REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS on interim evaluation of the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund and the Internal Security Fund
Date: 2018-06-12
Institutions: Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs, European Commission
Subjects: EU migration policy, EU police cooperation, EU visa policy, Schengen Agreement, aid to refugees, external border of the EU, fund (EU), integration of migrants, migration control, right of asylum

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 12.6.2018  COM(2018) 464 final  REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS on interim evaluation of the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund and the Internal Security Fund {SWD(2018) 339 final} - {SWD(2018) 340 final} - {SWD(2018) 341 final}  
 
 
1 

INTRODUCTION 

This  report  sets  out  the  results  of  the  interim  evaluation  of  the  Asylum,  Migration  and 
Integration Fund and the Internal Security Fund as required by Article 57 of Regulation (EU) 
No 514/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 20141. 

The evaluation covers this Regulation and: 

 

 

 

the  Specific  Regulation  (EU)  No  513/2014  establishing  as  part  of  the  Internal 
Security Fund the instrument for police cooperation, preventing and combating crime 
and crisis management (ISF-P)2; 
the  Specific  Regulation  (EU)  No  515/2014  establishing  as  part  of  the  Internal 
Security Fund the instrument for external borders and visa (ISF-BV)3; and 
the  Specific  Regulation  (EU)  No  516/2014  establishing  the  Asylum,  Migration  and 
Integration Fund (AMIF)4. 

Hereinafter ISF-P, ISP-BV and AMIF are referred to collectively as ‘the funds’. 

The evaluation assesses the performance of the funds against the evaluation criteria defined in 
the  better  regulation  guidelines  and  in  accordance  to  Article  55  of  Regulation  (EU)  No 
514/2014:  (i)  effectiveness,  (ii) efficiency,  (iii) coherence,  (iv) relevance  and  (v) EU  added 
value, (vi) sustainability, and (vii) simplification and reduction of administrative burden. This 
report is based on the findings of three interim evaluations for the funds accompanying this 
report. 

The evaluation covers the period between 1 January 2014 and 30 June 2017 and reports on all 
national programmes, Union actions and emergency assistance financed under the funds. The 
Member States and countries participating in the funds vary from fund to fund in accordance 
with  the  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the  EU.  All  EU  Member  States  except  Denmark 
participate in AMIF. All EU Member States, except Ireland and the United Kingdom, and also 
Switzerland,  Iceland,  Lichtenstein  and  Norway,  who  are  associated  with  the  Fund  because 
they fully implement the Schengen acquis, participate in the Internal Security Fund Borders 
and  Visa.  Finally,  all  EU  Member  States,  except  Denmark  and  the  United  Kingdom, 
participate in the Internal Security Fund Police. 

Prior  to  the  current  funds,  the  EU  provided  financial  support  under  the  2007-2013 
programming  period  through  the  General  Programme  ‘Solidarity  and  Management  of 
Migration Flows’ (SOLID)5 with a total contribution of almost EUR 4 billion, to support the 

1   Regulation (EU) No 514/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 laying down general 
provisions on the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund and on the instrument for financial support for police 
cooperation, preventing and combating crime, and crisis management (OJ L 150 of 20 May 2014). 

2   Regulation (EU) No 513/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 establishing, as part of 

the Internal Security Fund, the instrument for financial support for police cooperation, preventing and combating crime, 
and crisis management and repealing Council Decision 2007/125/JHA (OJ L 150 of 20 May 2014). 

3   Regulation (EU) No 515/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 establishing, as part of 
the Internal Security Fund, the instrument for financial support for external borders and visa and repealing Decision No 
574/2007/EC (OJ L 150 of 20 May 2014). 

4   Regulation (EU) No 516/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 establishing the Asylum, 

Migration and Integration Fund (OJ L 150 of 20 May 2014). 
COM(2005) 123. 

5 

1 

 
 
                                                 
development  of  common  policies  in  the  areas  of  asylum,  return  and  integration,  external 
borders  and  visa.  In  addition,  the  EU  provided  support  to  the  area  of  combating  terrorism, 
organised  crime,  different  types  of  trafficking  and  security  risks,  through  the  programme 
‘Security and Safeguarding Liberties’ (SSL) (almost EUR 800 million).  

The  following  table  presents  an  overview  of  the  current  and  the  previous  funds,  and  their 
evolution: 

Table 1: Summary overview of home affairs Funds and programmes during 2007-2013 and 2014-2020 

General 
programme 

Policy 
area 

Fund / specific programme 
budget, participation & objectives 

Previous Funds (2007-2013) 

Current Funds (2014-2020) 

Asylum 

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 

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) 

European Refugee Fund (ERF III) 
EUR 614 million6, All Member States (Member 
States) except Denmark 

  Support  and  encourage  Member  States 
receiving refugees and displaced persons 

in 

  Emergency  measures  to  address  sudden  mass 

influx of migrants and asylum seekers 

European Fund for the integration of third-country 
nationals (EIF) 
EUR 825 million, All Member States except 
Denmark 

  Support 

integration  of 
nationals into European societies 

the 

third-country 

European Return Fund (RF) 
EUR 676 million, All Member States except 
Denmark 

  Improve return management 
  Encourage 

the  development  of  cooperation 

between Member States and countries of return 

External Borders Fund (EBF) 
EUR 1 820 million, All Member States (including 
Romania & Bulgaria and the Schengen associated 
states from 2010) except the UK and Ireland 

  Financial solidarity among 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 Member States 

Asylum Migration and Integration 
Fund (AMIF) 
EUR 3 137 million (initial) 
All Member States except Denmark 

  Strengthen and develop all aspects 
of the Common European Asylum 
System (CEAS) 

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

  Strengthen fair and effective return 
strategies and help combat illegal 
immigration 

  Strengthen solidarity and 

responsibility-sharing between 
Member States, particularly those 
most affected by the migratory 
flows 

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

ISF Borders and Visa 
All Member States except Ireland and 
the UK plus the Schengen associated 
states Switzerland, Iceland, 
Liechtenstein and Norway 

  Ensuring a high level of security in 
the EU and facilitating legitimate 
travel 

  Visa and support integrated border 

  Crime  prevention,  law  enforcement,  witness 

management 

protection and support, victims protection 

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

ISF Police 
All Member States except Denmark 
and the UK 

  Ensure a high level of security in 

6   After adoption of EASO; takes account of Decision No 458/2010/EU amending the ERF basic act. 

2 

 
 
                                                 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
risks 

  Protection  of  citizens  and  critical  infrastructure 
from terrorist attacks and other security incidents 

the EU, fight against crime, 
manage risks and crisis 

2  THE FUNDS AND THEIR STATE OF IMPLEMENTATION 

The  funds  are  implemented  using  the  shared,  direct  and  indirect  management  modes:  under 
shared management by the Member States; directly by the Commission in direct management; 
or indirectly by entrusting a part of the budget implementation task to a third party (indirect 
management).  The  multiannual  national  programmes  for  AMIF  and  ISF  were  prepared 
through  a  policy  dialogue  at  the  beginning  of  the  programming  period  and  adopted  by  a 
Commission decision. The national programmes are amended regularly by the Member States 
and  are  approved  by  a  Commission  decision.  For  direct  and  indirect  management  the 
Commission adopts annual work programmes to implement the budget.   

2.1  AMIF 

AMIF  was  designed  to  promote  the  efficient  management  of  migration  flows  and  the 
implementation,  strengthening  and  development  of  a  common  EU  approach  to  asylum  and 
migration. During the implementation period under review, the migration conditions changed 
drastically  due  to  the  sudden  and  unexpected  increase  in  migratory  pressure  on  the  EU’s 
southern and south-eastern external borders. 

AMIF’s  general  objective  is  to  be  achieved  through:  (i) strengthening  and  developing  the 
Common European Asylum System by ensuring that EU legislation in this field is efficiently 
and uniformly applied; (ii) supporting legal migration to EU Member States in line with the 
labour  market  needs  and  promoting  the  effective  integration  of  third-country  nationals;  (iii) 
strengthening fair and effective return strategies, which help combat irregular migration and 
emphasise the sustainability and effectiveness of the return process; and (iv) making sure that 
EU  Member  States  which  are  most  affected  by  migration  and  asylum  flows  can  count  on 
solidarity from other EU Member States. 

State of implementation 

The  total  resources  for  AMIF’s  implementation  period  2014-2020  have  been  initially 
estimated  at  EUR 3 137  million,  In  response  to  the  unforeseen  needs  triggered  by  the 
migration  crisis  of  2015  and  2016,  this  budget  was  substantially  increased  reaching  EUR  6 
888 million of programmed commitments to support relocation and resettlement, integration 
and return and to prepare the implementation of the revision of the Dublin Regulation. These 
amounts were channelled through the national programmes, the Union actions and emergency 
assistance.  

As a result, current AMIF resources are approximately as follows: 

  EUR 5 391 million or 78 % programmed for the national programmes; 

  EUR 462 million or 7 % for the Union actions other than emergency assistance; 

  EUR 1 029 or 15 % for emergency assistance. 

3 

 
 
Under  shared  management,  Member  States  have  allocated  17  %  (EUR  738  million)  to  the 
asylum  objective,  21 %  (EUR  884  million)  to  the  integration  and  legal  migration  objective, 
22 %  (EUR  943  million)  to  return  measures,  0.1 %  (EUR  2.3  million)  to  the  solidarity 
objective,  36  %  (EUR  1  523  million)  to  resettlement  and  relocation,  and  4  %  (EUR  151 
million)  to  technical  assistance.  These  allocations  (EUR  4 241  million)  do  not  yet take into 
consideration the resources linked to the revision of the Dublin Regulation, which are still to 
be committed. 

Taking  into  consideration  the  annual  accounts  for  2017  submitted  by  the  Member  States  in 
mid-February  2018,  the  overall  level  of  payments  is  at  25 %  (EUR  1  068  million)  of  the 
global allocations, while the implementation rate7 amounts to 48 % (EUR 2 022 million). 

Figure 1: Implementation and payments rates by specific objective and based on global allocations for national programmes, 
Member States’ commitments and expenditures claimed by the Member States (accounts), in EUR millions. 

1600

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0

737,6 

883,8 

943,2 

414 

386,3 

144,3 

140,6 

429,4 

233,6 

2,3 

1,5 

0,8 

1523 

723,2 

516 

Asylum

Integration and
legal migration

Return

Solidarity

Special cases

Allocations

MS commitments

Accounts

Implementation rate

Payment level

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

151,1 

67,2 

32,8 

Technical
assistance

By  the  end  of  2017,  EUR  462  million  had  been  allocated  through  direct  and  indirect 
management to Union actions and the European Migration Network’s activities covering the 
entire  programming  period  2014-2020.  24 %  of  this  amount  was  allocated  to  projects 
covering  the  specific  objectives  of  asylum  and  solidarity,  whereas  the  remaining  76  %  was 
assigned to projects covering the specific objectives of legal migration, integration and return. 

2.2 ISF-BV 

ISF-BV aims to ensure a high level of security in the EU while facilitating legitimate travel, 
and  achieve  these  two  objectives  through  (i)  uniform  and  high-level  control  of  the  external 
borders and (ii) the efficient processing of Schengen visas. 

7   The implementation rate describes the progress made by the Member States in launching specific actions and projects to 
implement their national programmes on the ground (commitments linked to a contract). However, the implementation 
rate does not indicate the level of completion of the launched actions and projects. Furthermore, as Member States are 
free to choose when to submit payment claims (accounts), the level of payments does not reflect the progress made by 
the programmes on the ground. 

4 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Since 2009, applications for EU visas have risen by 50 % combined with increased costs for 
processing  visa  applications.  The  EU’s  common  visa  policy  has  also  been  affected  by  the 
migration crisis with increased pressure on consular staff worldwide and the increasing need 
for  cooperation  on  irregular  migration  and  return.  Applying  common  visa  standards  has 
become essential as people holding a visa or residence permit in the Schengen area can move 
freely from one Member State to another. Thus, all Member States share a common interest in 
ensuring  that  the  visa  policy  is  efficiently  and  securely  applied.  Therefore,  the  ISF-BV 
supports through this specific objective the capacity building of the Member States in order to 
sufficiently implement the common visa policy. 

Efficient border control is crucial to ensuring free movement of EU citizens and third-country 
nationals such as businessmen, tourists or other persons legally present on the EU territory as 
well as ensuring internal security. As peripheral Member States control a significant length of 
the  EU’s  external  borders, 
their  responsibilities  for  border  control  have  become 
overwhelming.  In  this  regard,  the  ISF-BV  supports  through  fulfilling  this  specific  objective 
the  further  harmonisation  of  border  management,  and  the  sharing  of  information  among 
Member States as well as between Member States and the European Borders and Coast Guard 
Agency  (EBCGA).  In  addition,  the  ISF-BV  contributed  to  increased  solidarity  and 
responsibility-sharing  among  the  Member  States  especially  through  co-financing  of 
equipment to  be  made  available in EBCGA operations, but also through the introduction  of 
automated border control gates and the continuous development of EUROSUR.  

State of implementation 

The  total  resources  for  ISF-BV’s  implementation  over  the  period  2014-2020  have  been 
initially estimated at EUR 2 760 million. This was later reprogrammed to EUR 2.61 billion to 
take into account the increased allocation for EMAS and Frontex equipment (see below), and 
the transfer of some part of  the funds allocated to the IT systems supporting the management 
of  migration  flows  at  the  external  borders  (e.g.  Entry/Exit  system,  European  Travel 
Information and Authorisation System (ETIAS)) to EU-Lisa. Around 65 % of the total (EUR 
1.6 billion) is allocated to national programmes. However, the amount for the Special Transit 
Scheme  for  Lithuania  remains  untouched.  In  response  to  unforeseen  needs  caused  by  the 
migration crisis, the amount allocated for emergency assistance significantly increased from 
an initial 1.3 % to 14.8 % of the total Fund. On the other hand, Union actions have decreased 
by a quarter to facilitate the increase in emergency assistance funds. The Member States have 
received  an  additional  amount  of  EUR 192  million  to  purchase  equipment  to  be  used  in 
EBCG-A joint operations. 

Member States have allocated 9 % (EUR 151 million) to the common visa policy objective, 
57 %  (EUR  928  million)  to  the  borders  management  objective,  21  %  (EUR  333  million) to 
operating support, 9 % (EUR 148 million) to the Special Transit Scheme and 4 % (EUR 64 
million) for technical assistance (Figure 2). 

Taking  into  consideration  the  annual  accounts  for  2017  submitted  by  the  Member  States  in 
mid-February 2018, the overall level of payments is at 24 % (EUR 391 million) of the global 
allocations, while the implementation rate amounts to 49 % (EUR 797 million).  

5 

 
 
 
Figure 2: Implementation and payments rates by specific objective and based on global allocations for national programmes, 
Member States’ commitments and expenditures claimed by the Member States (accounts), in EUR millions 

1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0

928,3 

467,2 

151,2 

73,1 

23,2 

332,2 

182,2 

141,1 

111,5 

148 

95,2 

65,2 

63,6 

20,7 

8,7 

Common visa
policy

Borders
management

Operating support

Special transit
scheme

Technical
assistance

Allocations

MS commitments

Accounts

Implementation rate

Payment level

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

For direct management, by 30 June 2017, 123 actions (46 emergency assistance and 77 Union 
actions) have been financed for a total amount of EUR 383 million in the 2014-2017 annual 
work programmes. Emergency assistance funds have been availed of by seven Member States 
(Bulgaria, Greece, France, Croatia, Hungary, Italy, and Slovenia), one EU Agency (European 
Asylum  Support  Office)  and  one  international  organisation  (UNHCR).  Union  actions  have 
been  provided  through  grants  (7  in  total  in  both  visa  and  borders)  and  procurements  (70  in 
total of which more than half were Schengen evaluations). 

Within the period 2014-2017, the Commission delegated the budget implementation tasks to 
three  entities:  eu-LISA  for  ‘Smart  Borders  Pilot’  testing  phase;  the  International  Centre  for 
Migration  Policy  Development  for  the  ‘Mobility  Partnership  Facility’;  and  UNHCR  for 
‘Support  to  Greece  for  the  development  of  the  hotspot/relocation  scheme  as  well  as  for 
developing asylum reception capacity’. 

2.3 ISF-P  

ISF-P aims to ensure a high level of security in the EU through supporting the fight against 
crime  and  managing  risks  and  crises  effectively.  The  Fund  has  two  specific  objectives:  (i) 
crime prevention and (ii) managing risks and crises. 

Through the objective of crime prevention, the ISF-P is supporting the fight against all forms 
of  crime,  including  terrorism  and  organised  crime  and  helping  to  increase  coordination  and 
cooperation  among  several  law  enforcement  authorities  at  national  and  EU  level  as  well  as 
Europol and other international organisations. 

Through the objective of managing risks and crises, the ISF-P ensures that all Member States’ 
capacity  is  strengthened,  improved  and  efficient  in  order  to  manage  security-related  risks 
effectively. Moreover, this objective focuses on the need to prepare critical infrastructures and 
people for any attack, particularly terrorist attacks. There has also been good progress towards 
rolling  out  the  systems  that  will  implement  the  Prüm  Council  Decision  on  automated  data 

6 

 
 
 
 
exchange, the Passenger Name Record Directive, biometric data capture and exchange as well 
as the interconnection with the systems of Justice and Home Affairs agencies such as Europol. 

State of implementation 

The  total  resources  for  the  ISF-P’s  implementation  over  the  period  2014-2020  have  been 
initially  estimated  at  EUR 1 004  million.  In  response  to  the  unforeseen  security  threats  of 
recent  years,  the  budget  was  increased  through  a  top-up  of  EUR 70  million  to  support  the 
Member States in implementing the Passenger Name Record Directive and another top-up of 
EUR 22 million for developing information exchange and interoperability tools. 

Under  shared  management,  Member  States  have  allocated  73 %  (EUR  549  million)  to  the 
crime prevention objective and 22 % (EUR 169 million) to the objective of managing crises 
and risk while the remaining 5 % (EUR 36 million) is for technical assistance. 

Also, taking into consideration the annual accounts for 2017 submitted by the Member States 
in  mid-February  2018,  the  overall  level  of  payments  is  at  21 %  (EUR  158  million)  of  the 
global allocations, while the implementation rate reaches 62 % (EUR 464 million).  

Figure 3: Implementation and payments rates by specific objective and based on global allocations for national programmes, 
Member States’ commitments and expenditures claimed by the Member States (accounts), in EUR millions 

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

548,7 

362,3 

124 

169,3 

89,9 

Preventing and combating
crime

29,1 

36 

12,2 

5,4 

Risks and crisis

Technical assistance

Allocations

MS commitments

Accounts

Implementation rate

Payment level

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

For direct management a total amount of EUR 122.5 million was allocated for Union actions 
and EUR 6.5 million for emergency  assistance in the annual work programmes 2014-20168. 
Furthermore,  EUR 118.5  million  of  that  combined  total  amount  (EUR  129  million)  was 
implemented  under  direct  management  and  EUR 10.5  million  under  indirect  management. 
Nine  calls  for  proposals  were  launched  in  the  first  three  years  and  nine  direct  grants  were 
awarded,  for  a  total  of  EUR 12.6  million.  Emergency  assistance  was  awarded  in  2016  and 
2017 to five projects to Belgium (2), France (1) and to Europol (2). 

8    The annual work programme 2017 was adopted in September 2017 and is therefore outside the evaluation period. 

7 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
3 

INTERIM EVALUATIONS 

3.1  Limitations 

The evaluation is taking place only three years after the funds began and only two years after 
they  were  effectively  implemented  due  to  the late  adoption  of  the  legal  acts.  Most  projects, 
which  are  mainly  multiannual,  are  still  ongoing,  making  their  assessment  very  challenging. 
Thus, the interim evaluation is not able to produce a full picture of the results and impacts or 
draw final conclusions. 

Another limitation is the lack of benchmarks to compare performance, mainly because AMIF 
and ISF are the first home affairs programmes to have a common monitoring and evaluation 
framework9  and  a  set  of  indicators  (common,  result  and  impact).  Overall,  the  quality  of  the 
data  and  the  quality  of  the  Member  States’  annual  implementation  reports  have  also  been 
lacking, in part because the common monitoring and evaluation framework with its indicators 
and all the guidance on evaluation only became available later on in the process (early 2017). 

3.2  Evaluation of AMIF 

In terms of  effectiveness, AMIF has played an important role in improving asylum systems 
and strengthening reception capacity in the Member States. The migration crisis, led Member 
States  and  the  Commission  to  prioritise  investments  in  the  area  of  asylum,  in  particular  to 
improve  accommodation  infrastructure  and  services  in  order  to  accommodate  the  large 
inflows of refugees and asylum applicants. For example, between 2013 and 2017, the number 
of people in target groups provided with Fund assistance increased from 18 944 to 184 122. In 
addition, the number of people trained by the Fund increased from less than 1 000 in 2015 to 
7 031 in 2017.  

The  Fund  also  registered  significant  progress  with  regard  to  the  most  vulnerable,  including 
unaccompanied  minors  (the  number  of  places  adapted  for  this  group  rose  from  a  low  183 
places  in  2014  to  17  070  places  in  2017),  and  refugees  and  asylum  seekers  coming  from 
regions like the north and the Horn of Africa, due to its better equipped external dimension 
(16 actions in various countries received EUR 30 million through two regional development 
and  protection  programmes).  However,  there  is  limited  evidence  of  increased  capacity  to 
develop,  monitor  and  evaluate  asylum  systems.  While  the  EU  resettlement  programme  has 
been  making  big  progress  so  far,  the  Fund  has  only  made  a  limited  contribution  towards 
establishing, developing and implementing national resettlement programmes. By the end of 
2017, almost 26 000 people have been resettled under both the EU resettlement scheme and 
the EU – Turkey statement on legal admission (out of 74 000 in total). Today, 81 % of the 27 
Member States who used AMIF are implementing resettlement, compared to only 15 % in the 
previous funding period.  

AMIF has made good progress on integration issues. Mainly short-term integration measures 
(introductory  courses  on  civic  orientation,  languages,  etc.)  have  been  prioritised  over  long-

9   Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/207 of 3 October 2016 on the common monitoring and evaluation 

framework provided for in Regulation (EU) No 514/2014 laying down general provisions on the Asylum, Migration and 
Integration Fund and on the instrument for financial support for police cooperation, preventing and combating crime, 
and crisis management (OJ L 33 of 8 February 2017). 

8 

 
 
                                                 
term measures (pre-vocational training, further education, etc.). For example, 1 432 612 third-
country nationals received integration assistance through the Fund so far, while the proportion 
of those who received long-term residence status also increased from 30 % in 2013 to 44 % in 
2016. On legal migration objective, only limited progress has been made so far, likely due to 
the contextual factors. 

The need for fair, sustainable and effective return strategies has been an objective of growing 
importance in most Member States, and both the voluntary and forced return supported by the 
fund have steadily increased. The number of returnees whose return was co-financed by the 
Fund increased from 5 904 in 2014 to 39 888 in 2015, falling to 36 735 in 2017; the number 
of people who returned voluntarily assisted by the Fund increased tenfold, and the number of 
removals  co-financed  by  the  Fund  increased  from  a  low  10  in  2013  to  a  peak  of  6 065  in 
2016. 

The  strengthening  of  solidarity  and  responsibility-sharing  between  Member  States  was 
achieved  mainly  through  emergency  assistance,  the  relocation  mechanisms,  and  the  EU 
resettlement programmes.  

AMIF emergency assistance has been an essential instrument in supporting Member States in 
the 2015 migratory crisis and its follow-up. It proved being a powerful tool for strengthened 
solidarity and it has facilitated a swift and more targeted response to the crisis. 

Concerning relevance, the evaluations of the SOLID programme found that further progress 
in  aligning  priorities  with  needs  was  required  especially  in  the  area  of  asylum.  AMIF 
corrected  this  shortcoming  and  it  has  proven  to  be  sufficiently  flexible,  broad  and  all-
encompassing in responding to different needs, and most national programmes are still in line 
with the Member States’ needs. However, Member States faced changing and diverse needs 
during  the  implementation  period  that  possibly  call  for  the  allocation  arrangements  to  be 
adapted over the implementation period. This could be achieved, for instance, by adapting the 
allocation key and a stronger mid-term review.  

Measures were taken during the Fund’s design, planning and programming stages to ensure 
coherence  and  complementarity  with  other  EU  financial  instruments  and  with  relevant  key 
EU  policy  strategies.  During  the  implementation  stage,  the  Commission  services  actively 
cooperated among them and with the Member States, mainly in ad-hoc settings, to ensure that 
EU funds with similar objectives were used in a coordinated way. On a national level, the vast 
majority  of  Member  States  ensured  coherence  and  complementarity  by  establishing 
coordination  mechanisms,  mainly  monitoring  committees  involving  different  authorities 
involved in implementing the Fund. 

However, room for improved communication appears to exist in relation to internal coherence 
(among AMIF instruments) because beneficiaries are not very aware of Union and emergency 
assistance  actions.  Nonetheless,  there  is  little  evidence  of  non-coherence,  overlaps  and 
duplications, both internally and externally. 

Overall AMIF has generated significant EU added value, despite the relatively small size of 
the funds compared with the significant challenges imposed by the crisis that occurred during 
this  period.  The  main  EU  level  benefit  arises  from  the  transnational  dimension  of  certain 
actions (specific actions, Union actions and the European Migration Network) as well as EU 
level  burden-sharing,  supported  in  particular  by  emergency  assistance  and  the  relocation 
mechanism  under  national  programmes,  both  of  which  are  solid  proof  that  the  principle  of 
solidarity was applied. 

9 

 
 
AMIF brought significant EU added value in terms of: (i) it ensured the effective and efficient 
management  of  migratory  flows  at  EU  level  (volume  effects);  (ii)  it  optimised  procedures 
related  to  migration  management  and  increased  know-how  and  capacity  built  (process 
effects); (iii) it allowed Member States to reach a wider volume of migrants, asylum seekers, 
refugees and third-country nationals (scope effects); (iv) it introduced innovations that were 
created at national and European level (role effects), albeit to a lesser extent. 

The  absence  of  AMIF  funding  would  have  been  detrimental  to  the  quality  of  the  EU’s 
response  to  the  migration  crisis  and  the  ability  of  the  Member  States  to  cooperate  and 
implement solutions. An interruption in the support would likely have led to (i) reduced scope 
and  quality  of  the  actions  implemented,  (ii) delays  in  implementation  or  (iii) even  an 
interruption in the actions, including on applying the principles of solidarity and mutual trust. 

Sustainability  has  been  ensured  by  AMIF  through  checks  mechanisms  set  in  place  at 
programming and implementation stages across most instruments, although this was ensured 
to a lesser extent by emergency assistance due to the nature of the actions. There is room for 
improvement  for taking into account sustainability criteria when designing the interventions 
of  AMIF,  but  also  to  systematically  capture  and  transform  lessons  learnt  into  national 
legislation,  practice  and  procedures,  in  order  to  avoid  recurring  financing  of  the  same  (less 
innovative) products. 

The  sustainability  of  the  actions’  effects  is  likely  to  differ  depending  on  the  focus  areas 
(integration and asylum outcomes are likely to last if  they address longer-term needs, while 
return outcomes are more sustainable if they are based on voluntary return schemes and are 
supported by efforts for reintegration). 

3.3  Evaluation of ISF-BV  

As  regards  effectiveness,  ISF-BV  is  considered  effective  in  both  the  areas  of  common  visa 
policy and integrated border management. This Fund helped to (i) facilitate legitimate travel 
by boosting Members States’ national capacities by co-financing Member States to purchase 
equipment to check the authenticity of documents used for visa applications, the development 
of information system for coordinating visa applications and (ii) procure security equipment 
for  consular  representations  in  third  countries.  Despite  the  recommendation  in  the  ex  post 
evaluation  of  the  External  Borders  Fund  to  increase  the  co-financing  rate,  the  Fund’s 
contribution  towards  consular  cooperation  was  limited  in  many  Member  States  due  to  the 
delays  in  starting  the  implementation.  The  development  of  a  common  visa  policy  was  also 
supported through the establishment and operation of IT systems, with particular regard to the 
national Visa Information System. 

The  Fund  contributed  towards  the  effectiveness  of  external  border  controls  by  supporting 
measures focused on the purchase, modernisation, upgrade and replacement of border control 
and  surveillance  equipment  (e.g.  document  checking  devices,  communication  equipment). 
Border  management  capacity  was  addressed  through  the  introduction  of  automated  border 
control (ABC) gates that speed up the checks at the border-crossing points that are linked to 
national  and  international  IT  systems  making  information  exchange  more  efficient.  A  key 
contribution  towards  the  achievement  of  a  common  visa  policy  was  provided  through  the 
development of VIS. Training also supported harmonisation of practices on visa issuance, by 
providing consular staff with technical and up to date information on subjects related to visa 
and related systems. 

10 

 
 
The Fund has supported the implementation of integrated border management, as per Article 
3.2b  of  the  ISF-BV  Regulation,  in  an  effective  manner  despite  the  migration  and  security 
crisis.  So  far  around  EUR  200  million  has  been  spent  on  specific  actions  to  support  the 
purchase of the European Borders and Coast Guard Agency equipment by 14 Member States, 
to  be  used  in  the  European  Borders  and  Coast  Guard  Agency  coordinated  joint  operations. 
This  increased  solidarity  among  Member  States  and  it  helped  in  the  development  of 
EUROSUR and border management IT systems. 

The Fund facilitated cooperation among Member States and between Member States and the 
European Borders and Coast Guard Agency, which included the purchasing of equipment to 
be used in the European Borders and Coast Guard Agency operations.  

Regarding direct management, it is very difficult to draw any conclusions on the effectiveness 
of  the  action  grants  awarded  under  Union  actions  or  emergency  assistance  since  very  few 
actions  have  been  completed  in  the  period  covered  by  the  interim  evaluation.  Emergency 
assistance has been used in seven Member States, mainly in Greece, Italy and Bulgaria, and 
played an important role in addressing the emergency needs at beginning of the period and in 
bridging the funding gap until the adoption of national programmes (for example, in the case 
of  one  Member  State,  the  amount  of  emergency  assistance  support  in  the  years  2014-2017 
was three times higher than the allocation from the national programme covering the whole 
period 2014-2020).  

The  Fund’s  original  rationale  and  objectives  are  still  relevant  in  the  aftermath  of  the 
migratory  crisis.  Appropriate  mechanisms  to  address  the  changing  needs  have  been  put  in 
place during both the programming and the implementation stages. The flexibility offered by 
the  Fund,  consisting  of  transfers  of  money  between  different  objectives,  helped  to  address 
these  changing  needs.  However,  Member  States  would  need  even  more  flexibility,  which 
could  be  achieved  through  minimum  allocations  of  funds  to  objectives  no  longer  being 
imposed and the number of national objectives being reduced. 

The Fund is considered to be coherent with other EU and national interventions. Coherence 
and complementarity with other EU financing instruments were ensured through coordinating 
mechanisms  at  the  programming  stage,  which  were  then  put  in  place  at  the  implementation 
stage.  Most  Member  States  adopted  different  coordinating  mechanisms  to  ensure  coherence 
with similar interventions carried out under other EU funds. No overlapping has been found 
between the ISF-BV and national interventions in the field of visa and borders. The coherence 
in  implementation  with  other  EU  programmes  could  be  improved.  Since  the  EU’s  Customs 
2020 programme and ISF-BV share common objectives on both security issues and training, 
potential  areas  for  synergies  have  been  noted.  However,  coordination  between  the  two 
initiatives could be improved. 

The  Fund  ensured  EU  added  value  through  innovative  investments  in  infrastructure  and 
equipment.  It  supported  cooperation  between Member  States.  Training  activities  enabled  by 
the Fund contributed to the harmonisation of practices between Member States. A higher EU 
added value could have been expected in the areas of consular cooperation, cooperation with 
third countries and IT systems. 

Since  large-scale  IT  systems  need  huge  investments,  it  is  likely  that,  without  an  EU 
intervention, national IT systems would have continued to be diverse, thus affecting the EU’s 
capacity to achieve the overall objectives in its border and visa policy. In the field of visa, the 
use of new technologies added value in terms of efficiency in processing visas, improving the 

11 

 
 
exchange of data and information within and between Member States. In the field of borders, 
the  EU  added  value  resulted  in  interoperable  modern  technologies  being  developed,  which 
improved  the  efficiency  and  speed  of  the  Schengen  Information  System  and  the  Visa 
Information System. This strengthened the interconnection with the Schengen partners, which 
contributed  to  stronger  border  checks  and  monitoring.  Therefore,  investments  in  upgrading 
the IT systems interoperability are deemed necessary. 

The  sustainability  of  actions  funded  by  ISF-BV  relies  on  the  continuity  of  EU  funding  as 
national  funding  appears  to  be  insufficient  to  ensure  the  same  level  of  investments.  In 
particular,  investments  in  infrastructure,  facilities,  and  IT  systems  have  relatively  high 
sustainability,  as  they  usually  require  smaller  maintenance  costs  compared  to  the  initial 
investments.  Training  activities  also  play  an  important  role  in  ensuring  the  sustainability  of 
actions in the long term. 

3.4  Evaluation of ISF-P 

It is worth noting that ISF-P is the first EU funding programme to address police cooperation, 
the fight against serious organised crime and terrorism, and crises and risks management that 
is  also  implemented  through  shared  responsibility  with  the  Member  States  (shared 
management mode), as the previous funds CIPS and ISEC were only implemented directly by 
the Commission (direct management). 

The  Fund  has  been  mainly  effective  and  has  contributed  to  improving  security  in  the  EU 
through  preventing  and  combating  cross-border,  serious  and  organised  crime,  including 
terrorism, as well as through helping coordination and cooperation between law enforcement 
authorities.  Cooperation  took  place  through  the  exchange  of  information  on  cross-border 
crime,  the  establishment  of  transnational  networks  and  projects,  and  the  participation  of 
Member  States  in  joint  investigation  teams  and  in  the  European  Multidisciplinary  Platform 
against Criminal Threats (EMPACT) Policy Cycle. National actions financed by ISF-P have 
also  contributed  to  improving  human  capabilities  and  human  resources,  especially  by 
financing training and hiring of additional staff. 

In terms of results, the above actions funded under shared management contributed to actions 
to  disrupt of organised crime groups, especially through (i) seizures of cash (over EUR 1.6 
billion); (ii) the taking down of websites; (iii) arrests; (iv) seizures of stolen goods (over EUR 
90 million in value); and (v) seizures of drugs such as heroin and cocaine (over 4 million). 

The  Fund  has  also  helped  to  improve  the  capability  of  Member  States  to  manage  security-
related  risks  and  crises  effectively  and,  to  a  lesser  extent,  protect  people  and  critical 
infrastructures against terrorist attacks and other security-related incidents.  

Available  evidence  indicates  that  the  Fund  has  contributed  to  boosting  Member  States’ 
capabilities  to  develop  comprehensive  threat  and  risk  assessments,  although  the  number  of 
ISF-P funded projects at national and EU level is relatively low.  Projects have, for example, 
focused on: protecting critical infrastructure; developing information systems and knowledge 
on  explosives;  training  on  the  identification  of  possible  "foreign  fighters";  and  developing 
analyses on CBRN-E (Chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear explosives) threats. 

The coordination and cooperation among Member States, Europol or other relevant EU bodies 
was facilitated  through developing information systems, interconnections between databases 
and  law  enforcement  applications,  and  developing  platforms  to  exchange  information.  In 

12 

 
 
particular,  Member  States  used  the  Fund  to  comply  with  their  obligations  related  to 
implementing EU legal instruments such as the Prüm Treaty and the Passenger Name Record 
Directive. 

With regard to Union actions, several actions have been funded in the area of early warning 
and cooperation on crisis prevention: e.g. the ATLAS network, which aims to strengthen the 
preparedness and effectiveness of special intervention units through exercises and other cross-
border exchanges, including in crisis situations and in the acquisition and sharing of tactical 
equipment to support special operations. 

In  spite  of  the  funding  available  under  ISF-P,  limited  progress  has  been  achieved  by  the 
Member  States  in  terms  of  (i)  strengthening  Member  States’  administrative  and  operational 
capability to protect critical infrastructure, (ii) the protection of victims, and (iii) developing 
training schemes and exchange programmes. In addition limited progress has been achieved 
in  terms  of  cooperation  with  third  countries  and  international  organisations,  although  most 
projects  regarding  these  operational  objectives  are  still  ongoing.  In  terms  of  protecting 
victims, the actions implemented have focused on the trafficking of human beings, followed 
by victims of terrorism and of child abuse, domestic violence, drug trafficking and financial 
crimes. 

The  Fund’s  original  rationale  and  objectives  are  still  relevant  in  the  aftermath  of  the 
migratory  and  security  crisis.  Appropriate  mechanisms  to  address  the  changing  needs  have 
been  put  in  place  both  at  the  programming  and  implementation  stages.  In  their  national 
programmes,  Member  States  identified  the  relevant  policy  areas  that  were  included  in  the 
EMPACT  Policy  Cycle.  However,  some  also  choose  to  focus  on  an  area  that  presents 
challenges  for  them:  drugs,  trafficking  in  human  beings,  cybercrime,  financial  crime  or 
corruption. 

The  flexibility  offered  by  the  Fund,  consisting  of  transfers  of  funding  between  different 
objectives, helped to address the changing needs. However Member States would appreciate 
even  more  flexibility  that  would  result  from  minimum  allocations  of  funds  to  objectives  no 
longer being imposed and the number of national objectives being reduced. 

The Fund is considered to be coherent and its objectives are complementary to other national 
policies.  The  Fund’s  coherence  and  complementarity  with  other  EU  financing  instruments 
were  ensured  during  the  design,  programming  and  implementation  stages.  Coordinating 
mechanisms  were  put 
the 
implementation  stage.  The  monitoring  committees  and  the  responsible  authorities  play  key 
roles in ensuring coherence and different implementation modes have been complementary to 
each  other.  However,  there  appears  to  be  some  room  for  improvement  in  relation  to  EU 
agencies and to internal coherence as there is little awareness among beneficiaries about the 
actions and projects carried out within the ISF framework. 

to  ensure  coherence  and  complementarity  at 

in  place 

Overall,  the  Fund  has  ensured  EU  added  value  in  terms  of  improving  cross-border 
cooperation, the exchange of knowledge and best practices, trust among Member States’ law 
enforcement authorities and the application and implementation of key EU policies (process 
effects). 

The Fund has helped to broaden the scope and improve the quality of the actions in terms of 
investments  in  under-prioritised  or  highly  specialised  areas.  The  purchase  of  state-of-the-art 
equipment  has  boosted  the  capabilities  of  the  national  authorities  to  carry  out  specialised 

13 

 
 
interventions with a wider scope. The Fund has also enabled the broadening of the types of 
knowledge exchange and law enforcement trainings (scope effects). 

The Fund has proved that it contributed to the harmonisation of EU level research on crime 
prevention, as  well as  enabled increased investments and  focused  on long-term  measures in 
this area. It has also enabled high-volume investments, especially in IT systems, training and 
specialised equipment (volume effects). 

The  absence  of  ISF-P  funding  would  have  been  detrimental  to  both  the  quality  of  the  EU 
response  to  cross-border  cooperation  and  to  the  ability  of  the  Member  States  to  implement 
innovative solutions (role effects). 

During  the  former  financing  period,  the  ISEC  and  CIPS  programmes  had  a  strong 
transnational dimension as transnational cooperation was a prerequisite for funding. However, 
the geographical distribution of coordinating and partner organisations that received funding 
was  highly  uneven  and  concentrated  in  a  few  Member  States.  By  establishing  the  shared 
management  mode  in  ISF-P  (initially  60 %  of  the  total  programme  and  over  70 %  after  the 
top-ups),  ISF-P  had  a  better  geographical  reach  across  all  Member  States,  though  Union 
actions  are  still  characterised  with  the  same  geographical  imbalance  that  existed  in  the 
previous funds 

The Fund’s sustainability has been ensured through the alignment and complementarity of its 
actions  with  actions  developed  in  response  to  national  priorities  or  EU  requirements. 
Comprehensive  measures  and  mechanisms  ensuring  sustainability  have  been  put  in  place  at 
programming and implementation stages both under shared and direct management. However, 
the ongoing implementation of most projects makes it difficult to establish whether the effects 
on the target groups and on specific areas will really last. 

3.5  Efficiency, simplification and reduction of administrative burden 

Concerning efficiency, overall and in the limits of available data, the evaluation indicated that 
the  results  of  the  funds  were  achieved  at  reasonable  costs  in  terms  of  both  human  and 
financial  resources.  However,  most  Member  States  face  problems  with  the  EU  guidance, 
common 
reporting/monitoring  calendar.  Despite  simplification 
improvements,  the  perceived  administrative  burden  can  be  considered  as  a  factor  that 
undermines efficiency. 

indicators  and 

the 

The single set of procedures laid down in the Horizontal Regulation (EU No 514/2014) for all 
areas  covered  by  the  funds  and  for  both  AMIF  and  ISF  was  found  to  have  led  to 
simplification.  The  simplified  cost  option  was  used  in  only  a  few  Member  States  who 
acknowledged  its  efficiency  in  reducing  the  administrative  burden.  However,  measures 
implemented  by  the  funds  for  simplification  and  to  reduce  administrative  burden  have  only 
partially achieved their intended goals. In spite of simplification improvements, there is little 
evidence  at  this  stage  that  the  administrative  burden  has  been  significantly  reduced. 
Monitoring,  reporting  and  verification  measures  are  still  perceived  as  burdensome  and 
Member  States  have  asked  for  further  guidance  on  complying  with  EU  requirements.  The 
reporting requirements and the irrelevance of some common indicators were also reported as 
adding to the administrative burden. 

14 

 
 
 
4  MID-TERM REVIEW 

This  report  on  interim  evaluation  includes,  in  line  with  Article 57  of  Regulation  (EU)  No 
514/2014, an assessment of the mid-term review planned for all three funds. 

The overall process was launched June 2017 with a needs assessment questionnaire sent to the 
Member States. The objective was to allow Member States to consider if and to what extent 
the national programmes might need a revision and also to assess their (financial) needs for 
the  remaining  period  2018-2020.  The  questionnaire  was  accompanied  by  a  memo  outlining 
the main developments in EU policies over recent years, which should be taken into account 
when considering the future needs. The Commission then carried out a detailed analysis of the 
Member States’ replies and bilateral dialogues were organised between the Commission and 
most  Member  States  to  discuss  in  detail  the  state  of  implementation  of  the  funds,  the 
expressed needs and the outlook for the final years. 

Following these discussions, a specific extra allocation of EUR 128 million for the national 
programmes,  to  be  distributed  in  the  framework  of  the  mid-term  review,  was  only  intended 
for the borders and visa instrument, in compliance with the legal base of this instrument. This 
was due in particular to the fact that no extra funding was planned for AMIF and ISF-P and 
because most of the national programmes of the Member States under these two funds have 
been revised repeatedly over recent years due to the migration and security crisis. 

In  conclusion,  the  mid-term  review  allowed  for  the  realignment  of  national  programme 
priorities  to  the  new  policy  initiatives  and  for  the  adaptation  to  the  new  situation  in  the 
security,  borders  and  migration  areas.  However,  it  was  most  relevant  for  ISF-BV  where  an 
extra financial allocation was made available, which allowed for a renewed focus on certain 
specific priorities and needs at Member State level. Furthermore, the Member States financial 
needs expressed in this context (request for extra funding in the 2019 draft budget for the area 
of  return  and  hotspots)  will  be  carefully  assessed  in  the  course  of  the  annual  budgetary 
procedures. 

5  CONCLUSIONS AND WAY FORWARD 

5.1  Effectiveness 

The Funds have been deemed mainly effective and proved overall to be important instruments 
in  handling  the  difficult  situation  in  terms  of  migration  and  security,  despite  the  significant 
increase in the challenges that they needed to address. 

AMIF proved to be an important instrument in handling the difficult situation, by providing 
both  short-term  emergency  support  to  and  more  long-term  capacity  building  of  the  asylum, 
integration and return. AMIF especially contributed to strengthening Member States reception 
and processing capacities when confronted with the challenging migration flows. While there 
has  been  limited  progress  so  far  in  the  area  of  legal  migration,  Member  States  have  made 
moderate  progress  in  the  integration  area,  including  in  capacity  building.  Short-term 
integration  measures  have  been  prioritised  over  long-term,  the  results  of  which  are  not  yet 
visible  as  integration  is  a  long-term  process.  The  Fund  has  helped  to  steadily  increase  the 
return rates. 

15 

 
 
ISF-BV  proved  its  effectiveness  by  helping  to  facilitate  legitimate  travel  The  Fund’s 
contribution towards consular cooperation and strengthening cooperation with third countries 
was limited. It also supported the development of a common visa policy through training and 
the establishment and operation of IT systems (particularly the Visa Information System).  

ISF-P  contributed  to  enhancing  security  in  the  EU  by  strengthening  the  Member  States’ 
capabilities  to  prevent  and  combat  cross-border,  serious  and  organised  crime,  including 
terrorism,  through:  (i) actions  targeting  financial  and  economic  crime,  cybercrime  and  drug 
trafficking, (ii) investment in IT systems and operational equipment, (iii) cooperation among 
Member  States  such  the  participation  in  joint  investigation  teams;  and  (iv)  the  EMPACT 
Policy Cycle.  

In the field of security-related risks and crises ISF-P has helped to enhance Member States’ 
capacity  to  manage  effectively  the  security-related  risks  and  crises  through  (i) the 
development  of  comprehensive  threat  and  risk  assessments,  (ii) the  establishment  of  sector-
specific  early  warning  systems,  (iii) cooperation  mechanisms  and  (iv) the  upgrading  and 
procurement of equipment allowing for a better response to crisis or emergency situations. 

5.2  Efficiency 

Available  data  suggests  that  the  results  of  the  Funds  have  been  achieved  overall  at  a 
reasonable  cost  in  terms  of  both  human  and  financial  resources,  with  some  limitations. 
Efficiency  was  ensured  through  considerable  knowledge  and  expertise  gained  through 
experience from previous projects and the flexibility of the national programmes. 

There  are  also  a  number  of  issues  that  Member  State  considered  to  negatively  affect 
efficiency: the requirement to allocate minimum percentages to national objectives; complex 
and  recurrent  reports;  insufficiently  developed  common  indicators;  and  the  misalignment  of 
monitoring and reporting calendars. 

Overall,  the  emergency  assistance  actions  and  the  Union  actions  as  well  as  indirect 
management actions have achieved their objectives at a reasonable cost in terms of financial 
and human resources. 

5.3  Simplification and reduction in administrative burden 

AMIF and ISF have led to simplification relative to the past, although there is little evidence 
at  this  stage  to  show  that  the  administrative  burden  has  been  significantly  reduced.  The 
multiannual programming enabled emerging needs to be addressed throughout the seven-year 
timeframe  and  large  investments  to  be  managed  in  the  long  term.  Overall,  most  of  the 
innovative  measures  (e.g.  simplified  cost  options,  multiannual  programming,  simplified 
management  and  control  system)  have  been  deemed  particularly  beneficial  and  led  to 
simplification,  though  further  guidance  was  requested  (e.g.  the  simplified  cost  option  is 
perceived as positive yet its benefits have not been made clear to beneficiaries who, therefore, 
are  reluctant  to  use  it).  Despite  the  improved  simplification,  national  rules  and  procedures 
applicable  under  the  national  programmes  appeared  to  have  led  to  a  moderate  amount  of 
administrative  burden.  As  regards  direct  management,  procedures  were  shown  to  be 
appropriate, clear, and transparent, without creating additional burden for Member States  or 
beneficiaries. 

16 

 
 
5.4  Relevance 

The  funds,  their  priorities  and  objectives  as  set  out  in  the  Specific  Regulations,  as  well  as 
within the annual work were shown to be still relevant. They  addressed the Member States’ 
needs  in  spite  of  diversity  and  changes  in  the  national  contexts.  Due  to  the  migratory  and 
security crises, it is worth noting that significant budget reinforcements were needed, with the 
available  budget  of  EUR  6.9  billion  for  the  2014-2020  programming  period  being  raised  to 
EUR 10.8 billion. The emergency assistance (at a higher scale than originally intended) has 
helped ensure the funds’ relevance. 

The  main  mechanisms  identified  to  ensure  the  funds’  relevance  included  (i)  the  policy 
dialogue10  and  the  consultative  method  adopted  during  the  programming  stage,  (ii)  the 
monitoring  role  played  by  both  the  responsible  authorities  and  the  monitoring  committees, 
(iii)  the  possibility  of  making  budgetary  adjustments  and  transfers,  and  (iv)  the  mid-term 
review. 

Despite the evidence gathered on the funds’ relevance, it has been noted that more flexibility 
is  needed  as  far  as  the  implementation  of  the  national  programmes  is  concerned.  The  main 
issue  was  found  around the  fragmentation  of  actions  under multiple  national  objectives  that 
prevented  the  pooling  of  resources  around  key  priorities  and  made  it  difficult  to  implement 
cross-objective projects. Furthermore, fixing allocations at the beginning of the programming 
period,  on  the  basis  of  statistical  data,  does  not  reflect  changes  in  Member  States’  needs 
during the implementation period. 

5.5  Coherence and complementarity 

The  funds  have  been  coherent  and  complementary  to  other  funds  and  initiatives  and  no 
overlaps  and  duplications  have  been  found.  The  internal  instruments  (national  programmes, 
emergency assistance, etc.) complement each other as well as other EU funding instruments 
(such as the European Structural and Investment Funds - ESIF) and national budgets. 

Most Member States have adopted different coordinating mechanisms at the implementation 
stage to ensure the funds are coherent and are complementary to similar interventions carried 
out  under  other  EU  funds.  These  mechanisms  include  inter-institutional  exchange  of 
information  and  cooperation  among  authorities  responsible  for  different  EU  funds  and 
specific institutional arrangements to ensure their coordination and synergies. The monitoring 
committees  and  the  responsible  authorities  play  a  pivotal  role  in  ensuring  synergies  and 
avoiding  overlaps  and  double-funding,  through  regular  cooperation  with  other  national 
institutions  implementing  other  funds  (including  EU  funds)  and  with  counterparts  in  other 
Member States. 

As  regards  direct  management,  both  emergency  assistance  and  the  Union  actions  show 
coherence  with  and  complementarity  to  actions  supported  by  other  EU  funds  or  actions 
supported by EU Agencies. However, it was found, that there is some room for improvement 

10   The policy dialogues with Member States have been put in place for the first time for the preparation of the multiannual 
national programmes for AMIF and ISF. They have been an important element in launching the process of designing 
national programmes. This allowed for a holistic approach of all elements of national programme of a Member State 
with a comprehensive discussion of the EU policy objectives and national priorities. 

17 

 
 
                                                 
since project beneficiaries were not very aware about other actions carried out globally under 
the funds. 

5.6  EU Added value 

Overall, and notwithstanding their relatively small size compared to the challenges imposed 
by the crisis, the Funds have generated significant EU added value by (i) supporting actions 
with  a  transnational  dimension,  (ii)  burden-sharing  between  Member  States,  (iii) boosting 
national capacities, (iv) optimising procedures related to migration management, (v) ensuring 
synergies, (vi) increased cooperation among actors dealing with visa processing, (vii) sharing 
of  information  and  best  practices,  (viii)  cross-border  projects,  (ix) trust  among  law 
enforcement  authorities,  and  (x)  staff  training,  etc.  Without  the  funds  the  quality  of  the  EU 
response to the migration crisis and security challenges would have been reduced (e.g. with 
fewer  staff  and  reduced  services,  the  ability  of  the  national  authorities  to  provide  effective 
assistance  to  asylum  seekers,  refugees  and  other  third-country  nationals  would  be 
constrained).  

From  a  financial  point  of  view,  without  these  EU  Funds,  national  funding  would  not  have 
enabled  the  effective  and  efficient  implementation  of  the  actions  i.e.  in  the  area  of 
resettlement,  counterterrorism  or  borders  equipment  including  for  the  EBCG-A.  Actions 
would  have  been  implemented  with  much  more  difficulty  and  not  on  the  scale  or  in  the 
timeframe actually planned due to insufficient national resources. 

As regards direct management, without the resources provided for emergency assistance and 
Union  actions,  national  funding  alone  would  have  resulted  in  a  much  more  difficult  and 
smaller scale implementation, with a lower general impact. The main advantages entailed by 
these measures included higher cooperation both across and within Member States, including 
the  sharing  of  information,  know-how  and  good  practices.  This  allowed  for  a  timely  and 
efficient handling of migration flows and related emergencies. 

Actions  funded  under  indirect  management  provided  EU  added  value  by  strengthening 
existing  synergies  between  stakeholders  at  different  levels  (international,  EU,  Member 
States), therefore developing a coherent EU response to emerging challenges. 

5.7  Sustainability 

Sustainability  has  been  addressed  by  all  of  the  Fund’s  delivery  mechanisms,  although  to  a 
lesser extent by emergency assistance due to the emergency nature of the actions. 

Concerning AMIF, the sustainability of effects lasting after the intervention ends varies across 
its different instruments and the Member States: 

 

 

integration  and  asylum  outcomes  are  likely  to  last  longer,  if  from  the  outset  they 
address longer-term needs; and 
return outcomes are sustainable if they are based on voluntary return schemes and are 
supported by efforts at reintegration. 

Regarding  ISF,  many  actions  are  long-term  actions  by  their  nature,  since  they  are  generally 
designed  to  remain  operational  beyond  the  Fund’s  support  (investments  in  infrastructure, 
facilities,  and  IT  systems).  Other  actions  (training  and  cooperation  mechanisms)  have 

18 

 
 
contributed to the sustainability of actions through improving expertise, knowledge, and the 
qualifications of staff involved in managing and implementing projects. 

Financial sustainability (actions that can continue after the funds’ financing ends) also varies. 
Some  actions  like  the  multiannual  or  train-the-trainer  projects  appear  to  be  more  self-
sustainable,  while  others  appear  not  to  be  self-sustainable  (e.g.  the  European  Migration 
Network).  Furthermore,  the  sustainability  of  certain  other  actions  (Union  actions,  national 
programmes, emergency assistance) depends on their level or priority and/or urgency and the 
availability of alternative resources. 

5.8 

Issues for future consideration 

  The  holistic  design  and  structure  of  the  funds’  mechanisms  (i.e.  national  programmes 
aiming  to  build  long-term  capacities,  emergency  assistance  aiming  to  alleviate 
immediate  pressure,  and  Union  actions  clearly  and  logically  designed  to  support  each 
other)  should  be  maintained  and  used  as  a  model  for  the  future  programming  period. 
The separation between external borders and visa should also be maintained. 

  In order to increase the Fund’s effectiveness and to enable Member States to prioritise 
some  objectives  that  could  lead  to  better  results,  the  national  programmes  should  be 
more focused. 

  Future Funds (and their scope) need to be designed in such a manner that enables them 
to  address  a  comprehensive  set  of  needs,  as  well  as  ensure  flexibility  if  there  are 
changes.  The  fragmentation  of  national  programmes  under  several  objectives  with 
minimum percentages of funding should be reconsidered in order to increase flexibility. 

  The  scope  of  ISF  might  need  to  be  adapted  further  in  the  future  to  cater  for  the  new 
policy initiatives to strengthen operational cooperation and exchange of information. 

   The multiannual programming should be maintained for the future financing period. 

  An emergency instrument should be maintained and its ability further strengthened so it 

can respond rapidly and efficiently to changing circumstances. 

  A full common monitoring and evaluation framework should be devised early on in the 
design  phase  to  ensure  a  consistent  and  uniform  monitoring  of  progress  and 
effectiveness from the outset. This should include better defined indicators with baseline 
and target values, and simplified processes, guidance and calendars. 

  A  system  to  distribute  funds  (the  allocation  key  and  mid-term  review)  should  be 

adaptable in order to respond appropriately to changing needs. 

  Further  efforts  to  improve  cooperation,  coordination  and  strategic  steering  in 
implementing the funds, their different types of actions, and other EU level initiatives 
should be made. 

  Providing  support  through  the  funds  and  all  their  instruments  should  be  continued, 
sending  a  clear  message  on  the  importance  of  solidarity  and  cooperation  between 
Member States. 

  Sustainability,  both  in  the  sense  of  financial  sustainability  and  the  sustainability  of 

effects, should be taken into account at the project design and selection stage.  

19