 

1.  Providing  efficient  and  client-friendly  services  to  visa  applicants  while  maintaining  the 

security and integrity of the visa procedure. 

2.  Ensuring the efficient and uniform application of the Union's acquis on visas, including 

the further development and modernisation of the common policy on visas. 

3.  Developing different forms of cooperation among Member States in visa processing. 
4.  Setting up, operating and maintaining IT systems in the area of the common visa policy, 
including  the  interoperability  between  these  IT  systems  and  their  communication 
infrastructure. 

Integrated Border Management Fund – Customs Control Equipment 

Objectives of the Customs Control Equipment Fund 

Policy Objective 
Support the customs union and customs authorities to protect the financial and economic interests 
of the Union and its Member States, to ensure security and safety within the Union and to protect 
the Union from unfair and illegal trade while facilitating legitimate business activity. 

Specific Objective  
Contribute to adequate and equivalent customs controls through the purchase, maintenance  and 
upgrade of relevant, state-of-the-art and reliable customs control equipment. 

 Internal Security Fund 

Objectives of the Internal Security Fund 

Policy Objective 
Contribute to ensuring  a high level of security in the Union, in particular  by tackling  terrorism 
and radicalisation, serious and organised crime and cybercrime, and by assisting and protecting 
victims of crime. 

Specific Objective  
To increase the exchange of information among and within the EU law enforcement and other 
competent  authorities  and  other  relevant  Union  bodies,  as  well  as  with  third  countries  and 
international organisations. 

Implementation measures under this Specific Objective: 

1.  Ensure  the  uniform  application  of  the  Union  acquis  on  security supporting  information 
exchange,  including  through  the  implementation  of  recommendations  from  quality 
control  and  evaluation  mechanisms  such  as  the  Schengen  evaluation  mechanism  and 
other quality control and evaluation mechanisms. 

2.  Set  up,  adapt  and  maintain  security  relevant  national  and  Union  IT  systems  and 
communication  networks,  including  their  interoperability,  and  to  develop  appropriate 
tools to address identified gaps. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3.  Increase the active use of national and EU security relevant information exchange tools, 

systems and databases ensuring that these are fed with high quality data. 

Specific Objective 
To intensify cross-border joint operations among and within the EU law enforcement and other 
competent  authorities  in  relation  to  serious  and  organised  crime  with  a  cross-border 
dimension. 

Implementation measures under this Specific Objective: 

1.  Increase 

law  enforcement  operations  between  Member  States, 

including  when 
appropriate  with  other  relevant  actors,  in  particular  to  facilitate  and  improve  the  use  of 
joint  investigation  teams,  joint  patrols,  hot  pursuits,  discreet  surveillance  and  other 
operational cooperation mechanisms in the context of the EU Policy Cycle (EMPACT), 
with special emphasis on cross-border operations. 

2.  Increase  coordination  and  cooperation  of  law  enforcement  and  other  competent 
authorities  within  and  between  Member  States  and  with  other  relevant  actors,  for 
example through networks of specialised national units, Union networks and cooperation 
structures, Union centres. 

3.  Improve inter-agency cooperation at national level among the national authorities in each 
Member State and at  Union  level between the Member States,  or between the Member 
States, on the one hand, and the relevant Union bodies, offices and agencies, on the other. 

Specific Objective 
To support effort at strengthening the capabilities to combat and to prevent crime including 
terrorism, in particular through increased cooperation. 

Implementation measures under this Specific Objective: 

1.  Increase  law  enforcement  training,  exercises,  mutual  learning,  specialised  exchange 
programmes and sharing of best practice including in and with third countries and other 
relevant actors. 

2.  Exploit synergies by pooling resources and knowledge among Member States and other 
relevant  actors  through,  for  instance,  the  creation  of  joint  centres  of  excellence,  the 
development of joint risk assessments, or common operational support centres for jointly 
conducted operations. 

3.  Promote and develop measures, safeguards, mechanisms and best practices for the early 
identification, protection and support of witnesses, whistle-blowers and victims of crime 
and  to  develop  partnerships  between  public  authorities  and  other  relevant  actors  to  this 
effect. 

4.  Acquire relevant equipment and set up or upgrade specialised training facilities and other 
essential  security  relevant  infrastructure  to  increase  preparedness,  resilience,  public 
awareness and adequate response to security threats. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
In  order  to  allow  for  a  comparison  with  the  objectives  of  the  Funds  in  the  2014-2020 
programming period, please find an overview of these objectives below. 

Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund 

Objectives of the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund 

General Objective 
Contribute  to  the  efficient  management  of  migration  flows  and  to  the  implementation, 
strengthening  and  development  of  the  common  policy  on  asylum,  subsidiary  protection  and 
temporary protection and the common immigration policy, while fully respecting the rights and 
principles enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. 

Specific Objectives 

1)  To  strengthen  and  develop  all  aspects  of  the  Common  European  Asylum  System, 

including its external dimension. 

2)  To support legal migration to the Member States in accordance with their economic and 
social  needs,  such  as  labour  market  needs,  while  safeguarding  the  integrity  of  the 
immigration systems of Member States, and to promote the effective integration of third-
country nationals. 

3)  To enhance fair and effective return strategies in the Member States which contribute to 
combating illegal immigration, with an emphasis on sustainability of return and effective 
readmission in the countries of origin and transit. 

4)  To  enhance  solidarity  and  responsibility-sharing  between  the  Member  States,  in 
particular towards those most affected by migration and asylum flows, including through 
practical cooperation. 

Internal Security Fund – Borders and Visa 

Objectives of the Internal Security Fund – Borders and Visa 

General Objective 
To contribute to ensuring a high level of security in the Union while facilitating legitimate travel, 
through a uniform and high level of control of the external borders and the effective processing of 
Schengen  visas,  in  compliance  with  the  Union’s  commitment  to  fundamental  freedoms  and 
human rights.  

Specific Objectives  

1)  Supporting a common visa policy to facilitate legitimate travel, provide a high quality of 
service  to  visa  applicants,  ensure  equal  treatment  of  third-country  nationals  and  tackle 
illegal immigration. 

2)  supporting integrated border management, including promoting further harmonisation of 
border management-related  measures in accordance  with common  Union  standards and 
through the sharing of information between Member States and between Member States 
and the Frontex Agency, to ensure, on one hand, a uniform and high level of control and 
protection of the external borders, including by the tackling of illegal immigration and, 
on  the  other  hand,  the  smooth  crossing  of  the  external  borders  in  conformity  with  the 
Schengen acquis, while guaranteeing access to international protection for those needing 

 
 
 
 
 
 
it,  in  accordance  with  the  obligations  contracted  by  the  Member  States  in  the  field  of 
human rights, including the principle of non-refoulement. 

Internal Security Fund - Police 

Objectives of the Internal Security Fund - Police 

General Objective 
To contribute to ensuring a high level of security in the Union. 

Specific Objectives  

1)  Crime  prevention,  combating  cross-border,  serious  and  organised  crime  including 
terrorism,  and  reinforcing  coordination  and  cooperation  between  law  enforcement 
authorities  and  other  national  authorities  of  Member  States,  including  with  Europol  or 
other  relevant  Union  bodies,  and  with  relevant  third  countries  and  international 
organisations. 

2)  enhancing  the  capacity  of  Member  States  and  the  Union  for  managing  effectively 
security-related  risks  and  crises,  and  preparing  for  and  protecting  people  and  critical 
infrastructure against terrorist attacks and other security-related incidents. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 6: Overall design of the new Customs Control 
Equipment component  

In-depth  analysis  and  comparison  of  the  benefits  and  drawbacks  of  the  various 
management modes allowed identifying direct management – through the provision of 
centrally coordinated grants to national authorities where ownership of equipment 
remains with these national authorities – as the preferred delivery mechanism of the 
new Customs Control Equipment component for the reasons explained in section 4.1.1. 
This annex presents the proposed overall design of this component.  

As a new field of EU intervention, it will be of utmost importance to ensure focus and 
delivery  of  the  Customs  Control  Equipment  component.  Also,  policy  choices  will  be 
needed  before  deploying  completely  the  actions:  whereas  an  ongoing  Customs  2020 
programme activity allowed taking stock of the situation at the EU external land frontier 
and mapping it in terms of presence of customs officers and available equipment for all 
BCPs concerned, only limited information is currently available for sea and air borders 
and for postal hubs. 

Against  this  backdrop,  a  dedicated  model  tailored  to  the  specific  circumstances  and 
needs of the Customs Control Equipment instrument has been designed. It builds on the 
requirement  of  a  central  coordination  –  beyond  national  borders  for  delivering  uniform 
customs application – rooted deeply in national expertise and experience. Four building 
blocks  corresponding  to  the  four  identified  steps  will  help  to  deliver  on  the  identified 
general and specific objectives: 

Assessment  

Programming 

Implementation 

Monitoring & 
control 

 Inventory 

Horizontal coordination 

 Typology & Standard 

 Work plan 

 Purchase 

 Reporting 

 Gap analysis 

 Grant agreement 

 Support to 
procurement 

 Control 

 Estimation of necessary 
funds 

 
 
 
The  first  step  will  consist  in  assessing  the  needs  at  each  border  type:  land,  sea,  air, 
postal hubs. Concretely, it will replicate the successful CELBET experience to all other 
border types. CELBET107 – Central and South-Eastern Land Border Expert Team – is a 
structured form of enhanced operational cooperation between all 11 Member States at the 

EU land border. Led by one Member States (Estonia in the case 
at  hand),  it  pools  resources  of  the  national  customs  authorities 
over  a  period  of  18  months  with  the  financial  support  of  the 
C2020 programme to work on 6 different topics, including one 
team  dealing  with  “Customs  equipment  and  procurement”  (EQ 
Team).  

CELBET EQ Team made an inventory of equipment at the EU 
land border by processing more than 9200 data fields from 172 
BCPs at EU land border and identifying the main characteristics 
of  BCPs.  Building  on  this  extensive  knowledge,  it  proposed  a 
typology of BCPs (e.g. road vs rail border crossings, with truck 
traffic or only with non-commercial traffic) and identified jointly the proposed equipment 
standards for each category. A gap analysis between the inventory and defined standards 
allowed estimating the necessary funds.   

Although  no  equivalent  detailed  assessment  of  the  situation  and  needs  exists  for  other 
border  types,  project  groups  also  funded  by  the  C2020  programme  –  RALFH, 
ODYSSUD, ICARUS or the Technology Detection Group – exist and the replication of 
CELBET to other borders should build on their expertise and experience.  

The  second  step  will  focus  on  programming.  The  key  outputs  will  be  the  work 
programme  and  corresponding  grant  agreements.  As  one  separate  assessment  will  be 
available for each border type further to the work of the respective expert teams, drafting 
the  work  programme  will  not  be  limited  to  checking  eligibility  but  rather  extend  to 
organising  the  allocation  of  funds  in  line  with  customs  priorities,  threats  and  volumes. 
The  experience  and  knowledge  of  the  existing  RIMSCO  (Risk  Management  Strategy 
Implementation  Coordination  Group108)  could  support  the  work  of  the  Commission  in 
this respect. Also, policy choices – supported by comitology procedure – will be required 
at the time of adoption of the work programme.  

The  third  steps  will  be  implementation.  Once  grant  agreements  have  been  signed, 
Member States will be able to source equipment in line with the contractual conditions. 
All  standard  procedures  will  apply  and  EU  support  –  e.g.  through  examining  means  of 
supporting joint procurement – remains possible.  

The  fourth  and  final  step  will  consist  in  monitoring  and  control.  The  control  strategy 
will be tailored to the low risk profile associated to the financial transactions in view a.o. 
of the specific identity of the beneficiaries, i.e. customs authorities of the Member States.  

107  
108  

https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/expert-teams-europa_en  
http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regexpert/index.cfm?do=groupDetail.groupDetail&groupID=3305  

 
 
 
                                                            
Annex 7: Performance indicators for the mid-term review 

Please find below an overview of key performance indicators that are tentatively to be 
used for the performance element of the mid-term review of the national programmes. 

Asylum and Migration Fund 

1.  Number of persons resettled. 

2.  Number of persons relocated. 

3.  [Key performance indicator related to the integration of third-country nationals.] 

4.  Number of returnees. 

Integrated Border Management Fund – Border Management and Visa 

1.  Number of consulates developed or upgraded with the help of the Instrument out 

of the total number of consulates. 

2.  Number of staff trained and number of training courses in aspects related to the 

common visa policy with the help of the Instrument. 

3.  Border  control  infrastructure,  transport  means  and  other  equipment  items 

financed with the help of the Instrument. 

4.  Number  of  staff  trained  in  aspects  related  to  the  integrated  border  management 

with the help of the Instrument. 

Internal Security Fund 

1.  Number of law enforcement officials trained in the areas of terrorism, organised 

crime and cybercrime. 

2.  […].