COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT on the Ex Post Evaluation of the External Borders Fund 2011-2013 Accompanying the document Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions Ex post evaluation reports for the period 2011 to 2013 of actions co-financed by the four Funds under the framework programme 'Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows'
Date: 2018-06-12
Institutions: Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs, European Commission
Subjects: EU migration policy, EU programme, EU visa policy, Frontex, Schengen Information System, external border of the EU, fund (EU), illegal migration, migratory movement

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 12.6.2018  SWD(2018) 336 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT on the Ex Post Evaluation of the External Borders Fund 2011-2013 Accompanying the document Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions Ex post evaluation reports for the period 2011 to 2013 of actions co-financed by the four Funds under the framework programme 'Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows' {COM(2018) 456 final}  - {SWD(2018) 333 final}  - {SWD(2018) 334 final}  - {SWD(2018) 335 final}  
 
 
Contents 
1 

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 3 

2 

3 

4 

Background to the initiative ............................................................................................................ 5 

The EBF as funding instrument (objectives and priorities) ............................................................. 8 

Evaluation questions ..................................................................................................................... 10 

5  Method .......................................................................................................................................... 10 

6 

Limitations ..................................................................................................................................... 11 

7  Management mode of the EBF ..................................................................................................... 13 

7.1 

Shared management through the implementation of national annual programmes .......... 13 

Direct management through the adoption by the Commission of Annual Work programmes 
7.2 
(Community Actions including Emergency Assistance and Specific Actions) ................................... 15 

8. Implementation Status of the Two Management Modes ................................................................. 16 

8.1  

Implementation through shared management .................................................................... 16 

8.2 

Implementation through direct management ...................................................................... 19 

9. Answers to the evaluation questions ................................................................................................ 20 

9.1 Relevance – Utility ....................................................................................................................... 20 

9.1.1 Relevance ............................................................................................................................. 20 

9.1.2 

Utility ............................................................................................................................. 23 

9.2 Effectiveness ................................................................................................................................ 23 

Objective 1 ..................................................................................................................................... 25 

Objective 2 ..................................................................................................................................... 29 

Objective 3 ..................................................................................................................................... 31 

Objective 4 ..................................................................................................................................... 32 

Effectiveness of the principle of solidarity .................................................................................... 36 

9.3 Efficiency ..................................................................................................................................... 40 

9.4 Sustainability ............................................................................................................................... 44 

9.5 Complementarity and Coherence ............................................................................................... 45 

9.6 EU added value ............................................................................................................................ 48 

10. Conclusions ...................................................................................................................................... 50 

ANNEX 1 - Procedural information ........................................................................................................ 56 

ANNEX 2 - Stakeholders' consultation................................................................................................... 62 

ANNEX 3 - Methodology ........................................................................................................................ 72 

1 

 
 
ANNEX 4 - List of evaluation questions ................................................................................................. 75 

ANNEX 5 - Detailed overview of the budget allocated to Community, Emergency and Specific Actions 
under EBF 2010-2013Annual Work programmes ................................................................................. 77 

ANNEX 6 - List of abbreviations and country codes .............................................................................. 78 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1 

INTRODUCTION 

The External Borders Fund (EBF) was established in 2007 for the period 2007 to 2013. It is 
one  of  four  Funds  (SOLID  Funds)  set  up  under  the  General  Programme  ‘Solidarity  and 
Management  of  Migration  Flows’1.  The  aim  of  this  General  Programme  was  to  address  the 
issue  of  a  fair  share  of  responsibilities  between  Member  States  concerning  the  financial 
burden  arising  from  the  introduction  of  an  integrated  management  of  the  Union’s  external 
borders and from the implementation of common policies on asylum and immigration. 

The  Decision  establishing  the  EBF  requires  the  Commission  to  submit  to  the  European 
Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of 
the Regions three evaluations reports: 

  by  31  December  2010,  an  intermediate  report  on  the  results  achieved  and  on 
qualitative  and  quantitative  aspects  of  implementation  of  the  Fund,  based  on 
evaluation reports provided by the Member States by 30 June 20102;  

  by  31  December  2012,  an  ex  post  evaluation  for  the  period  2007  to  2010  based  on 
national  evaluation  reports  on  the  results  and  impact  of  actions  co-financed  by  the 
Fund3. This ex post evaluation report covered the implementation of the 2007 to 2010 
annual programmes implemented by the Member States4.  

  by  31  December  2015,  an  ex  post  evaluation  for  the  period  2011  to  2013  based  on 
national  evaluation  reports  on  the  results  and  impact  of  actions  co-financed  by  the 
Fund5. The present staff working document reports on this ex post evaluation covering 
the  evaluation  of  the  2011  to  2013  annual  programmes  implemented  by  28 
Participating  States  (25  Member  States  (including  the  Special  Transit  Scheme  for 
Lithuania) and 3 Schengen Associated States6), from 1 January 2011 to 30 June 2015. 
The implementation of the 2007 to 2010 EBF annual programmes are not within the 
scope of this evaluation but are considered where relevant, specifically as part of the 
analysis of complementarity and coherence.  

The  present  document  also  covers  the  evaluation  of  the  Community  Actions  (including 
Emergency Actions) implemented under the 20107 to 2013 annual work programmes and the 

1  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  Council  and  the  European  Parliament  establishing  a  framework      

programme on solidarity and management of migration flows for the period 2007-2013, COM(2005) 123 final. 

2  Decision No 574/2007/EC, Articles 52(3)(b) and 52(2)(a). Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the 
Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the results achieved and 
on  qualitative  and  quantitative  aspects  of  implementation  of  the  External  Borders  Fund  for  the  period  2007-2009,  11 
May 2012, COM(2011) 857 final/2. 

3   Decision No 574/2007/EC, Articles 52(3)(c) and 52(2)(b).  
4   Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee of 
the  Regions  on  the  ex  post  evaluation  of  the  External  Borders  Fund  for  the  period  2007-2010,  23  April  2014, 
COM(2014)235. 

5  Decision No 574/2007/EC, Article 52(3)(c) and 52(2)(b).  
6    CH, IS and NO. Based on established practice in this area, the term 'Member States' in this report is used to mean the 

countries participating in the EBF, regardless of whether they are EU Member States or associated States.   

7   As Community actions implemented under the 2010 annual work programme were implemented after 1 January 2011 

they are covered by the evaluation. 

3 

 
 
 
                                                            
Specific  Actions  implemented  under  the  20108  to  2012  annual  work  programmes  Specific 
actions. The present evaluation builds upon the results of the ex post evaluation of the actions 
implemented  under  the  EBF  2007-2010  annual  programmes  and  the  intermediate  report 
mentioned above. 

The ex post evaluation study9 was carried out by a consulting firm specialised in evaluation. The study's 
methodology combined desk research, on-site visits, qualitative and quantitative analysis, more precisely: 
- systemic synthesis of the evidence regarding the implementation of the Fund that is derived mainly from 
the  26  national  evaluation  reports  (NERs)  and  the  Annual  Work  Programmes  of  the  Member  States 
(AWPs); and 

- interviews with 140 stakeholders, 12 case studies and a public consultation. 
Despite this thorough evaluation process, the assessment of the impact of investments under EBF during 
the  relevant  period  is  constrained  by  lack  of  robust  data  in  some  national  evaluation  reports,  by  data 
quality  such  as  the  absence  of  harmonised  official  statistics  on  border  management  resources  and 
investments, and lack of objectives and indicators set beforehand. 

The  ex  post  evaluation  assessed  EBF  in  the  light  of  its  relevance  (whether  its  objectives 
matched with societal needs), utility (whether the intervention satisfies stakeholders'  needs), 
effectiveness (to what extent objectives have been achieved), efficiency (to what extent costs 
were  proportionate  to  the  achieved  benefits),  sustainability  of  effects  after  the  intervention 
ended,  coherence  between  the  actions  financed  by  the  instrument  and  complementarity  to 
other interventions as well as  the added value of intervening at EU level. 

The results of this evaluation will complement the interim evaluation of the Internal Security 
Fund  (ISF)10,  the  successor  of  the  External  Borders  Fund  for  the  period  2014-2020.  The 
interim  evaluation  of  the  ISF  is  due  in  201811.  The  Commission  will  submit  an  interim 
evaluation report of the Fund by 30 June 2018 to the European Parliament, the Council, the 
European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. This interim 
evaluation  report  will  be  based  on  the  interim  evaluation  reports  provided  by  the  Member 
States on the implementation of the actions and progress towards achieving the objectives of 
their  national  programmes  to  be  submitted  to  the  Commission  by  31  December  2017.    The 

8    As Specific actions implemented under the 2010 annual work programme – Specific actions were implemented after 1 

January 2011 they are covered by the evaluation. 

9   The 

ex  post 

evaluation 

report 

conducted  by 

external 

evaluators  has  been  published 

here:https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/38ae6def-51a1-11e8-be1d-
01aa75ed71a1/language-en/format-PDF/source-70934237 

10     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, 20.5.2014, p. 143–167. 

11   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, 20.5.2014, p. 112–142, Article 57. Part 
of the interim evaluation is the mid-term review of the ISF national programmes of the Member States (Regulation (EU) 
No 515/2014, Article 8) which will take place in 2017 and 2018. The purpose of the mid-term review exercise is for the 
Commission and the Member States to review their national programmes and assess the need for a possible revision of 
the  programme,  in  the  light  of  developments  in  Union  and  national  policies  through  a  questionnaire  and  bilateral 
dialogues  with  the  Member  States.  In  addition,  if  the  need  arises,  the  results  of  the  mid-term  review  of  the  national 
programmes may support requests for additional funding made by the Commission to the budgetary authorities for the 
remaining implementation period. 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
interim evaluation report which the Commission will submit will also include an assessment 
of  the  mid-term  review  carried  out  by  the  Member  States  and  of  the  implementation  of  the 
emergency assistance grants and Union actions. The results of the interim evaluation together 
with the results of the present evaluation will contribute to the shaping of the future policies in 
the migration and security areas, especially to the preparation of the new funding instruments 
in the framework of the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) post 2020. 

2  BACKGROUND TO THE INITIATIVE 

The  Schengen  Area  is  one  of  the  greatest  achievements  of  the  EU.  It  is  an  area  without 
internal  borders  and  where  free  movement  of  persons  is  ensured  without  being  subjected  to 
border checks. While having abolished their internal borders, Schengen States have improved 
and  tightened  controls  at  their  common  external  borders  on  the  basis  of  common  rules  to 
ensure the security of those living or travelling in the Schengen Area and prevent illegal entry, 
while facilitating legitimate travel.  

The Schengen acquis provides for common rules and procedures to be applied by signatory 
States  with  regard  to  short-term  visas  and  border  controls.  All  signatory  States  therefore 
needed  to  contribute  to  ensure  a  high  and  uniform  level  of  control  on  individuals  and 
surveillance of the EU external borders. 

However,  the  burden  borne  to  implement  the  common  standards  for  control  of  the  EU's 
external borders varied significantly from country to country. These variations were explained 
through  the  differences  between  Member  States  in  terms  of  the  geography  of  their  external 
borders,  the  number  of  border  crossing  points  (BCPs),  the  level  of  migratory  pressure,  the 
risks and threats encountered and the number of Schengen visa applications received. 

The consolidation and the functioning of the Schengen area requires an overall borders policy 
architecture  at  the  Union's  level  supporting  all  the  components  of  the  common  Integrated 
Border Management System (IBMS).  

As  indicated  in  the  Council  Conclusions  of  4-5  December  2006,  the  IBMS  concept 
encompasses three dimensions12:  

  A common  corpus  of legislation, in particular the  Schengen Borders Code as 

well as the Regulation on local border traffic;  

  Operational  cooperation  between  Member  States,  including  cooperation  as 

coordinated by Frontex;  

  Solidarity between Member States and the Union through the establishment of 

an External Borders Fund.  

The Council then identified the following components of the IBMS: 

  Border  control  (checks  and  surveillance)  as  defined  in  the  Schengen  Borders 

Code, including relevant risk analysis and crime intelligence; 

  Detection  and  investigation  of  cross  border  crime  in  coordination  with  all 

competent law enforcement authorities; 

12   Council Conclusions, Justice and Home Affairs, 2768th Council Meeting, Brussels, 4-5 December 2006. 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
  The  four-tier  access  control  model  (measures  in  third  countries,  cooperation 
with neighbouring countries, border control, control measures within the area 
of free movement, including return); 
Inter-agency  cooperation  for  border  management  (border  guards,  customs, 
police,  national  security  and  other  relevant  authorities)  and  international 
cooperation; 

 

  Coordination and coherence of the activities of Member States and Institutions 

and other bodies of the Union. 

The  Council  thus  identified  the  External  Borders  Fund  as  one  of  three  dimensions  of  the 
IBMS. However not all components of the concept were covered by the Fund (e.g. return).  

The consolidation and the functioning of the Schengen area requires the MSs to acquire and 
develop the skills and obtain the equipment and technology necessary to be operational within 
an integrated border management system at EU level.  The work towards achieving the IBMS 
is  a  long-term  and  complex  process,  which  benefitted  from  the  support  of  the  EBF  and 
continues to be supported under ISF Borders and Visa.  

In  this  political  context,  the  EBF  2007-2013  is  one  of  the  four  EU  funding  instruments 
established in 2007 as part of the Framework Programme on Solidarity and  Management of 
Migration Flows13 and of a wider policy package which also included the Frontex Agency14, 
the Schengen Borders Code15 and the Schengen Evaluation Mechanism.16 

The  EBF  was  designed  to  support  the  process  towards  the  IBMS,  through  a  solidarity 
mechanism  between  the  Member  States.  The  States  participating  in  the  EBF  are  the  ones 
taking  part  in  the  Schengen  area,  i.e.  the  EU  Member  States  except  United  Kingdom  and 
Ireland  and  four  Schengen  Associated  States  (Norway,  Switzerland,  Liechtenstein  and 
Iceland).  It  was  the  first  funding  instrument  dealing  with  borders.  The  EBF  had  a  slow 
start due to the inclination of  Member  States to protect their national sovereignty on border 
management.  However, during its implementation, these States gradually realised the crucial 
role of an integrated border management system for the security of the whole territory of the 
Union.  

One  of  the  main  developments  during  the  period  under  assessment  was  the  sudden  and 
unexpected  increase  in  migratory  pressure  on  the  EU  southern  and  south-eastern  external 
borders. The total number of detections of illegal border-crossing increased from 104 000 in 

13   COM  (2005)  123  final,  Communication  establishing  a  framework  programme  on  Solidarity  and  the  Management  of 

Migration Flows for the period 2007-2013, European Commission, 6 April 2005. 

14    Council Regulation (EC) No 2007/2004 of 26 October 2004 establishing a European Agency for the   Management of 
Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union,  OJ L 349, 25.11.2004, p. 
1. Frontex has now been replaced by the European Border and Coast Guard Agency Regulation (EU) 2016/1624 of 14 
September 2016 on the European Border and Coast Guard (OJ L 251, 16.9.2016, p. 1). 

15   Regulation (EU) No 562/2006 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across 

borders (Schengen Borders Code), 15 March 2006. 

16   Council Regulation (EU) No 1053/2013 establishing an evaluation and monitoring mechanism to verify the application 
of  the  Schengen  acquis  and  repealing  the  Decision  of  the  Executive  Committee  of  16  September  1998  setting  up  a 
Standing Committee on the evaluation and implementation of Schengen, 7 October 2013. 

6 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
2010 to 141 000 in 2011 (+35%)17. The 2011 uprisings in North Africa contributed to a rise in 
migratory  pressure,  especially  for 
the  Mediterranean  countries.  High  numbers  of 
undocumented migrants were apprehended in Greece, Italy, Spain and Portugal, with Greece 
accounting for 227 420 apprehensions per year on average, or about a third of the EU total. 
Detections  of  illegal  border-crossings  along  the  EU’s  external  borders  sharply  dropped  in 
2012  to  72  437  detections,  a  49%  decrease  compared  to  2011  due  mainly  to  the  combined 
effects  of  enhanced  surveillance  at  the  land  border  between  Greece  and  Turkey18.  The  year 
2013  saw  a  second  peak  of  detection  of  illegal  crossings  along  the  EU  external  borders 
(107.000)19  which  represents  an  annual  increase  of  48%  in  comparison  to  2012.  The  year 
2013  was  characterised  by  three  phenomena:  a  large  increase  in  illegal  border-crossings  by 
Syrians  on  the  Eastern  Mediterranean  route  and  in  the  Central  Mediterranean,  subsequently 
applying  for  asylum;  a  steady  flow  of  migrants  departing  from  North  Africa  (Libya  and 
Egypt) and a sharp increase, mostly in January-June, in detections reported by Hungary at its 
land border with Serbia. In 2014, detections of illegal border-crossing reached a new record, 
with more than 280 000 detections. This was twice as many as the previous record of 140 000 
detections  in  2011,  the  year  of  the  Arab  Spring.  This  unprecedented  number  of  migrants 
crossing illegally  the external border has  roots in the fighting in  Syria that have  created  the 
worst refugee crisis since the Second World War. Indeed, most of the detections at the borders 
concern  migrants  from  Syria,  who  later  applied  for  asylum  within  the  EU20.  The  year  2015 
marked  the  explosion  of  the  refugee  crisis  due  to  the  conflict  in  Syria,  with  more  than  1.8 
million detections21 of illegal border crossing over the year, with Greece receiving thousands 
of migrants and refugees every day. This unprecedented crisis was addressed by the Internal 
Security  Fund,  the  successor  of  the  External  Borders  Fund,  notably  through  emergency 
assistance grants to support Greece22.   

On the other hand, several IT tools supporting the management of EU external borders were 
enhanced  and  deployed  during  the  period  under  assessment  in  order  to  facilitate  legal 
migration  to  the  EU  while  ensuring  a  high  level  of  protection  at  the  external  borders.  The 
Commission announced in December 2015 that the Visa Information System (VIS) had been 
rolled out and was fully operational23.  As for the Schengen Information System (SIS), whose 
main  purpose  is  to  help  preserve  internal  security  in  the  Schengen  States  in  the  absence  of 
internal  border  checks,  SIS  II  was  launched  in  2013  after  significant  delays24.  Through  the 

17   Frontex, Annual Risk Analysis 2012, p.12. The migration pressure at the external border increased even more than EU-
level  figures  suggest,  as  they  were  offset  by  extensive  reductions  in  Albanian  circular  migration  following  the  visa 
liberation.  

18   Frontex, Annual Risk Analysis, 2013, p. 19. 
19   Frontex, Annual Risk Analysis, 2014, p. 7. 
20   Frontex, Annual Risk Analysis 2015, p. 17. 
21  Frontex, Annual Risk Analysis 2016, p. 16. 
22  The  first  emergency  assistance  grants  awarded  under  the  Internal  Security  Fund  helped  support  Greece  (12  month 
projects, starting from early 2015, other projects supported with emergency assistance grants started in May, July and 
November 2015). Emergency assistance grants were also awarded to help support Hungary (12 month project starting in 
January 2015) and Italy (12 month project starting in January 2015). 

23   European Commission daily news briefing, 2 December 2015: Schengen Visa Information System now fully operational 

worldwide. The roll out started in 2011.  

24   The initial end date was set in 2006 then in 2008, then to 2010 and finally to 2013. There were many reasons for the 
delay  of  SIS  II  implementation  and  the  revision  of  the  planned  end  date  including  an  unrealistic  initial  deadline  not 
based on adequate technical analysis, evolving system requirements, changing costs and expected benefits, insufficient 
allocation of staff for management and supervision, and tender difficulties. 

7 

 
 
 
                                                            
EBF Emergency actions, in 2011, the Commission made significant efforts to mitigate the risk 
of further delays of SIS II implementation due to Member States lacking financing. As for the 
European  Border  Surveillance  System  (EUROSUR),  it  became  operational  on  2  December 
2013. 

Between 2010 and 2014, the total number of Schengen visas issued by the Schengen States 
increased by 42 % (from 11.018.936 in 2011 to 15.684.796 in 2014)25.  

The  evaluation  period  saw  also  the  further  development  and  use  of  new  technologies  to 
facilitate  legitimate  travel,  such  as  Automated  Border  Control  systems  (ABC  gates  or  e-
gates),  thus  giving  Member  States  tools  to  manage  their  passenger  flows  more  efficiently 
whilst  releasing  human  resources  which  were  needed  at  the  external  border  for  checking 
higher risk travellers or serving other travellers. In that regard, the total number of arrivals at 
Schengen  airports  from  third  countries  increased  by  53%  between  2009  and  2013  (from  71 
413 602 in 2009 to 109 375 635 in 2013)26. 

3  THE EBF AS FUNDING INSTRUMENT (OBJECTIVES AND PRIORITIES) 

As mentioned above, the EBF was set up to support the progress towards the IBMS through a 
solidarity mechanism among Member States. To achieve its overarching objective, the EBF 
was designed to contribute to the achievement of four general objectives27: 

1.  Efficient  organisation  of  control,  covering  both  checks  and  surveillance 

tasks relating to the external borders; 

2.  Efficient management of flows of persons at the external borders in order 
to ensure, on the one hand, a high level of protection at the external borders 
and, on the other, the smooth crossing of the external borders in conformity 
with  the  Schengen  acquis  and  the  principles  of  respectful  treatment  and 
dignity; 

3.  Uniform  application  by  border  guards  of  the  provisions  of  European  law 

on the crossing of external borders; 

4.  Improvement  of  the  management  of  activities  organised  by  the  consular 
and other services of the Member States in third countries with regards to 
the flows of third-country nationals into the territory of the Member States 
and the cooperation between Member States in this regard, with a view to 
the further development of the common visa policy. 

Each  one  of  these  general  objectives  was  further  detailed  in  several  specific  objectives 
(between 9 and 5 specific objectives per general objective)28. In addition, in accordance with 

https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/borders-and-visas/visa-policy_en  

25 
26   Frontex, Annual Risk Analysis 2015, p .13. 
27   Decision No 574/2007/EC, Article 3. 
28   Decision  No  574/2007/EC,  Article  4.  General  objective  1  was  further  detailed  in  Article  4(1)  letters  a)  to  i).  General 
objective 2 was further detailed in Article 4(2) letters a) to e). General objective 3 was further detailed in Article 4(3) 
letters a) to g) and general objective 4 was further detailed in Article 4(4) letters a) to i).  

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
the  Decision  establishing  the  EBF29,  the  Commission  adopted  in  2007  Strategic  Guidelines 
which  identified  five  funding  priorities30  and  twelve  specific  priorities  (2  to  3  specific 
priorities  per  priority).  The  specific  priorities  were  defined  to  target  particular  actions  for 
which the Member States could request an EU co-financing rate of 75%31 (See Section 7.1). 
Each  action  planned  in  the  annual  programme  had  to  be  programmed  under  one  of  the 
priorities set in the Strategic Guidelines. As the Strategic Guidelines did not set any threshold 
per priorities, Member States could distribute their annual allocation as they wished provided 
that  Member  States  address  at  least  three  of  the  five  priorities32.  The  priorities  set  in  the 
Strategic  Guidelines  were  aimed  at  making  the  Fund  more  operational  and  more  closely 
linked to the new policy and legislative initiatives and related IT-systems (e.g EUROSUR33, 
SIS34, VIS35, etc.). 

The priorities are the following: 

1.  Priority  1:  Support  for  the  further  gradual  establishment  of  the  common  integrated 
border management system as regards the checks on persons at and the surveillance of 
the external borders. This Priority can be linked to general objective 1. 

2.  Priority  2:  Support  for  the  development  and  implementation  of  the  national 
components of a European Surveillance System for the external borders (EUROSUR) 
and  of  a  permanent  European  Patrol  Network  (EPN)36  at  the  southern  maritime 
borders of the EU Member States. This Priority can be linked to general objective 1. 
3.  Priority  3:  Support  for  the  issuing  of  visas  and  the  tackling  of  illegal  immigration, 
including  the  detection  of  false  or  falsified  documents  by  enhancing  the  activities 
organised by the consular and other services of the Member States in third countries. 
This Priority can be linked to – but does not entirely cover – general objective 4. 

4.  Priority 4: Support for the establishment of IT systems required for implementation of 
the  Community  legal  instruments  in  the  field  of  external  borders  and  visas  (namely 
VIS  and  SIS).  This  Priority  can  be  linked  to  –  but  does  not  entirely  cover  -  general 
objective 2.   

5.    Priority 5:  Support  for  the  effective  and  efficient  application  of  relevant  Community   
legal instruments in the field of external borders and visas, in particular the Schengen 

29   Decision No 574/2007/EC, Article 20. 
30   Commission Decision No 2007/599/EC of 27 August 2007 implementing Decision No 574/2007/EC of the  European 

Parliament and of the Council as regards the adoption of strategic guidelines for 2007 to 2013. 

31   Decision No 574/2007/EC, Article 16(4).  
32    Annex to Commission Decision No 2007/599/EC. 
33   EUROSUR is an information exchange framework which seeks to increase situational awareness and reaction capability 
for reducing the number of illegal immigrants entering the EU undetected. It also contributes to the fight against cross-
border crime and to enhance the EU's search and rescue capacity.  In practical terms, each participating country was to 
set up a National Coordination Centre (NCC) coordinating their national surveillance activities and serving as a hub for 
information exchange with other countries. 

34   The  Schengen  Information  System  (SIS  II)  is  a  system  which  supports  external  border  control  and  law  enforcement 
cooperation, allowing signatories of the Schengen Agreement to share data on criminals, on people who may not have 
the right to enter or stay in the EU, on missing persons and on stolen, misappropriated or lost property. 
35   The Visa Information System (VIS) is a system for the exchange of visa data between Schengen States. 
36   European  Patrol  Network  (EPN)  is  a  permanent  Coastal  Patrols  Network  on  Europe's  southern  maritime  borders.  It 
coordinates  patrolling  activities  covering  defined  maritime  areas  and  the  exchange  of  information  between  countries. 
Ultimately, the EPN and EUROSUR are to be integrated into a single system. 

9 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
Borders  Code and the European Code on Visas. This  Priority can be linked to  –  but 
does not entirely cover – general objective 3 (for border guard services) and general 
objective 4 (for officials at consulates).  

While those priorities helped to better target EU funding to policy priorities, it also resulted in 
a complex architecture, with the general and specific objectives and the priorities and specific 
priorities not always matching perfectly. This is because they often focused on rather different 
aspects  of  EU  border  control.  For  example,  Priority  4  focuses  on  the  support  for  the 
establishment  of  IT  systems  for  the  Community  legal  instruments  in  the  field  of  external 
borders  and  visa  (namely  VIS  and  SIS)  while  the  development  of  these  two  IT  systems  is 
covered  by  only  one  of  the  five  specific  objectives  under  general  objective  2.  Another 
example is that the two specific objectives listed under general objective 3 (namely upgrading 
of the security at the premises of BCPs and building and upgrading of areas and centres for 
persons  whose  entry  is  refused)  were  not  reflected  in  Priority  5,  which  focused  on 
dissemination of information and training related to legal instruments in the field of external 
borders and visa.  

As priorities, being more concrete and more operational, were used to guide implementation 
of the national programmes by MSs, the latter were requested to programme their actions and 
report on their implementation per priority. However, the evaluation methodology, as defined 
by  the  Better  Regulation  Guidelines,  required  analysing  the  extent  to  which  the  EBF  had 
achieved  the  general  objectives  as  set  in  the  legal  base.  The  complexity  of  the  global 
architecture  of  the  Fund,  combined  with  the  limitations  imposed  by  the  reporting  format, 
made the evaluation exercise more difficult.  This being said, since the general objectives and 
priorities of EBF were explicitly drawn from the Schengen acquis, they are naturally strongly 
linked and reinforce each other. As a result, the EBF has been assessed through the priorities, 
which, given the interlinkage with general objectives, enabled the Commission to draw valid 
conclusions about the overall performance of the EBF. 

The  weaknesses  in  the  architecture  of  the  Fund  have  been  addressed  when  preparing  the 
subsequent funding instrument: the ISF Borders and Visa includes one general objective and 
two  specific  objectives  supported  by  seven  operational  objectives,  and  Member  States  are 
requested  to  report  on  the  implementation  of  their  national  programmes  in  light  of  the 
objectives set out in the legal base. 

4  EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

The  evaluation  was  planned  and  tendered  before  the  Better  Regulation  Guidelines  were 
adopted on 19 May 2015, but still covered all the five key evaluation criteria required by the 
Guidelines  i.e.  effectiveness,  efficiency,  relevance,  coherence  and  EU  added  value.  In 
addition  to  these  criteria,  the  Fund  was  also  evaluated  for  its  utility,  sustainability  and 
complementarity. To assess these eight criteria, the evaluation reviewed the 16 questions that 
are included in Annex 4. 

5  METHOD 

The Commission's evaluation relies on an external study carried out between June 2015 and 
November  2016  by  a  consulting  firm  specialised  in  evaluation.  The  study's  methodology 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
combined  desk  research,  on-site  visits  and  both  qualitative  and  quantitative  analysis.  It 
required  a  systemic  synthesis  of  the  evidence  regarding  the  implementation  of  the  EBF. 
Information  was  derived  mainly  from  the  2637  national  evaluation  reports  (NERs)  and  the 
Annual Programmes of the Member States (APs). The APs set out the operational objectives 
for each year whilst the NERs provided information on outputs, results and the impacts of the 
actions.  

Further  information  was  obtained  from  interviews  with  140  stakeholders  (responsible 
authorities (RAs), beneficiaries, EU officials and case study respondents, twelve case studies 
covering 12 Member States (each involving a site visit) and a public consultation. The case 
studies illustrate  practical examples of projects carried out by MSs with EBF support. They 
correspond  to  12  projects,  i.e.  a  project  per  selected  Member  State.  The  total  number  of 
projects funded by EBF in 2011-2013 in the selected 12 MSs is equal to 606. As a result, the 
12 selected projects represent only 1.98%.  For this reason, the sample cannot be considered 
as representative and therefore it does not allow for conclusions to be drawn or projected to 
the  entire  population.  An  internet-based  public  consultation  was  also  carried  out  (a  detailed 
analysis of its outcome may be found in Annex 2). 

Information  was  triangulated  to  ensure  validity and  robustness.  Findings  from  the  study  are 
presented in this report together with the financial data extracted from SFC38 and ABAC39 in 
December 2016. 

6  LIMITATIONS 

The  evaluation  process  encountered  a  number  of  difficulties  that  induced  methodological 
limitations (see Annex 3 for more details). 

The assessment of effectiveness, efficiency and utility was hindered, to a certain extent, by the 
absence  of comparable quantitative data. For the annual programmes,  this  is  due to the fact 
that  the  reporting  requirements  in  the  Fund's  legal  base  did  not  stipulate  that  RAs  should 
collect  the  data  that  would  be  required  to  conduct  an  assessment  of  effectiveness  and 
efficiency40.  To  mitigate  this,  the  assessment  of  these  criteria  had  to  rely  on  the  qualitative 
data collected through the stakeholder consultations and the NERs. This, combined with the 
absence of a baseline41, proved to be a limitation in terms of methodology. 

Due to these limitations, it has not been possible to establish causal links between the EBF's 
intervention or identified needs on the one hand and observed impacts or results on the other 
hand;  therefore,  effectiveness  has  been  evaluated  in  terms  of  outputs  –  which  were  more 

37    IS and DK did not submit their NERs when the study took place. 
38   System for Fund Management 2007 (SFC) is an online monitoring tool managed by the Commission services and used 
for certain funding programmes, where Member States can upload implementation reports and financial information. 

39   ABAC is the Commission’s accrual-based online accounting system. 
40   This is explained by the fact that the Better Regulation agenda, which formalised the criteria of the evaluations to be 

carried out by the Commission, was adopted after the EBF was established. 

41  Due to strong opposition from Member States, no baseline was set when the Fund was established. 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
easily  measured  and  compared  across  MSs  –  rather  than  impacts  or  results.  Furthermore,  it 
has been difficult to measure efficiency (the relationship between the inputs utilised such as 
time,  human  and  financial  resources  and  the  results  achieved)  because  the  evaluation 
concluded  that  it  was  not  possible  to  compare  different  types  of  projects.  Hence,  no  clear 
trends could be established. In addition, results could not be measured due to the lack of ex 
ante targets. It was not feasible to compare the "cost of actions'" under EBF to other similar 
actions due to the absence of comparable projects. As a result, the evaluation looked into the 
procurement  procedures  as  these  tend  to  determine  the  cost  of  the  actions,  under  the 
assumption that if fair tendering took place, then this was the reasonable cost that the market 
could offer. Finally, given these limitations, the evaluation study cannot draw conclusions on 
the degree of correspondence of the results and/or impacts to the needs (utility).  

Furthermore,  indicators  and  quantitative  targets  were  set  by  Member  States  through  their 
Annual  Programmes  when  selecting  the  actions  supported by  the  programme  for  each  year. 
For  each  action  proposed,  Member  States  defined  independently  the  expected  quantified 
results.  As  a  result,  there  was  a  multitude  of  indicators  across  Member  States  with  no 
harmonisation  and  a  limited  assessment  on  the  side  of  the  Commission  representing  a 
limitation for the evaluation. 

Moreover, the absence of convened definitions for benchmarks or units, particularly for EBF 
purchases, stems from different understandings among Member States of what to record in the 
NERs42. Despite the fact that guidance on the interpretation of the indicators was provided to 
RAs on an ad hoc basis, upon their request, and answers were made accessible to all RAs, the 
information recorded in the NERs still proved to be diverse and hardly comparable.  

In  order  to  improve  transparency  and  accountability  in  the  future,  the  Commission  and  the 
Member States have developed a specific common monitoring and evaluation framework43 as 
well as a document to guide RAs in the evaluation exercise of the ISF. 44 

In order to ensure that comparable quantitative data are collected for the evaluation of the ISF, 
the following was adopted: 

  Common  indicators  for  the  measurement  of  the  Specific  objectives  of  the  ISF  have 

been developed and added to the legal basis of the Fund45; 

  Common  result  and  impact  indicators  -  indicators  by  specific  objectives  were 
adopted46.  In  addition,  Article  2.2  of  the  Common  monitoring  and  evaluation 

42   Some  MSs  recorded  the  total  compound  number  relating  to  an  indicator  in  a  given  year  (i.e.  the  total  for  the  year  in 
question and all the previous ones), while others only provided the additional number for that year (i.e. the change in the 
number).  Some  countries  were  not  consistent  in  the  units  used  for  the  indicators  (e.g.  number  of  hours  of  patrols 
conducted rather than the number of patrols conducted). 

43  Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  No  2017/207  of  3  October  2016  on  the  common  monitoring  and  evaluation 
framework provided for in Regulation (EU) No 514/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council 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 L33, 8.02.2017, p. 1. 

44   The  Guidance  on  the  Common  Monitoring  and  Evaluation  Framework  was  developed  in  the  framework  of  the 
evaluation  network.  It  is  a  living  document  which  is  regularly  updated,  following  discussions  with  Member  State 
authorities and other stakeholders which are held during working group and evaluation network meetings. It is available 
to the Member States. 

45   Regulation (EU) No 515/2014, Annexe IV. 
46   Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 2017/207, Annex IV, point 1.  

12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
framework  provides  that  the  Commission  shall  set  out  the  definition,  source  and 
baseline for these the indicators47; 

  Common indicators on efficiency, added value and sustainability48; 
  Evaluation  questions  were  set  at  the  beginning  of  the  implementation  period  of  the 

Fund49. 

To  mitigate  to  the  extent  possible  the  limitations  mentioned,  different  mitigation  strategies 
were  taken  by  the  evaluator.  For  effectiveness  and  efficiency,  the  analysis  was  restricted  to 
being  based  primarily  on  stakeholders’  assessments,  gathered  through  interviews  with 
beneficiaries and RAs. In addition, the potentially positive stakeholder bias was corrected by 
looking at past achievements of predecessor programmes and the judgment of the evaluators. 
Overall,  the  availability,  robustness  and  reliability  of  the  data  were  sufficient  to  generate 
findings. 

7  MANAGEMENT MODE OF THE EBF 

The  actions  co-financed  under  EBF  were  implemented  through  two  different  management 
modes: 

7.1  Shared management through the implementation of national annual programmes 

Programming:  Under  the  shared  management  mode,  Member  States  hold  the  primary 
responsibility for the implementation and management and control of the interventions of the 
Fund.  Under  this  management  mode,  the  Fund  is  implemented  on  the  basis  of  strategic 
multiannual  programmes  adopted  for  each  Member  State  covering  the  2007-2013 
programming period. In addition  annual programmes  were negotiated each year with each 
Member  State  within  the  framework  set  by  the  multiannual  programme  to  implement  the 
annual financial allocation granted to each Member State.  

Calculation of the annual financial allocation for each Member State: To express solidarity 
with  the  Member  States  who  bear,  for  the  benefit  of  the  EU,  a  lasting  and  heavy  financial 
burden, the Fund Basic Act lays down objective criteria broken down according to the type of 
border,  taking  into  account  the  flow  and  the  levels  of  threat  at  the external  borders  of  the 
Member States50. 

Article 14 provides that the total amount available for the Fund has to be broken down each 
year between the Member States as follows: 

47   Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 2017/207, Article 2.2. 
48   Commission  Delegated  Regulation (EU)  No 2017/207,  Annex  IV,  point 2:  (i)  number  of  Full Time  Equivalent  in  the 
Responsible  Authority,  the  Delegated  Authority  and  the  Audit  Authority  working  on  the  implementation  of  the  Fund 
and paid by the technical assistance or national budgets as compared to the number of projects implemented and to the 
amount  of  the  funds  claimed  for  the  financial  year;  (ii)  technical  assistance  plus  the  administrative  (indirect)  cost  of 
projects as compared to the amount of funds claimed for the financial year;(iii) absorption rate of the Fund; (iv) number 
of equipment in use 2 years after their acquisition/number of equipment acquired under the Fund (> than EUR 10 000); 
(v) share of the maintenance cost of acquired equipment under the Fund in the total Union contribution to actions co-
financed by the Fund. 

49   Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 2017/207, Annex II.  
50   Decision No 574/2007/EC, Articles 14 and 15. 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
(1) 30% for external land borders 
(2) 35% for external maritime borders 
(3) 20% for airports 
(4) 15% for consular offices. 

Regarding land and maritime borders ((1) and (2)), 70% is allocated with respect to the length 
of the external border coupled with weighing factors determined by Frontex (see below). The 
remaining 30% is allocated on the basis of the work-load in managing the border (defined by 
the average figures over the previous two years of the number of persons crossing the borders 
at  authorised  border  crossing  points,  the  number  of  third  country  nationals  refused  at  the 
external  border  and  the  number  of  persons  apprehended  after  having  crossed  the  external, 
border illegally). Article 15 sets out the framework for the calculation of the weighting factors 
for external land and maritime borders. The Frontex Agency has been entrusted with the task 
of identifying the levels of threat at each external border section (high, medium, normal risk 
for land borders and high, medium, normal, minimum risk for maritime borders). With regard 
to airports, the allocation is calculated according to the work-load at the air borders (defined 
by  the  average  figures  over  the  previous  two  years  of  the  number  of  persons  crossing  the 
borders at authorised border crossing points and the number of third country nationals refused 
at  the  external  border).  As  for  consular  offices  the  allocation  is  calculated  according  to  the 
number of consular offices and the number of visa applications (work-load).  

The provisional allocations were communicated to the Member States the year before (by 1st 
July  each  year51)  the  adoption  of  the  annual  programme  in  question  and  were  based  on 
average figures over the previous two years (e.g. allocation for the 2013 AP were based on 
average  data  of  2010  and  2011).  In  2011,  an  assessment  on  the  annual  distribution  of 
resources in the Member States for the SOLID Funds was carried out. The report concluded 
that the interpretation and measurement of the data to be provided for the implementation of 
the EBF proved difficult and burdensome at times for the Member States52. This is due to the 
fact that for the EBF the Member States were the main data suppliers for the purpose of the 
calculation  of  the  annual  allocation  and,  in  this  sense,  the  situation  under  the  EBF  differs 
fundamentally from the other three SOLID Funds for which the bulk, if not all of the data, are 
compiled as EU statistics. As the application of the criteria have converged the bulk of the EU 
available  resources  around  those  Member  States  most  affected  by  migratory  pressure,  this 
2011  report  also  concluded  that  this  confirms  the  purpose  of  the  Fund  as  an  instrument  of 
financial solidarity on integrated border management in the EU. 

Content  of  the  Annual  Programme:  The  annual  programme  sets  out  the  actions  to  be 
implemented  in  the  Member  State  and  indicates  their  purpose,  scope,  beneficiaries  (public 
authorities in charge of border management and visa issuance), expected results and financial 
allocation (EU and national co-financing53). Each action is then implemented by one or more 

51    Decision No 574/2007/EC, Article 23(2). 
52   Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the  Economic  and  Social  Committee 
and the Committee of the Regions - The application of the criteria for the distribution of resources among the Member 
States  under  the  External  Borders  Fund,  the  European  Fund  for  the  Integration  of  third-country  nationals  and  the 
European Return Fund, 20 July 2011, COM(2011)448. 

53   A  special  case  was  the  Lithuania  National  Programme  as  it  included  the  Special  Transit  Scheme  (STS)  for  Russian 
Federation citizens travelling on EU territory to and from the Kaliningrad region. This provided support to compensate 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
 
project(s)  on  the  ground.  In  the  shared  management  context,  the  projects  are  selected  by 
competent  national  authorities.  Member  States  are  therefore  independent  and  only  ex  post 
assessment is carried out by the Commission at the time of submission of the closure report of 
the annual programme in question.  

During  the  eligibility  period  of  each  annual  programme,  Member  States  were  entitled  to 
request  a  revision  of  their  annual  programme  to  adjust  the  actions  to  the  changing 
migration  flows  and/or  emergency  situations.  Member  States  could  not  however  request 
additional funding for the implementation of a specific annual programme.  
The  EU co-financing rate  is  set at 50%54. This rate may be increased to 75 %  for projects 
addressing  specific  priorities  identified  in  the  Strategic  Guidelines  as  well  as  for  projects 
implemented by the Member States covered by the Cohesion Fund55.  

Technical  assistance:  Member  States  were  entitled  to  use  the  funds  allocated  to  the  AP  to 
cover the management costs of the Fund56. For the AP 2011 to 2013, the technical assistance 
was set at 4% of the total annual amount of funding allocated plus EUR 30 00057. 

Closure  of the  Annual Programme:  The eligibility period of each annual programme  was 
set  at  two  years  and  a  half  (e.g.  2013  annual  programme  ran  from  1  January  2013  until  30 
June  2015).  After  the  end  of  eligibility  period,  the  Member  States  submitted  a  final  report, 
which included an audit report. The part of the annual allocation not spent – if any – after the 
end  of  the  eligibility  period  was  lost  for  the  Member  States  and  de-committed  for  the 
Commission.  

7.2  Direct  management  through  the  adoption  by  the  Commission  of  Annual  Work 
programmes  (Community  Actions  including  Emergency  Assistance  and  Specific 
Actions) 

Annual  Work  programmes:  Up  to  6%  of  the  EBF's  resources  were  available  to  finance 
transnational actions or actions of interest to the EU as a whole (Community actions), at the 
Commission's  initiative58.  Political  priorities  and  objectives  for  projects  are  defined  in  the 
Commission’s  annual  work  programmes  (AWPs)  adopted  each  year  and  calls  for  proposals 
launched  following  the  approval  of  each  AWP.  The  maximum  duration  of  the  awarded 
projects was 24 months.  

In addition, to top up the allocation to Member State's Annual Programmes, the 2010 to 2013 
AWPs  provided  for  the  possibility  for  the  Commission  to  grant  emergency  assistance  – 
without  a  call  for  proposal  -  to  Member  States  in  duly  substantiated  emergency  situations 
requiring  urgent  action.  Over  the  period,  the  Commission  awarded  25  emergency  actions 
grants under EBF Community actions for a total of EUR 39.96 million. These actions were 
implemented by public bodies of the Member States and/or International Organisations. The 

for foregone transit fees and additional costs involved in implementing the scheme in accordance with the Protocols of 
the Act of Accession into the EU. 
54   Decision No 574/2007/EC, Article 14(4). 
55   Decision No 574/2007/EC, Article 14(4).  
56   Decision No 574/2007/EC, Article 18. 
57   Decision No 574/2007, Article 18(2)(b).  

15 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                          
duration  of  the  projects  supported  by  the  Fund  under  emergency  assistance  ranged  from  6 
months to 12 months.  

Annual  Work  programmes  –  Specific  Actions:  Between  2010  and  2012,  the  Commission 
adopted AWPs dedicated to Specific Actions59 to be implemented by the Member States and 
which contributed to the development of the Integrated Borders Management System (IBMS) 
by  addressing  weaknesses  at  strategic  border  crossing  points  identified  in  the  risk  analysis 
carried out every year by Frontex (see Section 7.1)60. The available resources for these actions 
were capped at EUR 10 million per year. The financial assistance from the Fund for specific 
actions  was  limited  to  a  period  of  six  months  and  complemented  the  activities  carried  out 
under the national annual programmes. Over the period, the Commission awarded 23 Specific 
Action grants for a total of EUR 22.26 million. 

8. IMPLEMENTATION STATUS OF THE TWO MANAGEMENT MODES 

The EBF was launched in 2007 with a total allocation of EUR 1 820 million. The allocation 
for the period 2011-2013 was equal to EUR 1 118 million, out of which EUR 1 032 million 
for  shared  management  (including  the  Special  Transit  Scheme  for  Lithuania)  and  EUR  86 
million  for  direct  management  (Community  actions  including  Emergency  and  Specific 
Actions  implemented  under  the  AWPs  2010  to  2013).  The  table  below  shows  the  EU 
distribution  of  financing  to  the  different  management  modes  during  the  period  under 
assessment. 

Table 1:  

Total programmed EU contribution for EBF in 2011-2013 (in EUR) 

2010  

2011 

2012 

2013 

Total 

Shared management (via annual 
programmes)  

Out of the scope 
of the evaluation 

253 762 001 

337 910 920 

440 706 601 

1 032 379 522 

Direct management (via AWPs) 

21 650 000 

21 000 000 

31 607 080 

11 848 562 

86 105 642 

Total EBF EU budget 

21 650 000 

274 762 001 

369 518 000 

452 555 163 

1 118 485 164 

8.1  

Implementation through shared management61 

Finding 1: Absorption rates are good and remain stable at 87%  

58  Decision No 574/2007/EC, Article 7. 
59   Article 19 of Decision No 574/2007/EC. EBF Specific Actions have been discontinued since 2012. While the overall 
definition  of  eligible  and  high  priority  border  sections  was  relevant  to  the  actual  situation  on  the  ground  (based  on 
Frontex risk assessment), the assessment of specific needs and how these can be met through Specific actions was not 
specific  enough,  leading  to  implementation  of  actions  that  overlapped  with  other  EBF  parts,  such  as  the  Emergency 
actions  or  the  national  APs.  The  main  issues  with  Specific  actions  were  already  raised  by  the  European  Court  of 
Auditors  Special  Report  on  the EBF  (2014)  and  addressed  by the  Commission,  including through  abolishing  Specific 
actions  in  the  next  programme  period  and  the  related  legal  framework.  Problems  were  mainly  related  to  the  lack  of 
coordination of the objectives – and the Specific actions funded – with the other parts of the EBF, and similar activities 
have been supported both under the Emergency actions but also under the national APs, while the EU added value was 
not always clear. Finally not all projects included clear monitoring indicators and reporting was poor in many instances. 

60   Decision No 574/2007/EC, Article 15. 
61  The  implementation  of  the  actions  under  national  programmes  ran  until  June  2015,  hence  some  annual  programmes 
were not closed yet when this ex post evaluation was carried out. At the end of 2016, nine annual programmes were still 
to  be  closed  out  of  83  (28  countries  for  three  years  but  LU  did  not  participate  in  2013).  Implementation  statistics 
presented in this document are based on an updated extraction from ABAC/SFC dated 31 December 2016. 

16 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                          
As illustrated by Figure 1, the programmed EU contribution rose progressively from 2007 to 
2010.  The  total  allocation  to  the  2013  annual  programmes  saw  an  increase  of  74%  in 
comparison to the 2011 allocation (from EUR 254 million to EUR 441 million). The average 
absorption rate for EBF 2011-2013 annual programmes ranges between 85% and 89% and is 
87.1%  overall  for  the  evaluated  period.  The  average  implementation  rate  for  the  previous 
evaluation period (2007 to 2010 APs) was 86.7%62. 

Figure 1:  
management, 2011-2013 

Programmed63  and  final64  EU  contributions  and  absorption  rates  by  year,  EBF  shared 

500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0

U
E

l
a
n
i
F
&
d
e
m
m
a
r
g
o
r
P

€

s
n
o
i
l
l
i

M
n
i

s
n
o
i
t
u
b
i
r
t
n
o
C

88% 

84% 

81% 

81% 

87% 

85% 

89% 

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

e
t
a
r
n
o
i
t
p
r
o
s
b
A

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

Programmed EU contribution

Final EU contribution

Absorption rate

Source: European Commission's data as of 31/12/2016 (ABAC/SFC) 

Obstacles to 100% absorption rates put forward by stakeholders through the NERs and case 
studies were: 

•  Secondary impacts of the financial crisis affecting the conditions for borrowing;  
•  Member  States  with  relatively  young  border  management  systems  having  to  build 

capacity; 

•  Administrative  delays  which  had  an  impact  on  the  capacity  to  stick  to  the  agreed 

deadlines. 

Despite  the  obstacles  listed  above,  the  absorption  rate  of  the  Fund  in  shared  management 
remains  high  throughout  the  evaluation  period  and  is  the  highest  out  of  the  four  SOLID 
Funds65.  This  is  due  to  the  fact  that  projects  of  a  more  significant  financial  value  are 
implemented  under  EBF  and  that  EBF  beneficiaries  are  state  institutions,  which  means  that 
the implementation processes are quite straightforward.  

62   COM(2014)235, p.6.  
63   Allocation granted to the Annual programmes of the Member States. 
64   Actual  costs  incurred  reported  by  the  Member  States  in  their  closure  report  submitted  each  year  after  the  end  of  the 

eligibility period of the Annual programme in question.  

65   The European Refugee Fund and the European Return Fund had an absorption rate of 81% for the same period whereas 

for the European Integration Fund it was of 77%. 

17 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Finding  2:  Due  to  the  calculation  method  of  the  annual  allocations  to  Member  States,  the 
distribution  of  EBF  funding  mostly  focused  on  support  to  the  Europe's  southern  Member 
States 

As highlighted in Figure 2 below, programmed and final EU financing were the highest in the 
Member States' located on Europe's southern maritime borders (IT, ES, EL). All in all, these 
three Member States accounted for 44% of the total programmed EU contribution.  

Figure 2:  

Programmed  and  final  EU  contributions  and  absorption  rates  by  Member  State,  EBF  shared 
management, 2011-2013 

180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0

U
E

l
a
n
i
F
&
d
e
m
m
a
r
g
o
r
P

€

s
n
o
i
l
l
i

M
n
i

s
n
o
i
t
u
b
i
r
t
n
o
C

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

e
t
a
r
n
o
i
t
p
r
o
s
b
A

Programmed EU contribution

Final EU contribution

Absorption rate

Source: European Commission's data as of 31/12/2016 (ABAC/SFC) 

Finding 3: EU funding was concentrated on Priorities 1 and 2 (General Objective 1) 

Under  the  2011-2013  annual  programmes,  funds  were  allocated  to  the  five  priorities 
unequally.  Figure  3  below  shows  that  72%  of  the  Fund  under  the  2011-2013  APs  was 
absorbed to support Priority 1 and Priority 2 of the Fund, namely support to the IBMS (checks 
and controls) and the support for the development and implementation of EUROSUR and the 
EPN (European Surveillance System and Patrol Network). Priority 2 in particular is the most 
commonly financed priority by programmed (EUR 379 million) and by final EU contributions 
(EUR 334 million). Priority 4 supporting the establishment of large-scale IT systems such as 
SIS and VIS received 147 million. 

Priority  3  supporting  the  issuance  of  visa  and  the  tackling  of  illegal  immigration  by  the 
consular  services  in  third  countries  was  the  least  popular  in  terms  of  allocation  of  funding 
(42.4  million).  For  Priority  5,  the  overall  programmed  EU  contribution  for  the  period  was 
EUR  47.34  million.  However,  this  figure  is  misleading  as  over  EUR  40  million  of  the 
programmes funds for Priority 5 benefited the Special Transit Scheme for Lithuania66.  

66   A  special  case  was  the  Lithuania  National  Programme  as  it  included  the  Special  Transit  Scheme  (STS)  for  Russian 
Federation citizens travelling on EU territory to and from the Kaliningrad region. This provided support to compensate 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3:  

Programmed and final EU contribution by Priority 2011-2013 

Source: European Commission's data as of 11/05/2016 (SFC2007)67 

8.2 

Implementation through direct management 

Community Actions (including Specific Actions and Emergency Actions) were implemented 
through  direct  management.  The  total  programmed  EU  contribution  in  the  Annual  Work 
Programmes was EUR 86 million, of which only EUR 69 million were awarded. At the end of 
2016, the global amount of EU funds already paid accounted for EUR 51 million, showing an 
absorption rate of 74%.68  

Of  79  projects  selected  under  the  2010  and  2013  AWPs,  69  closed69  projects  were  mostly 
concentrated  in  2011  and  2012.  Absorption  rates  were  67%  in  2010,  75%  in  2011,  71%  in 
2012 and 91% in 2013. Although the average absorption rate per project (74%) is lower than 
for shared management, absorption rates increased over time for projects conducted under this 
mode, suggesting an increase in expertise among stakeholders as the Fund progressed through 
the cycle.  

The  mechanism  that  was  best  able  to  use  its  programmed  funding  was  Emergency  Actions, 
with an absorption rate of 80%. The Specific Actions were more complicated to implement as 
they  had  to  be  completed  within  a  6-month  time  frame,  which  caused  difficulties  with 
procurement  and  resulted  in  a  rather  low  absorption  rate  (67%).  Community  Actions  (other 

for foregone transit fees and additional costs involved in implementing the scheme in accordance with the Protocols of 
the Act of Accession into the EU. 

67   Source: SFC2007 11/05/2016. These data were aggregated manually and are an undercount as not all final reports had 

been received at this juncture and projects spanning more than one Priority are not included. 

68    More details on the programmed and awarded contributions for EBF direct management are provided in Annex 5. The 

absorption rate is calculated on the awarded contributions. 

69   Data  at  the  time  of  the  drafting  of  the  external  study  (European  Commission  (2017)  External  Study  on  the  Ex  Post 
Evaluation of the EBF 2011-2013). Projects are regarded as closed/completed once the Technical Implementation report 
has been received and approved, final payment (and de-commitment, if applicable) made. 

19 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                          
than emergency actions and specific actions) have been slow to draw to a close and absorption 
is rather low (63%). 

9. ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

9.1 Relevance – Utility  

9.1.1 Relevance  

EQ1a:  To what  extent did  the  objectives  of  the  EBF  correspond  to  the needs  related  to  the 
management of the EU external borders and the processing of the Schengen visas? 

Main  conclusion:  Overall,  the  evaluation  showed  that  Member  States  considered  the  EBF 
objectives  relevant  as  they  were  satisfied  with  the  degree  of  correspondence  of  EBF 
general  objectives70  to  their  needs  related  to  the  management  of  the  EU  external  borders 
(land,  maritime  and  air  external  borders)  and  the  processing  of  the  Schengen  visas.  The 
allocation  of  funding  to  each  Member  State  was  based  on  historic  inflows  (previous  two 
years) and took into account risk factors on external borders and the workload to manage each 
external border section. Consequently, a significant part of the Fund was allocated to Member 
States experiencing high migration pressure at the southern and south-eastern external borders 
and  to  the  Member  States  with  significant  influx  of  bona  fide  travellers.  Member  States 
located  at  southern  and  south-eastern  external  borders  of  the  EU  invested  heavily  in 
surveillance  systems  and  in  ad  hoc  reinforcement  of  capacity  to  check  and  control  their 
borders,  with  less  emphasis  on  actions  related  to  Schengen  visas  and  IT  systems  while 
Member  States  where  irregular  migration  was  relatively  low  and/or  with  no  or  limited  land 
and maritime external borders, invested in actions targeting the efficient management of the 
legal flows of persons at the external borders or in Schengen visa-related actions and actions 
in third countries. 

A weakness identified by the evaluation refers to the eligibility conditions which sometimes 
prevented certain needs from being fully addressed such as insufficient staffing at BCPs and 
equipment or infrastructure used by both border guards and custom officers (mixed use).   

As regards funds implemented under direct management, the priorities of Community Actions 
were configured to change on an annual basis and, hence, responded to short-term needs. 

Overall,  the  objectives  of  the  EBF  had,  in  the  period  under  evaluation,  a  high  degree  of 
correspondence  to  the  need  related  to  the  management  of  the  EU  external  borders  (land, 
maritime and air external borders) and the processing of the Schengen  visas. The evaluation 
showed  that,  in  terms  of  prioritisation  of  needs  at  national  level,  the  major  criterion  with 
regard to  investments  at the external  borders under  shared management was the migration 
pressure  (irregular  flows).  Investments  were  also  needed  at  external  borders  which  did  not 
experience  immediate  migratory  pressure  in  order  to  ensure  a  smooth  and  fast  crossing  of 
bona fide travellers.  

70    Please see section 3 for further details on the interlinkage between specific priorities and general objectives. 

20 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
As  indicated  in  section  7.1,  a  significant  part  of  the  Fund  was  allocated  to  Member  States 
facing significant migration pressure at the southern and south-eastern external borders. The 
major challenge of the period was a sudden and unforeseen increase in migratory pressure on 
these  parts  of  EU  external  borders.  This  situation  has  been  taken  into  consideration  in  the 
allocation  of  EU  financing,  as  it  was  highest  in  the  Member  States  facing  those  challenges. 
Italy,  Spain,  and  Greece  together  accounted  for  44%  of  the  total  programmed  EU 
contributions  under  the  2011  to  2013  APs.  These  Member  States  invested  heavily  in 
surveillance systems and (in the case of EL) in ad hoc reinforcement of capacity to check and 
control their borders, with less emphasis on actions related to Schengen visas and IT systems.  

Member  States  where  migration  pressure  deriving  from  irregular  migration  flows  was 
relatively low and/or with no or limited land and maritime external borders invested in actions 
targeting the efficient management of the legal flows of persons at the external borders (e.g. 
ABC or upgrades of BCPs) or in Schengen visa-related actions and actions in third countries 
(e.g. VIS upgrades or the deployment of document advisors in third countries). For instance 
France received the fourth highest allocation under the 2011 to 2013 APs, behind Italy, Spain 
and Greece. This is mainly due to the fact that the allocation key (See Section 7.1) also takes 
into  account  the  workload  at  airports  (number  of  persons  crossing  the  external  border  at 
authorised border crossing points and number of third country nationals refused entry at the 
external  border)  and  the  number  of  consular  offices  and  their  workload  (number  of  visa 
applications).  For  these  two  criteria  (airports  and  consular  offices)  that  form  part  of  the 
allocation key alongside the criteria of land and maritime borders, France ranked first for the 
2011 to 2013 EBF allocations. 

For  bigger  Member  States  accustomed  to  larger  migration  flows,  the  EBF  played  a 
complementary  role  to  national  budgets,  while  for  smaller  countries  with  limited  means  the 
EBF  financed  investment71  that  according  to  Member  States  would  not  have  been  possible 
otherwise. Furthermore, the new EU Member States had to invest heavily in order to catch up 
with the other Member States and implement as early as possible the IBMS. 

The  relevance  of  the  EBF  has  been  ensured  by  the  way  national  annual  programmes  (APs) 
were developed and revised. Recognising the ever-changing risks and priorities with regard to 
the  management  of  external  borders,  the  2007-2013  MAPs  defined  national  needs  and 
priorities in very broad terms and the APs provided an updated and more detailed analysis of 
needs  and  respective  solutions.  As  explained  in  Section  7.1,  the  annual  exercise  to  allocate 
funding to the APs, which was based on a methodology foreseen in the legal basis and which 
took into account risk factors on external borders and changes in migratory pressure inter alia, 
represented  a  regular  check  on  the  rising  or  changing  needs  of  each  Member  State.  This 
ensures  that  the  funds  went  to  the  Member  States  in  the  appropriate  proportion.  An 
assessment of the annual distribution of resources in the Member States for the SOLID Funds 
made  in  201172  concluded  that  the  application  of  the  criteria  was  generally  perceived  as 

71   For instance, HU reported the investment under EBF as highly relevant to its needs in 2011. Indeed, before investing 
under EBF, waiting lines at HU borders with Serbia and Ukraine caused significant inconvenience for passengers and 
freight traffic entering and exiting the EU. Moreover, the long queues at the border presented an environmental threat 
hence numerous complaints and negative media coverage were reported. 

72   Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the  Economic  and  Social  Committee 
and the Committee of the Regions "The application of the criteria for the distribution of resources among the Member 
States  under  the  External  Borders  Fund,  the  European  Fund  for  the  Integration  of  third-country  nationals  and  the 
European Return Fund", COM (2011) 448. 

21 

 
 
 
                                                            
satisfactory and therefore it was not deemed necessary to amend the criteria.  

In the period implementation of the 2011 to 13 APs, most of the MS revised their APs at least 
twice. Revisions included additional projects and modification of actions and their respective 
budgets.  For  instance,  in  Italy  whose  needs  changed  unpredictably  as  it  faced  increasing 
pressure  on  its  borders  over  the  period,  35  new  actions  were  introduced  via  the  Annual 
Programmes  through  revisions.  Consequently  the  budget  allocated  to  less  urgent  actions 
decreased.  In  fact,  in  many  cases  the  revisions  were  prompted  by  changing  needs  and 
priorities of the Member States. 

The  evaluation  concluded  that  while  the  EBF  was  sufficiently  broad  to  cater  for  most 
scenarios, the EBF still had eligibility limitations that prevented the implementation of some 
actions that could have addressed the identified needs such as insufficient staffing at border 
crossing points (BCPs). This shortcoming has been addressed under ISF with the introduction 
of the operating support which gives the possibility to Member States to use up to 40% of the 
amount  allocated  under  the  instrument  to  their  national  programmes  to  finance  operating 
support to  the  public authorities responsible for accomplishing the tasks and services which 
constitute  a  public  service  for  the  Union,  including  staff  costs73.  Another  example  of 
eligibility limitation quoted by some Member States was that upgrades of BCPs where border 
guards  and  customs  officers  work  together  in  the  same  facilities  (mixed  use)  were  only 
partially  eligible  under  the  EBF,  i.e.  such  actions  were  only  partially  financed  to  the  extent 
that they were linked to the objectives of the Fund74. This however was kept in the ISF as the 
control of goods is not part of the objective of the Fund75. 

As  regards  funds  implemented  under  direct  management,  the  priorities  of  Community 
Actions  were  configured  to  change  on  an  annual  basis  and,  hence,  responded  to  short-term 
needs.  They  have  been  of  high  relevance  for  supporting  the  needs  of  broader  and  strategic 
EU-level  initiatives  such  as  EUROSUR  by  funding  the  interlinking  and  exchange  of 
information  between  MS  National  Coordination  Centres  and  deployment  of  Immigration 
Liaison Officers in third countries (ILOs)76. Consular co-operation, which was a high priority, 
enabled MSs to work together by rationalising visa processing and pooling resources such as 
staff and rentals. 

The  flexibility  of  Community  actions  enabled  to  direct  a  large  proportion  of  funding  to 
Emergency Actions as the needs arose. For example, Bulgaria was granted 2.4 Million EUR 
to implement an action as of 1st December 2013 aimed at addressing the migratory pressure at 
the  Bulgarian-Turkish  border  (reinforcing  first  reception  services,  additional  deployment  of 
border guards and covering essential needs for migrant reception as well as multidisciplinary 

73   See  article  10  of  Regulation  (EU)  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. 

74   HU, PL. 
75  Article 4.5 of Regulation (EU) No 515/2014. 
76  

Immigration liaison officer is a representative of one of the Member States, posted abroad by the immigration service or 
other  competent authorities  in  order  to  establish  and  maintain  contacts  with  the authorities  of  the  host  country with a 
view  to  contributing  to  the  prevention  and  combating  of  illegal  immigration,  the  return  of  illegal  immigrants  and  the 
management of legal migration. 

22 

 
 
 
                                                            
 
teams). Bulgaria was granted emergency assistance once during the period under evaluation. 
This reflects the migratory movement and pressure this land border was experiencing at the 
time,  mostly  due  to  the  ongoing  conflict  in  Syria.  Following  a  set  of  Greek  operations  in 
August 2012 as well as the continued implementation of Frontex coordinated Joint Operations 
the Greek-Turkish land border saw a significant drop in detections. Consequently, migration 
flows rerouted partly to the Bulgarian-Turkish land border. The detections of illegal crossings 
at this land border started to increase slowly and then sharply as of August 2013. At the time 
of this crisis, the 2013 allocation to the AP of Bulgaria had already been approved and it had 
been calculated on the basis of 2010 and 2011 data and the Frontex analysis carried out in the 
first semester of 2012.  Even though emergency assistance under the EBF and under ISF are 
overall similar tools, additional elements of flexibility were added to the emergency  actions 
supported under the ISF, such as the possibility to adopt a separate financing decision without 
comitology,  the  possibility  to  finance  projects  whose  implementation  started  before  the 
submission of the request for emergency assistance, the possibility to finance projects up to 
100%, the possibility to grant emergency assistance to agencies and the possibility to finance 
actions linked to third countries.  

On  the  other  hand,  Specific  Actions  were  not  sufficiently  well  focused.  Specific  Actions 
deemed to be administratively heavy to implement and resulted in an overlap with Emergency 
Actions and projects implemented under the national programmes. To address this problem, it 
was decided to abolish Specific Actions under direct management in the subsequent funding 
instrument and include such actions in the ISF national programmes to allow Member States 
to have more ownership and flexibility.  

9.1.2  Utility 

While the evaluation criteria 'relevance' assesses the extent to which the Fund objectives are 
pertinent to needs that are to be addressed, the criteria 'utility' is a measure of whether results 
and impacts achieved do correspond to the needs identified.  

It  has  already  been  mentioned  that  the  RAs  didn't  have  the  obligation  to  monitor  to  what 
extent  results  were  achieved.  Therefore,  due  to  the  lack  of  available  information  on  wider 
results  and  impacts  of  actions  supported  by  the  Fund  and  given  the  absence  of  an  initial 
baseline against which any results and impacts could be evaluated (see section 6 for more on 
methodological  limitations),  the  evaluation  study  cannot  draw  conclusions  on  the  degree  of 
correspondence of the results and/or impacts to the needs.   

9.2 Effectiveness 

To report on effectiveness of the Fund, the analysis presented below is structured around the 
overarching objective and the 4 general objectives set out in the legal basis. The assessment is 
based  on  10  evaluation  questions  (EQs2-11)  which  address  the  overarching  objective,  the 
general objectives and priorities.  

23 

 
 
 
 
General Objective 1- Interoperable checks and surveillance systems: EQs 2, 4 and 5;  
General Objective 2 - Efficient management of flows of persons at the external borders: EQs 

3 and 6 

General Objective 3 - Uniform application by border guards of the provision of EU Law on 

the crossing of the external borders: EQs 7 and 11; 

General Objective 4 - Management of consular, ITech and co-operation activities: EQs 9, 10 

and 11. 

Overarching  objective  -  Support  the  process  towards  the  IBMS  through  a  solidarity 
mechanism among Member States 

As indicated in section 6, some methodological limitations have made the assessment of the 
overall effectiveness of the EBF particularly challenging. Due to the lack of a baseline and of 
comparable  indicators,  it  has  not  been  possible  to  establish  causal  links  between  the  EBF's 
intervention and observed impacts or results.  Effectiveness has been evaluated only in terms 
of  outputs,  as  these  were  more  easily  measured  and  compared  across  Member  States  than 
impacts  or  results.  Furthermore,  the  measuring  of  outputs  has  relied  on  largely  qualitative 
rather than quantitative reporting from the Member States. However, where possible, potential 
causal links have been highlighted.  The second difficulty in assessing whether the Fund has 
been  effective  relates  to  its  general  objectives  according  to  the  legal  basis.  These  general 
objectives  were  not  expected  to  be  achieved  by  the  end  of  the  EBF  but  were  rather  longer-
term goals. Therefore, the overall effectiveness of the EBF 2011-2013 (i) has been assessed 
where  possible  against  priorities  and  other  elements  related  to  the  Union's  overall  borders 
policy architecture (such as EUROSUR, VIS or SIS II) and (ii) should be seen as a series of 
building  blocks  progressively  building  towards  the  achievement  of  the  overarching  policy 
objectives. 

In this context, globally, the evaluation concluded that the EBF effectively contributed to the 
achievement of the objectives laid down in the legal basis. The evaluation reviewed the extent 
to which the EBF 2011-2013 actions contributed to the gradual establishment of the common 
Integrated  Border  Management  System  (IBMS)  through  a  solidarity  mechanism77  between 
Member  States.  This  required  the  development  of  capacities,  procedures  and  infrastructure 
that  allow  for  a  high,  uniform,  effective  and  efficient  level  of  control  on  persons  and 
surveillance at the external borders of the Member States of the Union. The deployment and 
functioning  of  EU-wide  integrated  systems  which  constitute  the  backbone  of  an  integrated 
management of the external borders of the EU Member States suggests that the Fund achieved 
its objectives to a large extent. The concerned systems are the Schengen Information System 
(SIS II), the Visa Information System (VIS), the European Surveillance System (EUROSUR), 
the  European  Patrols  Network  (EPN),  as  well  as  joint  missions  coordinated  by  Frontex,  to 
which an increasing number of MSs can contribute thanks to the availability of duly trained 
staff, upgraded surveillance systems and integrated information systems. 

In  addition  to  the  above  factual  results,  Member  State  public  authorities  referred  to  another 
significant  result  achieved  with  EBF  support:  the  smooth  flows  of  persons  at  Europe's 

77   For  more  information  on  the  solidarity  mechanism  please  see  the  dedicated  sub-section  under  section  9.2 

(Effectiveness). 

24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
external borders thanks to the application of the Schengen code in practice.78 This required an 
increase  in  staff  capacity,  the  set-up  of  common  operations  and  the  use  of  interoperable 
equipment.  This  being  said,  it  is  important  to  note  that  this  is  only  a  qualitative  assessment 
based on interviews with the national authorities. The EBF legal base did not require Member 
States to report on this. 

Objective  1  –  Efficient  organisation  of  control,  covering  both  checks  and  surveillance 
tasks relating to external borders  

78   This  was  mentioned  as  a  contribution  of  the  EBF  by  9  out  of  10  respondents  to  an  open  Internet-based  public 
consultation  carried  out  by  DG  HOME  in  the  context  of  this  ex  post  evaluation  (these  respondents  were  public 
authorities from 7 Member States: 2 from Spain, 2 from Lithuania, 1 from Portugal, 1 from Cyprus, 1 from Slovakia, 1 
from Hungary and 1 from Malta). 

25 

 
 
 
                                                            
EQ2: To what extent did the EBF 2011-2013 actions contribute to the efficient organisation 
of control, covering both checks and surveillance tasks relating to the external borders? 

EQ4  to  assess  priority  1:  To  what  extent  did  the  EBF  2011-2013  actions  contribute  to  the 
gradual  establishment  of  the  common  integrated  border  management  system  as  regards  the 
checks on persons at and the surveillance of the external borders? 

EQ5  to  assess  priority  2:  To  what  extent  did  the  EBF  2011-2013  actions  contribute  to  the 
development  and  implementation  of  the  national  components  of  a  European  Surveillance 
System for the external borders and of a permanent European Patrol Network at the southern 
maritime borders of the EU Member States? 

Main conclusions: 
Overall,  the  EBF  was  evaluated  as  having  been  effective  at  national  level.  In  particular, 
Member State qualitative assessments suggest that automatic checks for regular migrants have 
contributed  to  the  reduction  of  border  crossing  times  in  most  Member  States.  They  also 
suggest that the infrastructure at BCPs as well as the systems and processes to deal with the 
flow  of  persons  at  BCPs  have  been  improved.  In  fact,  Member  States  reported  that  the 
investments made in equipment and systems aimed at increasing the surveillance capacity of 
MSs at the external borders contributed to greater efficiency in detecting irregular migrants. 

However, some difficulties emerged when it came to assessing the overall effectiveness of the 
EBF at EU level, given the lack of an initial baseline and the fact that the EBF monitoring and 
evaluation system did not allow for detailed monitoring and assessment of the performance of 
the Fund79. Set indicators were rather weak and monitoring data were not fully reliable. 

With this limitation in mind, the evaluation found that at EU level the EBF 2011-2013 actions 
made  a  positive  contribution  to  the  establishment  of  the  common  integrated  border 
management  system  (priority  1)  by  promoting  the  harmonisation  of  checks  on  persons  at 
border crossing points (BCPs) through training programmes; the construction and upgrading 
of  BCPs;  acquisition  of  vehicles,  vessels  and  aircraft  used  for  border  patrols;  acquisition  of 
equipment  and  ITech  to  undertake  checks  on  persons  and  the  authenticity  of  documents; 
purchase  of  ITech  and  the  establishment/development  of  surveillance  systems,  allowing  for 
closer  and  more  extensive  monitoring  of  the  external  borders  and  exchange  of  information; 
construction  of  first  reception  and  detention  facilities  for  irregular  migrants  as  well  as  the 
purchase and installation of ABC gates (e-gates). 

The EBF made a positive contribution to the development of a European Surveillance System 
for the external borders and an EPN at the Southern maritime borders of EU Member States 
(priority 2), as the actions funded contributed to an increased surveillance capacity of Member 
States which resulted in a more efficient detection of irregular border crossings.  

With  regards  to  priority  1,  related to  the checks  on  persons  at  the  external  borders  and  the 
surveillance of the external borders, the evaluation showed that the underlying aims have been 
achieved and were perceived by stakeholders to be effective. 

79   Under the ISF, the European Commission has addressed this issue by developing a common monitoring and evaluation 

framework with the active cooperation of the Member States. 

26 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
On land, 193 BCPs and infrastructures at BCPs were constructed, renovated and/or upgraded 
with the support of the Fund. In addition, EBF supported the improvement of facilities related 
to BCPs i.e. reception centres, screening and first detention centres, and vehicle parking lots. 
Different types of equipment, and software and hardware were purchased for border control at 
land  BCPs.  MSs  considered  that  the  equipment  significantly  reduced  the  time  needed  for 
border  checks,  hence  making  the  checks  more  efficient  and  effective.  Overall,  most  MSs 
reported positively on the purchase of vehicles80, commenting on the increased efficiency of 
patrolling and checks on persons at harder-to-reach parts of the Schengen external border. 

Under  the  EBF  2011-2013  APs,  more  than  20081 e-gates  were  installed with  MSs  reporting 
that this installation contributed to positive effects, such as an increase in efficiency of border 
checks of travellers (BE, FI, IT, NL), the reduction of processing time per passenger (BE), a 
more  effective  use  of  human  resources  (BE,  EE,  NO)  and  improving  the  quality/security  of 
border  checks  through  facial  recognition  and  document  checks).  In  addition,  according  to 
qualitative assessments made by MSs, the e-gates contributed to smooth border crossings (FI, 
NL),  reduced  queuing  (FI,  NL),  and  improved  customer  satisfaction  (FI,  NO).  However, 
Bulgaria and Norway noted that the time spent at border controls was not necessarily reduced 
for passengers using the e-gates; they also reported a lower than expected usage rate of the e-
gates by passengers (BG NER and NO case study). 

For maritime border and surveillance, some MSs purchased planes, helicopters and vessels82, 
such as coastal patrol vessels and rigid inflatable boats. In fact, MSs reported positively on the 
purchase  of  sea  vessels,  stating  that  they  optimised  surveillance  of  the  external  maritime 
borders, in terms of the area covered and conditions in which they can be deployed (i.e. in bad 
weather conditions and at night).  

The combined use of systems and equipment described above allowed the achievement of the 
following outputs: 

•  Interoperability  of  national  communication  systems  –  a  number  of  projects  were 
successfully implemented (e.g. FR: setting up of the SIAM system83; ES: maintenance 
and improvement of the SEAHORSE communications network84). 

•  Improved capacity for border controls at the land and maritime borders and airports.  
Overall, 1,410 out of 1,700 BCPs were equipped with equipment acquired or upgraded 
under the 2011-2013 APs.85 

In total 2,736 vehicles were bought with EBF funding (2011-2013) across 14 countries. 

80  
81   Based on information drawn from the National Evaluation Reports of ten MSs.  
82   Overall, 14 Member States acquired or upgraded 127 vessels through EBF funding in the 2011-2013 timeframe. 
83   SIAM refers to for aero-maritime integrated system ('Système Intégré Aéro-Maritime’ in French) This system secured 
multichannel transmission (radio and satellite) between naval, air and land patrol units, harmonising working methods 
and increasing the exchange of information (NER FR). 

84   The  SEAHORSE  communications  network  interconnects  National  Coordinating  Centres  with  African  third  countries 
which are at the origin of irregular immigration in the North Atlantic area (Morocco, Mauritania, Senegal, Cape Verde, 
Guinea  Bissau  and  Gambia).  The  proper  functioning  of  this  network  is  considered  essential  for  the  monitoring  and 
control of the external borders (ES NER). 
85    According to the data reported in the NERs. 

27 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
•  Interoperability  of  the  control  of  external  borders  which  takes  into  account  the 
results  of  the  common  integrated  risk  analysis86  (e.g.  AT,  BE,  ES,  NO  installed  or 
further developed e-gates). 

•  An  increased  capacity  for  Member  States  to  take  part  in  and/or  contribute  to 
operational  cooperation  between  Member  States  as  coordinated  by  the  Frontex 
Agency (e.g. BE: purchase of a video platform to equip a helicopter which enabled the 
Federal Police to do around 300 hours of surveillance per year at its maritime border; 
the 
ES:  SIRDEE  communications 
Mediterranean  Basin,  Balearic  Islands  and  Canary  Islands.  This  contributed  to 
operational  cooperation  such  as  the  SIRDEE  network,  which  with  the  new  handheld 
radios  allowed  Spanish  law  enforcement  agencies  and  border  control  units  to  perform 
secure voice and data communications throughout the national territory)87. 

the  border  control  units  at 

terminals  for 

With  regards  to  priority  2,  which  supports  the  development  of  a  European  Surveillance 
System  for  the  external  borders  and  EPN  at  the  Southern  maritime  borders  of  the  EU,  the 
evaluation  concluded  that  actions  funded  in  this  area  had  a  positive  effect  in  terms  of 
increasing the surveillance capacity of MSs at the external borders.  

This is mainly due to the combination of: 

•  Purchase  and/or  upgrading  of  equipment  such  as  aircraft,  vessels,  vehicles,  radios, 
camera, radars and sensors for detection, identification and intervention at the borders ; 
•  Implementation  of  systems  to  facilitate  coordination  and  national  improvements  to 

improve patrol capacity, including equipment in patrol vehicles/vessels and, 

•  Dissemination  and  sharing  of  information  24/7  between  all  authorities  involved  in 

external border control. 

Overall,  it  can  be  concluded  that  the  actions  funded  under  Priority  2  contributed  to  the 
development  and  implementation  of  the  national  components  of  a  European  Surveillance 
System  for  the  external  borders.  Several  Member  States  have  established  sophisticated 
in  particular  Spain  (SIVE)  and  France 
surveillance  systems  with  EBF  funding, 
(SPATIONAV)  in  terms  of  maritime  surveillance  systems.  Bulgaria  also  established  an 
Integrated  System  for  Surveillance  (ISS)  along  the  border  with  Turkey  as  a  result  of  the 
increased migration pressure on the Bulgarian-Turkish border88. Other important investments 
under  priority  2  in  this  regard  include  the  establishment  of  National  Coordination  Centres 
(NCCs)  that  supported  these  surveillance  systems  and  functioned  as  the  backbone  of 
EUROSUR,  fostering  operational  cooperation  within  Member  States  in  the  field  of  border 
control. The EBF also contributed to  the integration of Member  State civil-guards  maritime 
coastal and border surveillance systems into EUROSUR. 

The  EBF  also  supported  the  development  of  the  national  components  of  a  European  Patrol 
Network  (EPN),  the  platforms  for  the  joint  surveillance  of  Europe's  southern  and  south-

86   See  Article  4  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  2007/2004  of  26  October  2004  establishing  a  European  Agency  for  the 
Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union, which 
tasks Frontex with the development and application of this common integrated risk analysis model. 

87   This  equipment  should  be  put  at  the  disposal  of  Frontex  via  a  specific  database,  so  as  to  use  it  also  in  common 

operations coordinated by Frontex. 

88   Bulgaria received funding for this under priority 1 rather than priority 2. 

28 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
eastern  maritime  borders.  Spain,  France  and  Italy  have  all  used  EBF  funding  to  acquire 
different types  of equipment such  as aircraft,  helicopters and vessels equipped with  modern 
technology to increase and improve the capacity of their patrolling of the Mediterranean Sea. 
Surveillance  and  patrolling  of  the  Baltic  Sea  was  also  enhanced,  thereby  contributing  to 
increased surveillance of EU external borders. 

As can be seen in table 2 below, the fact that there was an increase in land, air and maritime 
surveillance  patrols  over  the  period  of  implementation  of  the  Fund  suggests  that  EBF 
investments under priority 2 were effective to some extent. 

Table 2:  

Land, air and maritime surveillance patrols in 2010-2014 

Number of border surveillance 
flights performed 
Number of border surveillance 
patrols using vehicles 
Number of border surveillance 
patrols using vessels 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

Increase 
2010-14 

14 559 

15 886 

15 067 

15 254 

16 314 

12% 

647 518  717 455  787 713  822 006  781 455 

21% 

60 438 

66 192 

62 071 

67 513 

69 801 

15% 

Source: Data compiled by Optimity Advisors from Member State NERs. 

Objective 2 – Efficient management of flows of persons at the external borders in order 
to ensure, on the one hand, a high level of protection at the external borders and, on the 
other hand, the smooth crossing of the external borders 

EQ3: To what extent did the EBF 2011-2013 actions contribute to the efficient management 
by the Member States of the flows of persons at the external borders in order to ensure, on the 
one  hand,  a  high  level  of  protection  at  the  external  borders  and,  on  the  other,  the  smooth 
crossing of the external borders in conformity with the Schengen acquis and the principles of 
respectful treatment and dignity? 

EQ6  to  assess  priority  4:  To  what  extent  did  the  EBF  2011-2013  actions  contribute  to  the 
establishment  of  IT  systems  required  for  implementation  of  the  EU  legal  instruments  in  the 
field of external borders and Schengen visas? 

Main conclusion: 
Overall,  the  actions  undertaken  under  Objective  2  of  the  EBF  appear  to  have  fulfilled  their 
purposes, in particular the full implementation of the VIS and SIS II. The implementation of 
the VIS in turn contributed to the real-time identification of forged and falsified documents at 
BCPs, strengthening visa security. 

The efficient management of flows of persons requires equipment and IT systems to enable 
the checking of persons at BCPs, human resources capable of undertaking the border check 
tasks  using  equipment  and  IT  systems  (mainly  through  training),  co-operation/information 
exchange on forged or false travel documents between all BCPs along the external borders in 
real time. This is achieved through (i) first-line collection of information at the point of visa 
application and (ii) second-line identification of false or forged documents at BCPs. 

29 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
With regards to IT systems, given the need to launch the Schengen Information System (SIS 
II) in 2013 and the rolling out of the VIS between 2011 and 2015, the Commission identified 
investments linked to the SIS II and the VIS as a main priority – priority 4. 

Some  actions  funded  under  the  EBF  2011-2013  APs  aimed  to  improve  co-operation  and 
information exchange between BCPs through the use of VIS and SIS II. Indeed, all Member 
States  implemented  actions  relating  to  VIS  or  SIS  II.  It  has  been  noted  that  some  countries 
(such as Iceland) have only participated in the EBF to get specific funding relating to these 
actions.  

SIS  II  was  launched  in  April  2013  and  the  EBF  contributed  to  the  Schengen  information 
management and coordination by: 

•  Development, testing and implementation of national SIS II systems. 
•  Upgrading or modernisation of the SIRENE bureaux. SIRENE bureaux are responsible 
for any supplementary information exchange and coordination of activities connected to 
SIS alerts; as such, they are a key link in the successful implementation of the SIS.  

For the purpose of the implementation of the VIS, consular posts and external border crossing 
points  of  the  Schengen  States  should  be  connected  to  the  central  VIS  database.  The 
integration of Member States' information systems into the VIS enhances consistency in visa 
security and applications and consequently reduces 'visa shopping'. This has been achieved, at 
least  partly,  through  EBF-funded  actions.  According  to  2015  data,  there  were  1  628 
consulates  of  EBF  Member  States  in  non-Schengen  countries89.  The  EBF  made  a  positive 
contribution  in  this  area  by  supporting  the  connection  of  63.3%  of  all  consulates  between 
2011  and  2013.  There  are  approximately  1  700  sea,  air  and  land  BCPs  with  non-Schengen 
States90, more than half of which were supported by the EBF for joining the VIS. 1 072 out of 
2 189 consulates had access to and input into VIS by the end of 2014, an increase of 573%; 
889 had access to  SIS II by this time. In  addition, 914 BCPs are now  connected to VIS. In 
December 2015 the system was publicly declared to be fully operational91. 

In  addition  to  border  guard  training,  the  EBF  has  also  funded  the  development  of  new 
working  methods,  logistical  measures  and  state-of-the-art  technology  to  strengthen 
systematic  controls  of  persons  on  entry  and  exit  at  BCPs.  The  number  of  border  guards 
that  have  been  trained  (22  505)  suggests  an  increase  in  capacity  and  expertise.  Most  MSs 
reported  a  positive  change  in  terms  of  the  number  of  false  or  falsified  travel  documents 
detected at BCPs with equipment acquired or upgraded under the 2011-2013 APs. 

In terms of management of flows of persons at the external borders, the EBF contributed to 
some extent to the following outputs: 

89   RO, BG and CY were considered as part of the Schengen Area. 
90   Calculations  of  evaluation  experts  based  on  notifications  under  article  34  of  Regulation  (EC)  No562/2006  of  the 
European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the 
movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code). 

91   European Commission daily news briefing, 2 December 2015: Schengen Visa Information System now fully operational 

worldwide – http://europa.eu/rapid/midday-express-02-12-2015.htm  

30 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
•  More than 200 000 false /falsified travel documents or Schengen visas were detected at 

BCPs 2011- 2014; 

•  An  increase  in  the  capacity  and  level  of  qualification  of  border  guards  to  undertake 

border checks and surveillance tasks (according to Member State NERs); 

•  VIS  and  SIS  II  became  fully  operational,  facilitating  working  processes  for  more 
effective  structural,  strategic  and  operational  coordination  between  all  authorities 
operating at BCPs at the national level.  

Objective 3 – Uniform application by border guards of the provision of EU Law on the 

crossing of the external borders 

EQ7:92 To what extent did the EBF 2011-2013 actions contribute to the uniform application 
by  border  guards  of  the  provisions  of  EU  law  on  the  crossing  of  external  borders,  in 
particular Regulation (EC) No 562/200693? 

EQ11 to assess priority 5: To what extent did the EBF 2011-2013 actions contribute to the 
effective  and  efficient  application  of  relevant  EU  legal  instruments  in  the  field  of  Schengen 
visas, in particular the Visa Code?  

Main conclusions: 
The short- and medium-term outputs and results of the actions funded in this area are clearly 
positive  in  terms  of  the  number  of  staff  trained,  the  increase  in  the  understanding  and 
application of the Visa Code, operation of the STS and support to other EBF priorities as well 
as  the  general  objectives  through  training  of  personnel.  Furthermore,  the  EBF  has  achieved 
wide-reaching  effects  in  terms  of  training  of  border  guards,  construction,  renovation  and 
upgrading of Border Crossing Points (BCPs)94 and first reception centres.  

While  it  is  not  possible  to  assess  the  overall  impact  of  the  training  of  border  guards,  these 
activities have inter alia contributed to the achievement of outputs under other priorities (e.g. 
identification of forged documents at BCPs, number and processing time for visa applications 
at consulates, etc.). Actions financed in this area also contributed to the adequate use of the 
investments  in  equipment  already  analysed  under  EQ5,  such  as  the  training  of  helicopter 
pilots, other training programmes for border guards, or facilities used to provide the trainings.  

In addition to these activities, the EBF supported the Special Transit Scheme95 (STS) through 
the APs of Lithuania, which provided financial support to compensate for the additional costs 
resulting from the delivery of transit visas to be issued to travellers between the Kaliningrad 
Oblast  enclave  and  the  mainland  of  the  Russian  Federation.  Three  types  of  eligible  actions 
were included in STS: (i) infrastructures, (ii) training of staff and (iii) operational costs. The 

92   EQ7 is very similar in its scope to EQ11, where aspects other than border guards are examined. 
93   Defined in Article 3(1)(c) of Decision No 574/2007/EC establishing the EBF. 
94   As stated in section 4, due to the architecture of the fund, there were some overlaps between priorities which matched 
several  objectives.  In  this  case,  the  actions  relating  to  the  construction,  renovation  and  upgrading  of  BCPs  fall  under 
both objectives 2 and 3. 

95   Special Transit Scheme was set up by Article 6 of Decision 574/2007/EC establishing the EBF. 

31 

 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
                                                            
actions  funded  appear  to  have  been  effective  in  achieving  the  objective  of  training  staff  to 
ensure the functionality of the STS, and the objective of covering the operational costs of the 
transit of foreign nationals. 1 400 officers were trained on the practical aspects of the STS and 
other trainings were provided on, for example, Community Law, the effective use of SIS and 
VIS, document examination and verification, and foreign languages. 

The Fund enabled Member States to increase their provision of vocational training for border 
guards in the application of the provisions of EU law on the crossing of external borders. In 
fact between 2011 and 2013 more than half (22 500) of all 42 000 border guards operating in 
Member States received training financed by the EBF, which included the use of VIS and SIS 
II  at  BCPs  and  learning  foreign  languages.  As  an  example,  in  IT,  over  400  navy  personnel 
was given Arabic and English classes to be able to communicate with migrants intercepted or 
rescued  at  sea.  In  HU,  a  training  centre  was  set  up  providing  optimal  conditions  for  border 
guards  to  be  trained;  Hungary  found  that  these  trainings  helped  border  guards  more 
effectively carry out their duties.96 

In order to contribute to the uniform application by border guards of the provisions of EU law 
on the crossing of external borders (EQ7), detention facilities and BCPs could be constructed 
or  upgraded.  Only  four  MSs  invested  in  the  construction  and/or  upgrading  of  38  detention 
facilities and construction and/or upgrading of 547 places within detention facilities through 
EBF funding 2011-2013. Overall, the number of facilities and places used for the detention of 
third-country  nationals  apprehended  in  connection  to  an  irregular  border  crossing  remained 
stable over the period. 13 MSs used EBF funding for the upgrading of BCPs. However, it is 
unclear  how  many  of  these  investments  contributed  to  the  specific  objective  which  these 
actions  sought  to  address  ('security  at  the  premises  of  BCPs  to  secure  the  safety  of  border 
guards and the protection of equipment, surveillance systems and means of transport', Specific 
Objective C7). 

Objective 4 – Management of consular and co-operation activities 

EQ9: To what extent did the EBF 2011-2013 actions, and in particular the EBF Community 
Actions,  contribute  to  the  improvement  of  the  management  of  activities  organised  by  the 
consular and other services of the Member States in third countries as regards the flows of 
third-country nationals into the territory of the Member States and the co-operation between 
Member States in this regard? 

EQ10 to assess priorities 3 and 5: To what extent did the EBF 2011-2013 actions contribute 
to the effective processing of Schengen visas and the tackling of illegal immigration, including 
the  detection  of  false  or  falsified  documents  by  enhancing  the  activities  organised  by  the 
consular and other services of the Member States in third countries?  

EQ11 to assess priority 597: To what extent did the EBF 2011-2013 actions contribute to the 
effective  and  efficient  application  of  relevant  EU  legal  instruments  in  the  field  of  Schengen 
visas, in particular the Visa Code? 

96   Reported in Hungary's NER. 
97   This question  will  be  taken  into  consideration  under  this  chapter  to  the  extent  that  it  relates  to  the  implementation  of 

Objective 4 (i.e. the training of consular staff).  

32 

 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
                                                            
Main conclusions:  
The  EBF  made  a  weak  to  moderate  contribution  to  the  improvement  of  the  management  of 
activities organised by the consular and other services of the Member States in third countries. 
This  is  largely  due  to  the  fact  that  a  relatively  low  amount  of  funding  was  dedicated  to 
funding priority 3 and that Member States showed little interest in developing projects related 
to consular cooperation – including under Community actions. 
External factors, such as difficult diplomatic relations or the situation on the ground, turned 
out to be a barrier for the implementation of some of the projects in this area. 
Under  the  Community  actions,  limited  results  have  been  achieved  with  respect  to  consular 
cooperation  with  only  two  projects  implemented.  Regarding  the  enhancement  of  ILO 
activities,  actions  in  this  area  achieved  most  of  their  objectives.  However,  the  number  of 
actions  and  the  MSs  applying  for  funding  were  very  similar  to  those  under  the  previous 
programming  period  (2007-2009),  and  projects  implemented  in  2011-2013  were  often  a 
continuation of projects from the previous period. 

The  type  of  projects  funded  under  Objective  4,  priority  3  focused  on  three  main  types  of 
activities: 

  The deployment of document advisors in third countries; 
  The deployment of immigration liaison offices (ILOs)98; and 
  The upgrade and enhancement of security systems at consulates issuing Schengen 

visas. 

An amount of EUR 42.4 million was programmed to be spent under Priority 3 of the 2011 to 
2013 APs – which was the lowest amount of the 5 priorities. The final EU contribution stood 
at  EUR  31.5  million,  a  total  implementation  rate  of  74%.  While  17  Member  States  had  co-
funded  actions  programmed  under  the  priority99,  three  Member  States  (DE,  MT  and  NL) 
accounted for 50% of the programmed and 58% of the final EU contribution for Priority 3.  

Member  States  showed  little  interest  in  developing  projects  related  to  consular  cooperation. 
This is mainly due to the fact that Member States perceived common visa application centres 
to be too costly, chose to keep their representations in third countries or do not consider the 
visa system as an area where they want to cooperate and share costs.  
The  Commission  has  decided  to  incentivise  this  area  through  a  90%  co-financing  rate  in 
national  programmes  under  the  ISF,  while  the  scope  has  been  extended  beyond  common 
application  centres  to  include  other  types  of  consular  cooperation  in  addition  to  the 
renovation, adaptation and/or equipping of consulates. 

98   Council Regulation (EC) No 377/2004 of 19 February 2004 on the creation of an immigration liaison officers network,   
Article  1:  "immigration  liaison  officer’  means  a  representative  of  one  of  the  Member  States,  posted  abroad  by  the 
immigration service or other competent authorities in order to establish and maintain contacts with the authorities of the 
host  country  with  a  view  to  contributing  to  the  prevention  and  combating  of  illegal  immigration,  the  return  of  illegal 
immigrants and the management of legal migration". 

99   AT, BE, BG, CH, CY, CZ, DE, ES, FI, FR, HU, MT, NL, NO, RO, SE, SI. 

33 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
9.2.1  Document advisors and ILOs 

541 ILOs and document advisors per year100 were deployed during the implementation period 
of the 2011-2013 APs, the bulk of which (366) were deployed by Germany.  
Projects  related  to  the  deployment  of  ILOs  and  document  advisors  generally  attained  or 
outperformed the objectives set in their APs. Germany reported that the number of rejections 
of visa applications and passengers being excluded from flights based on the assumption that 
they  were  using  counterfeit  border-crossing  documents  increased  significantly  due  to  the 
advice  provided  by  the  document  advisors  on  counterfeit  border  crossing  documents  or 
missing  visas  (DE  case  study).  The  effectiveness  of  actions  was  also  enhanced  by  the 
increased cooperation between some Member States in the implementation of these types of 
projects (e.g. joint deployment of ILOs). 

9.2.2 Consulates 

Under  the  2011-2013  APs,  4  513  consular  officials  were  trained  and  889  out  of  2  189 
consulates  were  equipped  with  operating  equipment  for  Schengen  visa  processing.  The 
following outputs can be listed: 

  Spain  was  the  most  active  participating  Member  State  with  100  out  of  2,189 
consulates  equipped  with  security  enhancing  equipment  (security  doors,  bulletproof 
windows, etc.) 

  The objectives of Malta, one of the largest beneficiaries of Priority 3, were to extend 
the  country’s  ability  to  issue  visas  through  mobile  consulates  as  well  as  setting  up 
Schengen compliant consulates in Tripoli, Misrata, Doha, Shanghai, Qatar, Abu Dhabi 
and Kuwait City. However, due to the critical political situation in Libya, the Misrata 
consulate  could  not  be  opened.  The  Doha  consulate  was  not  opened  either  due  to 
difficult bilateral relationship between the Qatari and Maltese governments. The EBF 
allowed Malta to increase the number of Schengen processing consulates from 31 to 
35. 

  Slovenia purchased safes to store visas and visa stickers. 

External factors, such as difficult diplomatic relations or the situation on the ground, turned 
out  to  be  a  barrier  for  the  implementation  of  some  of  the  projects.  However  the  EBF's 
contribution to the construction or renovation of consulates, as well as its contribution to the 
training of consular officials is likely to have facilitated the processing of visa applications. 

As for international cooperation between Member States in the field of consular activities, not 
all  projects  were  effective.  The  BE  consular  cooperation  action  in  Gaza  (establishing  a 
common  application  centre  –  CAC)  was  ineffective  due  to  factors  such  as  a  lower  than 
expected  interest  from  Member  States  (only  DK  and  SE  expressed  interest),  reducing  the 
potential economies of scale, the instability in the region and a lower than expected number of 
visa  applications.  The  action  was  therefore  discontinued  and  the  processing  of  visa 
applications in the territory has been outsourced to a private organisation (BE NER), with the 
visas now being processed in Jerusalem, as was the case before the project. 

100   The data in NERs appear to show the number of deployed personnel over a period of one year; an ILO deployed for 

three years will therefore count as three in the figures.  

34 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
9.2.3 Community actions under objective 4 

Under  the  Community  actions  there  were  two  main  annual  priorities  dealing  with  issues 
relevant to this objective: strengthening consular cooperation (accounting for only 7.3% of all 
grants allocated) and enhancing ILO activities (32% of community funds approved). 

As  is  the  case  with  national  actions,  limited  results  have  been  achieved  with  respect  to 
consular cooperation under Community Actions, with only two projects implemented: 

  a follow-up project for a visa application centre. Under the 2011 AWP, a Community 
Action  was  awarded  to  PT  in  partnership  with  BE  and  LU,  concerning  the  further 
development of a common visa application centre (CVC) in Cape Verde. This was a 
follow-up  project  of  an  initiative  already  established  under  the  previous  programme 
period  (funded  under  the  2007  and  2009  AWP).  The  objective  of  the  centre  was  to 
strengthen  cooperation  at  local  level  with  other  MS  and  to  reduce  costs  for  the 
implementation of VIS and the Visa Code. It also aimed to increase the Schengen visa 
applications made on behalf of several MSs (PT, BE, LU, AT, SK, CZ, IT, SL, SE, 
FI,  FR,  NL,  DE).  The  outputs  included  trainings  of  consular  staff  and  local 
local  meetings,  promotion  activities,  computer 
authorities,  conferences  and 
equipment,  and  document  fraud  laboratories.  Mobile  consulates  /  mobile  equipment 
were introduced in several islands in order to extend the service coverage of the CVC. 
The  results  included  a  647%  increase  registered  at  the  CVC  in  visa  applications 
requested  on  behalf  of  the  partners  and  represented  MSs,  consolidation  of  CVC 
activities  and  expansion  of  coverage  and  visibility.  The  DG  Home  Mission  Report 
conducted  in  2014  described  the  project  as  an  EU  flagship  project,  and  noted  its 
added value and sustainability as being on track. 

 

the deployment of Common Immigration Advisors on combating fraud in migration 
procedures,  deployed  between  2014  and  2015  in  Ghana.  Although  the  project’s 
results were assessed as successful due to increased cooperation between MSs at local 
level  and  increased  awareness  of  migration-related  fraud,  the  12-month  placement 
was also seen by the implementing  body as  too short  to  ensure the sustainability of 
efforts.  Some  of  the  results  included  the  review/investigation  of  320  cases  for 
potential fraud, the launch of four joint investigations with the UK, DE, PT and BE, 
and  a  40%  detection  fraud  rate  in  all  different  procedures  conducted.  A  follow-up 
project  under  the  2014  ISF  Specific  actions  was  approved  for  a  Regional  Schengen 
Cooperation  Officer.  The  specific  results  achieved  by  these  two  projects  speak  of  a 
high level of impact and effective response against the set objectives. 

The set-up of ILOs has been an important objective of DG Home’s policy units, which was 
emphasised in the AWPs and calls for proposals. For the period under review, 17 community 
projects  were  approved  for  funding  for  the  priority  ‘Enhancement  of  activities  of  ILOs  in 
several regions and/or in third countries’. The overall value of Community actions approved 
for financing under this priority amount to EUR 4.94 million (36% of all Community Actions 
for 2010-2013 AWPs – excluding emergency assistance).  

Regarding  the  two  categories  of  eligible  activities  under  this  priority,  most  projects  (13) 
focused on setting up or maintaining ILO points acting on behalf of several Member States 

35 

 
 
 
 
 
 
(DE, LV, EE and PT), while only two projects dealt with promoting ILO networks (NL and 
HU) through meetings, conferences, exchange of information and training. 

Not  only  was  the  number  of  actions  similar  to  the  2007-2009  programming  period,  but 
Member States applying for community funds were the same (mainly DE, LV (on behalf of 
EE and LT), PT and NL). Several of the actions implemented in 2010-2013 were follow-up 
projects from the previous EBF period and the majority were implemented by Member States 
with  previous  experience  of  deploying  ILOs  to  third  countries  and  cooperating  with  other 
Member States. The region most intensively covered by ILO cooperation was Eastern Europe 
(Russia, Georgia, Ukraine, Moldova, and Belarus) on the part of the Baltic States. 

Overall,  ILO-related  Community  Actions  depended  on  the  willingness  of  Member  States  to 
apply, rather than on the actual need for the deployment of ILOs in third countries. Hence, the 
priority  has  not  been  fully  addressed  in  terms  of  number  and  scope  of  outputs  (projects) 
implemented, although the outputs are similar to the previous programme period. 

The  review  of  the  available  technical  implementation  reports  shows  that  most  of  the 
objectives  expected  from  ILO  postings  to  third  countries  have  been  achieved.  The  more 
notable  positive  examples  concern  a  few  Member  States  which  applied  consistently  for 
Community Assistance related to ILO activities. A good level of cooperation seems to have 
been achieved between the Baltic States through three projects deploying ILOs by EE or LV, 
also acting on behalf of LT and FI. The ILOs were posted in Russia, Ukraine and Moldova, 
identified as source countries of significant illegal migration flows. Similarly, ES, PT and FR 
have enhanced the activities of their common ILO in locations in Africa. 

Effectiveness of the principle of solidarity 

EQ8. To what extent were the EBF 2011-2013 actions, and in particular the EBF Community 
Actions,  effective  in  providing  support  services  to  Member  States  in  duly  substantiated 
emergency situations requiring urgent action at external borders?  

Main  conclusions:  The  evaluation  found  that  the  Fund  has  been  effective  in  achieving 
financial  solidarity  among  the  Member  States.  The  distribution  key  was  designed  in  such  a 
way  that  it helped  support  Member  States  which  were  under  the  highest  migratory pressure 
during the period under evaluation. However, given the fact that the allocations provided in a 
given year to the Member States were calculated on the basis of data from previous years, the 
funding could not take into account sudden and unforeseen circumstances. Consequently, the 
use of emergency measures proved to be crucial for the Member States which were subject to 
acute and urgent migration pressure. Hence, Emergency measures partially counter-balanced 
the limitations of the distribution key. 

According  to  recital  4  of  the  Decision  setting  up  the  EBF,  the  Fund  was  conceived  as  a 
'Community financial solidarity mechanism in order to support the Member States who bear, 
for the benefit of the Community a lasting and heavy financial burden'.  

The evaluation found that the Fund has been effective in achieving financial solidarity among 
the Member States. As shown in Section 8.1 (Finding 2), the distribution key was designed in 
such a way (See Point 7.1) that it helped support Member States located on Europe's southern 
maritime  borders;  these  were  the  MSs  which  were  under  the  highest  migratory  pressure 

36 

 
 
during  the  period  under  evaluation.  This  finding  is  supported  by  the  European  Court  of 
Auditors: "The EBF allocation clearly helped to spread the Member States' financial burden 
caused  by  the  introduction  of  the  Union's  integrated  management  of  common  external 
borders"101.  

The financial solidarity that the Fund helped materialize can for instance be illustrated by the 
case of Switzerland. In accordance with the Agreement concluded between the Commission 
and the four Associated States on supplementary rules in relation to the EBF102, Switzerland 
paid  financial  contributions  to  the  Fund  between  2009  to  2013  for  a  total  amount  of  53.4 
Million  EUR  while  it  participated  in  the  Fund  only  as  of  2010  and  received  in  total  15.2 
Million EUR for the implementation of its 2010 to 2013 annual programmes103.  

However, the distribution key, and in particular the reference period of the data on which it 
was  based  showed  its  limitations  in  the  context  of  the  crisis  and  following  unforeseen 
circumstances.  The  yearly  revision  of  the  allocation  of  EU  funds  to  the  annual  national 
programmes has been key to ensure that the funds available have targeted the most affected 
Member States. However, given the fact that the allocations provided in a given year to the 
Member States were calculated on the basis of data from previous years (See Point 7.1), the 
funding could not – for obvious practical reasons – take into account sudden and unforeseen 
circumstances. Consequently, the use of emergency measures proved to be crucial for those 
Member States which were subject to acute and urgent migration pressure. Hence, Emergency 
measures partially counter-balanced the limitations of the distribution key. 

101  European  Court  of  Auditors,  Special  Report  2014,  The  External  Borders  Fund  has  fostered  financial  solidarity  but 

requires better measurements of results and needs to provide for further EU added value, para 31.    

102  Agreement  between  the  European  Community  and  the  Republic  of  Iceland,  the  Kingdom  of  Norway,  the  Swiss 
Confederation and the Principality of Liechtenstein on supplementary rules in relation to the External Borders Fund for 
the period 2007 to 2013, OJ L 169, 3.07.2010, p. 24, Article 11. 

103   The four Associated Countries were all net contributors to the Fund. It goes without saying that some Member States are 
also net contributors to the Fund but the calculations of their precise financial contribution to the Fund is not possible as 
the Fund budget is covered by the overall budget of the Union.  

37 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Figure 4:  

Allocations provided to MSs through Emergency Actions under the 2010-2013 AWPs  

Community Actions - Emergency Actions 
2010-2013 AWPs 
Total  Spain
Total SIS II (8 MSs)

Total Italy
Total Greece - UNHCR

Total Bulgaria

19% 

7% 
6% 

11% 

57% 

Source: Emergency Action grants 

Grand Total: €39,993,960.68   

Examples of emergency measures provided under Community actions:  
Italy  received  the  highest  allocation  for  the  implementation  of  the  annual  programmes  and 
was  the  first  recipient  of  emergency  assistance.  Indeed  the  central  Mediterranean  route  has 
long been popular. In 2008, nearly 40,000 migrants were detected, mostly near the islands of 
Lampedusa.  Migration  along  this  route  almost  completely  stopped  in  2009  following  a 
bilateral agreement between Italy and Libya. The situation changed dramatically in 2011 i.e.  
the year of the Arab Spring. Between January and March alone, some 23 000 Tunisians (most 
of them economic migrants hoping to find jobs in France)– arrived on the small Italian island 
of  Lampedusa.  Then,  between  March  and  August  2011,  more  than  40,000  sub-Saharan 
Africans  arrived  on  Lampedusa.  Many  had  been  forcibly  expelled  by  the  Gaddafi  regime. 
With the collapse of the Gaddafi regime in August 2011, the flow of migrants again almost 
entirely  stopped.  Detections  remained  very  low  throughout  2012.  By  2013,  however,  the 
smugglers  had  reorganised  themselves  and  there  was  no  shortage  of  customers  desperate  to 
escape  Libya  as  the  state  imploded  and  violence  escalated.  The  size  and  the  scope  of  the 
emergency  assistance  grants  to  Italy  mirrored  the  above  mentioned  migratory  flows  to  the 
country. Indeed, Italy was granted emergency assistance under all AWPs under evaluation as 
the route has always been very popular. However, in 2012, Italy received around half of the 
amount received during the other years. This corresponds to the year during which the number 
of irregular crossings was the lowest104. These grants provided support to Italy with first aid 
and medical assistance for search and rescue operations, the internal transfer of migrants until 
first  reception,  the  deployment  of  multidisciplinary  teams  for  first  reception  response  and 
interpretation/cultural mediation services to assist border police during screening procedures. 
Greece  received  the  third  highest  allocation  from  EBF  for  the  implementation  of  the  2010-

104   Under the 2010 AWP (implemented in 2011), Italy received around 6 Million EUR of emergency assistance. Under the 
2011 AWP (implemented in 2012), Italy received around 3.2 Million EUR. Italy received around 6 Million and around 
5.6 Million, respectively under the 2012 AWP (implemented in 2013) and the 2013 AWP (implemented in 2014).  

38 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
2013  APs  and  was  the  third  highest  recipient  of  emergency  assistance  grants  in  the  period 
under evaluation. This was due to the fact that the Eastern Mediterranean route remained one 
of the most transited routes to the EU during this time105. In 2010-2011, Greece registered the 
highest  number  of  irregular  border  crossings  at  the  Greece-Turkey  border.106  Following  the 
implementation of a set of Greek operations at the Greece-Turkey border in August 2012107, 
there was a significant decrease in irregular border crossings detected there108. This led to a 
shift in migration flows from the region of Evros (land border with Turkey) to the Aegean Sea 
(sea  border  with  Turkey),  which  in  turn  led  to  an  increase  in  detections  of  irregular  border 
crossings  in  this  area.109  As  a  result  of  these  changes,  Greece  needed  to  enhance  its  first 
reception  response  capacity  in  both  the  Aegean  Sea  and  the  region  of  Evros,  which 
nevertheless  continued  to  receive  considerable  irregular  migrant  arrivals.  To  cater  for  these 
needs, Greece received support through two grants which complemented each other; the first 
grant  (awarded  to  UNHCR)  amounted  to  2,707,585.01  EUR  and  was  implemented  from  1 
January  2013110  while  the  second  amounted  to  999,734  EUR  and  was  implemented  from  1 
November 2013111. Both actions lasted about two years. 

It can  also be noted that the number of irregular crossings were  significantly lower in  2012 
(see  Introduction).  In  view  of  this,  more  than  half  (56%)  of  the  budget  available  for 
emergency  assistance  was  re-directed  towards  supporting  certain  Member  States  in 
implementing SIS II in order to catch up with the delayed transition period112. Eight Member 
States (CY, CZ, EE, LU, MT, NL, PT, SK) were awarded emergency assistance in the final 
stages of SIS II development (actions implemented in late 2011 and 2012) which led to the 
successful launch of SIS II in 2013. In the reply to the Court of Auditors' report on EBF, the 
Commission  highlighted  that  the  financing  of  SIS  II  final  development  steps  for  some 
Member States constituted an emergency because a failure or delay on the part of a single MS 

105  Frontex, Annual Risk Analysis 2014, p. 17-18. 
106   The Greek authorities reported 47,706 irregular border crossing detections (Frontex Annual Risk Analysis, 2011, p. 14). 
107   For example, operation Aspida, which involved the deployment of 1800 Greek police officers to the Greek land border 

with Turkey (Frontex, Risk Analysis Quarterly Report, Issue 3, July-September 2012, p. 5). 

108   Indeed,  detections  of  irregular  border-crossings  along  the  EU  external  borders  generally  dropped  sharply  in  2012  to 
72,437 detections, a 49% decrease compared to 2011. This was largely due to the enhanced surveillance at the Greek 
border with Turkey; detection at this border decreased by 44% (Frontex, Annual Risk Analysis 2013, p. 19. 

109   A  912%  increase  was  registered  for  irregular  border  detections  in  this  area  in  2013  (Frontex  Annual  Risk  Analysis, 

2013, p. 23).  

110   This grant enabled UNHCR and its partners to provide in the several first reception-related centres located in the region 
of  Evros  and  the  Aegean  islands  the  following:  information  services  to  newly  arrived  persons,  interpretation  services 
between new arrivals and authorities, facilitation of persons with especial needs (excluding medical needs), information 
about assistance voluntary return options, and distribution of emergency non-food stock. 

111   This grant provided support to the Greek First Reception Service of the Ministry of Public Order and Citizen Protection 
with  the  setting  up  of  two  Mobile  Operation  Units  in  Samos  and  Lesvos  which  significantly  contributed  to  the 
improvement of first reception procedures, through for example providing assistance to vulnerable persons. 

112   In 2001 the Council tasked the Commission with the development of the second-generation SIS II system (the decision 
had been made by Schengen countries in 1996) in order to connect new EU Member States after their accession to the 
EU in 2004 to the Schengen Area and to enhance the system functions, with an initial planned end in 2006, which was 
later  delayed  to  2008  and  to  2010.  In  2010  the  Commission  issued  a  final  schedule,  after  having  more  complete 
information  on  the  system  requirements  and  having  put  in  place  a  more  efficient  management  system.  In  late  2011, 
emergency assistance support with the development of SIS II was allocated to MSs facing delays in their development 
of  the  system,  and  which  had  very  low  EBF  allocations  and/or  whose  EBF  resources  were  absorbed  by  other  key 
priorities in the area of external borders. The system became fully operational in May 2013 and replaced SIS I, Court of 
Auditors  (2014)  Special  Report  No  3/2014,  Lessons  from  the  European  Commission’s  development  of  the  second 
generation Schengen information system (SIS II). 

39 

 
 
 
                                                            
in completing the SIS II tests scheduled in the second half of 2011, would have resulted in a 
delay for the entire project. This reflects the significant efforts that the Commission made to 
mitigate the risk of delay by Member States in adhering to the SIS II schedule due to a lack of 
financial  resources  to  complete  the  development  and  testing  of  the  national  SIS  II 
components113. 

The  evaluation  shows  that  emergency  action  grants  were  effective  in  supporting  Member 
States  in  duly  substantiated  emergency  situations,  mainly  Member  States  with  the  highest 
migratory pressure at their external borders as the annual allocation did not take into account 
unforeseen circumstances.   

The main results of the Emergency Actions include: 

•  Reinforcement  of  means  of  transport  (for  border  patrolling  activities  and  internal 
relocation  of  migrants)  which  led  to  immediate  relief  of  crowding  of  first  arrival 
places  and  more  efficient  registration  of  migrants  as  well  as  increased  patrolling  and 
surveillance capacity;  

•  Increased financial capacity to address immediate needs in order to react to unplanned 
events and migration influx (i.e. fuel costs, deployment of additional personnel, repair 
of  equipment,  refurbishing  first  reception  centres,  and  consumables  for  first  reception 
centres);  

•  Deployment of trained multidisciplinary teams for first reception as well as search and 
rescue operations. This resulted in more efficient identification of arriving migrants who 
information,  counselling,  aid  packages  and  medical  assistance  and  
received 
identification and recovery of disaster victims;  

•  Successful launch of SIS II in the remaining eight MSs.  

The  average  absorption  rate  of  emergency  assistance  grants  is  rather  good  and  amounts  to 
80.03%114. 

9.3 Efficiency 

EQ12:  To  what  extent  were  the  effects  of  the  EBF  2011-2013  actions  achieved  at  a 
reasonable cost in terms of financial and human resources deployed? 

Main  conclusion:  The  evaluation  concluded  that  the  EBF  actions,  for  the  most  part,  have 
been  implemented  efficiently  i.e.  comprehensive  management  and  control  systems  that 
included stringent procurement procedures, have greatly contributed to this result.  

However,  the  majority  of  Member  States  also  reported  on  the  efficiency  issues  they  faced, 
such  as  issues  linked  to  the  difficulties  in  finding  the  required  national  co-financing, 
timeliness  of  the  programming  cycle  length  and  dissatisfaction  with  the  perceived  high 
administrative  costs,  especially  in  the  Member  States  with  the  lowest  allocations.  Further 
difficulties regarding the annual programming cycle were reported, in terms of finalising the 
acquisition  of  large  and  complex  equipment  and  the  acquisition  of  large  systems  purchased 
over  many  years.  The  difficulty  of  having  to  attribute  multiannual  investments  to  specific 

113   European Court of Auditors report, p. 54. 
114   Situation on 22.11.2016. Not all projects were closed at the time of the drafting of the Contractor's evaluation.  

40 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
annual  programmes  for  programming  purposes  added  a  level  of  administrative  burden  for 
RAs. 

It  should  also  be  highlighted  that  the  measurement  of  the  efficiency  of  EBF  was  subject  to 
heavy limitations. The average administrative cost at the level of MSs is not known, as data 
on it was not made available by the RAs during the evaluation. The Fund was implemented by 
public  authorities  and  the  staff  allocated  to  the  implementation  of  the  Fund  did  not  work 
exclusively  on  it.  To  mitigate  the  difficulties  associated  with  the  evaluation  of  efficiency 
under  the  new  Fund,  the  Commission  included  some  common  indicators  in  the  "Common 
Monitoring and Evaluation Framework" of ISF. 

The  majority  of  Member  States115  reported  that,  to  a  large  extent,  the  EBF  actions  were 
implemented in an efficient manner, with the 'value for money' principle considered as a key 
driver.  Implementing  public  procurement  procedures  was  also  considered  to  be  an  effective 
way of ensuring efficient use of inputs. The case studies provide the bulk of the information 
on  the  efficiency  of  actions  in  terms  of  public  procurement.  Overall,  the  findings  appear  to 
show high levels of efficiency in the processes used, in spite of the pressure to complete the 
procedures in a limited amount of time116. In addition to using public procurement procedures, 
the national management and control systems were vital to ensuring efficiency i.e. project 
and  system  audits,  verification  of  eligibility  and  appropriate  use  of  funds  and  constant 
monitoring. Additional success factors reported by the RAs include the presence of staff with 
extensive experience in the management of EU funds and the low turnover of staff. 

Assessing  efficiency  requires  an  analysis  of  the  relationship  between  the  inputs  used  (time, 
human  resources,  financial  resources)  and  the  results  achieved  by  the  EBF  2011-2013.  The 
evaluation  study  concluded  that  it  was  not  feasible  to  compare  'cost  of  actions'  under  EBF 
(controls at border crossing points, issuance of visa, surveillance of EU external borders etc) 
with other similar actions or with some average market prices, as the activities and services 
implemented under EBF are an exclusive competence of well identified public bodies. As a 
result, the evaluation looked into the procurement procedures as these tend to determine the 
cost  of the actions,  under the  assumption  that if  fair  tendering took  place, then this  was the 
reasonable  cost  that  the  market  could  offer.  Nevertheless,  some  weaknesses  related  to  the 
procurement  procedures  could  be  generally  identified117,  namely  the  subsequent  use  of  the 
same  supplier  without  adequate  competition,  the  fact  that  the  responsible  authorities' 
verification  of  procurement  procedures  could  be  inadequate  or  the  fact  that  Member  States 
could  not  adequately  justify  their  use  of  the  exception  clause  for  defence  and  security 
procurements. However, the issues mentioned are regularly checked by the Commission118 at 
the  stage  of  closures  and  through  ex  post  audits.  Project-specific  corrections  or  flat-rate 
financial corrections were applied in case of irregularities in procurement procedures and/or 
insufficient documentation on the justification of the choice of procurement. 

115   BE, BG CY, CZ, DE, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HU, IS, IT, LT, MT, NL, NO, PL, RO, SE, SI and SK. 
116   In Italy for instance, the eligibility period of the EBF annual programmes restricted the choice of the specific type of 

public procurement process adopted for the implementation of the action. 

117   European Court of Auditors report, p. 33-34. 
118   See the replies from the Commission, European Court of Auditors report, p. 58-59. 

41 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Existing frameworks played an important role in ensuring the efficiency of the procedures. In 
FI, the central purchasing body of the government signed framework contracts with vehicle 
suppliers,  whereby  the  RA  and  Finnish  Border  Guards  (FBG)  had  input  in  specifying 
requirements.  In  this  way  the  process  of  selecting  and  acquiring  the  desired  vehicles  was 
simplified, particularly for the FBG and the vehicle acquisition manager. By law the lowest 
price  was  the  selection  criterion.  This  approach  eliminated  lengthy  tender  procedures, 
negotiations and appeals, and guaranteed maximum efficiency. 

In CH, the costs of the contracts were determined only after negotiation procedures between 
the contracting authority, relevant stakeholders and the contractors. The cost-effectiveness of 
the  projects  cannot  be  compared  to  other  similar  projects  in  CH.  The  costs  were  based  to  a 
large extent on hourly rates of expert work, which allowed some comparison to market prices 
and were determined in the most efficient way. Under the contracts with the IT Service Centre 
a significant part of the services were delivered by regular staff. In addition, a monitoring and 
supervision system ensured that the resources were allocated and spent efficiently.  

The  majority  of  Member  States  also  reported  on  efficiency  issues  they  faced.  In  some 
instances,  they  were  significant  and  linked  to  the  general  implementation  of  all  projects119 
while in most of the cases they were restricted to specific projects. These included difficulties 
in the delivery of EBF programmes due to the fact that certain Member States120 encountered 
some issues in finding the required national co-financing, they could not count on sufficient 
human resource capacities, or experienced issues on public procurement such as the need to 
impose  financial  corrections  on  contractors121.  Additional  factors 
this 
dissatisfaction included the timeliness of the programming cycle length and the unfamiliarity 
with the EBF rules and procedures which lead to difficulties in implementing these rules122. 
Further difficulties with the annual programming cycle were reported, in terms of finalising 
the acquisition of large and complex equipment and systems (as was the case for IT) and the 
acquisition of large systems purchased over many years. The difficulty of having to attribute 
multiannual investments to specific annual programmes with a two year and a half eligibility 
period  purely  for  programming  purposes  added  a  level  of  administrative  burden  and 
programming difficulty for RAs. For the 2014-2020 programming period this issue has been 
addressed, as in ISF Borders and Visa the programming instrument of the Member State – the 
national programme – is a multiannual instrument and covers the whole period from 2014 to 
2020.  The  national  programme  lays  down  the  objectives  that  are  to  be  achieved  using  the 
resources  of  the  Fund,  identifies  targets  and  examples  of  actions,  thereby  ensuring  to  the 
Member States some flexibility to cover - to a certain extent - the evolution of their needs.   

influencing 

With regard to specific types of projects, several Member States123 found the IT projects to be 
relatively  inefficient.  For  instance,  where  IT  projects  comprised  two  thirds  of  total  funding 

119   For instance, PT experienced internal difficulties in approving projects and in managing public procurements due to a 

lack of familiarity with EU legislation on public procurement.  

120   AT, BE, PT, CZ, EE, EL, FI, IT and RO. 
121    BG, CZ, EE, IT and RO. 
122   For  instance,  AT  reported  high  costs  associated  with  the  development  of  comprehensive  specifications  and  control 

system. 

123   AT, EE, FI, NO and RO. 

42 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
across the 2011-2013 APs, costs readjustments were often needed due to higher than expected 
implementation costs124. 

In terms of human resources necessary to administer the EBF at national level, the situation 
varies between Member States. Regardless of the size of the funding, there is a certain level of 
financial  and  human  input  necessary  to  administer  the  EBF  at  national  level.  As  a  result, 
proportionally  higher  management  costs  were  experienced  by  Member  States  receiving 
smaller volumes of funds like DK and LU125. Management and control systems must be put in 
place  and  kept  running,  no  matter  the  size  of  the  Fund;  reporting  (on  evaluation,  mid-term 
review…) is also an essential task that MSs have to deal with.  However, under the successor 
funding instrument, a threshold has been set so as to ensure that a more consequent amount of 
funds is allocated to each MS as a starting block126 and the percentage of allocation that can 
be  used  for  technical  assistance  (i.e.  costs  linked  to  the  management  of  the  Fund)  has  been 
slightly  increased  to  reduce  national  funding  Member  States  have  to  use  to  cover  the  costs 
linked to the management of the Fund127. On the other hand, MSs that received large amounts 
of  funding  felt  differently.  Furthermore,  in  some  Member  States,  the  units  in  charge  of 
administering the EBF were also in charge of other SOLID funds (the European Return Fund, 
European  Refugee  Fund  and  European  Fund  for  the  Integration  of  third-country  nationals), 
leading to economies of scale. 

The  measurement  of  the  efficiency  of  EBF  was  subject  to  heavy  limitations.  The  average 
administrative cost at the level of MSs is not known, as data on it was not made available by 
the RAs during the evaluation. The Fund was implemented by public authorities and the staff 
allocated  to  the  implementation  of  the  Fund  did  not  work  exclusively  on  it.  Moreover,  the 
collection of timesheets for civil servants across MSs is not consistently done. MSs were not 
requested to disclose data on their administrative costs when the Fund was launched. 

To mitigate the difficulties associated with the evaluation of efficiency under the new Fund, 
the  Commission  included  some  common  indicators  in  the  "Common  Monitoring  and 
Evaluation Framework" of ISF. These take into consideration the cost of staff working on the 
implementation of ISF (paid by the technical assistance under the AP or national budgets), in 
relation  to  the  number  of  projects  implemented  and  the  amount  of  funds  claimed  for  the 
financial year. The indirect cost of projects will also be measured in relation to the amount of 
funds claimed for the financial year.  
During  the  inception  phase  of  the  interim  evaluation  of  ISF  Borders  and  Visa  the  external 
evaluators will be requested to design and propose a methodology for the assessment of the 
efficiency tailored to ISF. 

124  NO. 
125   Representatives of the DK RA calculated that the management and administrative costs required to implement the EBF 
(and  not  covered  by  the  EBF)  were  equivalent  to  40%  of  the  total  funds  received.  Representatives  of  the  LU  RA 
remarked that management and administrative costs amounted to 55% of the total funds received. 

126   Regulation  (EU)  No  515/2014,  Annex  I.  All  Member  States  received  an  allocation  of  5  000  000  EUR  as  minimum 

amount.  

127   Regulation  (EU)  No  515/2014,  Article  16(2):  5  %  of  the  total  amount  allocated  plus  500  000  EUR  can  be  used  for 

technical assistance. Under the 2011 to 2013 EBF APs, Member States could use up to 4% plus 30 000. 

43 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
9.4 Sustainability 

EQ13: To what extent have the positive effects of the EBF 2011-2013 actions lasted after the 
interventions were terminated? 

Main  conclusion:  With  some  minor  exceptions  explained  below,  actions  funded  under  the 
2011-2013  APs  were  considered  as  sustainable,  although  with  different  degrees  of 
sustainability, depending on the type of investment. 

Overall, the EBF investments made under the 2011 to 2013 APs were sustainable: most of the 
assets  acquired  and  the  knowledge  generated  were  still  being  used  at  the  time  the  national 
evaluation reports were developed (2015) and interviews conducted for the ex post evaluation 
(2016). In addition, RAs highlighted the complementarity with the objectives of the successor 
Fund (ISF Borders and Visa, for the period 2014-2020) and possibility to build on the results 
of  the  previous  programming  period  for  the  activities  implemented  under  the  new  one  as 
evidence of the sustainability of the investments made under EBF. 

Most of the evaluation reports and interviewed officers from the RAs claimed that financial 
support  for  the  continued  utilisation  (e.g.  maintenance  and  update)  of  acquired  assets  is 
secured through national budgets, and only to a limited extent (NL, RO) through the successor 
Fund (ISF Borders and Visa). 

A  few  specific  projects  faced  financial  constraints  and  therefore  raised  sustainability 
concerns,  such  as  the  deployment  of  ILOs  in  third  countries,  as  it  requires  significant 
operating  costs  (HU  and  CH  NERs)  and  consular  cooperation  in  third  countries,  which 
requires recurring costs for the common application centres (BE NER).  

The  EBF  2011-2013  APs  covered  a  broad  spectrum  of  actions,  with  very  different 
sustainability expectations. The required life-span  of assets provides useful elements for the 
evaluation: i.e. three years or more for ICT equipment, five or more for operating equipment 
and means of transport, and 10 years for helicopters, vessels and aircraft128. However, the life-
span of assets does not cover actions like system and facilities upgrades, training, or support 
of Immigration Liaison Officers in third countries. Warranty for the acquired equipment and 
vehicles is a guarantee that in case of malfunction the assets will be repaired or replaced at no 
additional  cost  to  the  beneficiaries:  interviews  with  beneficiaries  and  RAs  confirmed  that 
warranties  were  in  place  for  all  vehicles  acquired  through  EBF.  Another  good  practice 
followed by some RAs (PL, BG, IT, RO) is to include training of end-users in the terms  of 
procurement  for  complex  equipment  and  systems,  such  as  surveillance  systems,  unmanned 
aircraft, thermo-vision cameras, and helicopters. 

128   2011/148/EU:  Commission  Decision  of  2  March  2011,  amending  Decision  2008/456/EC  laying  down  rules  for  the 
implementation of Decision No 574/2007/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the External 
Borders Fund for the period 2007 to 2013 as part of the General programme 'Solidarity and Management of Migration 
Flows'  as  regards  Member  States'  management  and  control  systems,  the  rules  for  administrative  and  financial 
management and the eligibility of expenditure on projects co- financed by the Fund. 

44 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
                                                            
9.5 Complementarity and Coherence 

EQ14: To what extent were the EBF 2011-2013 actions coherent with and complementary to 
other  actions  related  to  the  management  of  the EU  external  borders  and  the  Schengen  visa 
processing  financed  by  other  EU  financial  instruments  and  from  national  resources  of  the 
Member States? 

Main conclusion: Actions implemented under the EBF proved to be especially coherent with 
and  complementary  to  investments  made  under  the  European  Return  Fund,  the  European 
Refugee Fund, PHARE, the Schengen Facility129 and in the framework of the Neighbourhood 
Policy's  cross-border  cooperation  programmes.  The  EBF  complemented  national  resources 
that  Member  States  engaged  to  comply  with  relevant  EU  legislation  in  the  fields  of  border 
management  and  visa  processing  and  international  commitments  undertaken  at  the  higher 
security level. 

Complementary actions financed by other EU financial instruments  

The EBF, together with the European Refugee Fund (ERF), European Integration Fund (EIF) 
and Return Fund (RF) form the SOLID Funds.130 The four SOLID funds were configured to 
ensure complete and mutually-exclusive coverage of funding requirements for EU migration 
policies.  Links  have  been  identified  between  actions  developed  under  the  different  EBF 
priorities (and in particular Priorities 1, 2, and 3) and funds allocated through the RF and the 
ERF131. For example, the investments made in RO in the Border Police sectors' infrastructure 
and  endowments  are  complementary  with  projects  regarding  forced  returns  funded  by  the 
Return Fund.  
The  degree  of  complementarity  between  the  EBF  and  other  EU  financing  tools  varied 
significantly  across  Member  States.  MSs  which  benefited  from  the  Schengen  Facility  and 
PHARE underlined strong programmatic and operational interlinks between these funds and 
the EBF. At the same time, other Member States indicated that the projects funded under the 
EBF were isolated activities, and that no other EU financial instruments were used for actions 
in the field of external border and Schengen visa processing. In other MSs, the EBF priorities 
were  complemented  by  EU  funds  not  specifically  directed  at  supporting  border  control  and 
visa processing activities.  

To  avoid  overlaps,  actions  conducted  under  the  EBF  were  carried  out  taking  into  account 
interventions  realised  through  other  EU  programmes  (e.g.  Lifelong  Learning  Programme, 
Culture Programme, Youth in Action Programme, FP7, OLAF's Hercule II Programme) and 
funding from international financial institutions. Beside these financial instruments, no other 
EU funds were reported to be complementary with EBF measures. 

129   PHARE  and  the  Schengen  Facility  are  both  enlargement  Funds.  The  Phare  Programme  is  a  pre-accession  financial 
instrument of the EU for cooperation with Central and Eastern European countries to support their transition to market 
oriented  economy  and  their  accession  to  EU.  The  overall  objective  of  the  Phare  Programme  is  to  support  candidate 
countries  in  their  preparation  for  EU  accession.  The  Schengen  Facility  was  a  temporary  instrument  aimed  at  helping 
beneficiary Member States to finance measures at the EU’s new external borders to implement the Schengen acquis and 
external border control. 

130   General programme Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows (Decision No 574/2007/EC). 
131  Lack of evidence in relation to complementarities between the EBF and the EIF can be explained by the fact that the 

actions implemented with the support of EIF do not directly relate to border control and management activities. 

45 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Complementary actions financed through national resources of the Member States 

Most Member States identified complementarity between the EBF and the national activities 
relating to external borders and short-term visa processing. 

A number of MSs reported that the 2011-2013 EBF annual programmes were implemented as 
components of larger national projects and were supplementing other strategies and activities 
financed from national budgets. 

Overall,  EBF  actions  did  not  conflict  with  nationally  funded  actions  and  projects  but  rather 
functioned  as  a  complement  to  them.  Among  the  EBF  projects  described  as  creating 
especially strong synergies with other EU and nationally funded actions, some MSs noted that 
EBF  projects  involving  the  deployment  of  ILOs  and  document  advisors  in  third  countries 
helped to promote systematic and regular cooperation between the consular services and other 
services of the Member States. EBF actions also generated synergies between sectors (asylum 
sector,  criminal  investigation  sector,  return,  etc.)  and  facilitated  redistribution  of  the  heavy 
financial  burden  related  to  the  maintenance  of  consulates  and  visa  application  centres. 
Moreover, MSs indicated that projects relating to ITech systems (and in particular, VIS, SIS II 
and EUROSUR) created strong complementarities by  connecting all national and European 
partners (e.g. eu-LISA132, and AENEAS133) involved in Schengen visa processing and border 
controlling to the same centralised platforms.  

EQ15: To what extent were the EBF 2011-2013 actions complementary to the activities of the 
European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of 
the Member States of the European Union (Frontex)? 

Main  conclusion:  The  evaluation  concluded  that  the  actions  funded  by  the  EBF 
complemented  most  of  Frontex's core activities, in  particular those actions conducted in  the 
field of rapid response capability and training. 

Overall the synergies between the EBF programming and the activities conducted by Frontex 
have  been  identified  in  the  majority  of  the  NERs.  In  particular,  the  Agency  used  the  data 
made  available  by  the  Member  States  within  the  Frontex  Risk  Analysis  Network  and  the 
information  obtained  from  Frontex  joint  operations  and  open  sources  to  support  the 
Commission in the performance of the (country by country) threat assessment for the EBF. At 
the same time, whilst the data and analysis provided by Frontex reflected abrupt and rapidly 
changing trends  in  irregular  border  crossings  at  the  EU  external  border,  the  Agency's  threat 
assessments were used in the framework of a multiannual programming and implementation 
exercise. 

A series of projects supported by the EBF over the 2011-2013 period complemented activities 
conducted by Frontex to perform its tasks. In general, the actions conducted under the EBF's 
Priorities  1  and  2,  which  resulted  in  the  acquisition  of  vehicles  and  equipment  destined  to 

132   EU Agency for large-scale ITech systems. 
133   Programme for financial and technical assistance to third countries in the area of migration and asylum. 

46 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
increase  the  effectiveness  of  border  patrolling  at  the  external  borders  were  coherent  and 
complementary with Frontex's mandate.  

According  to  eight  MSs  (ES,  IT,  FI,  LT,  NL,  PT,  RO,  SE),  when  implementing  EBF 
supported  actions  directed  at  the  purchase  of  aircraft,  vessels,  vehicles  and  equipment,  the 
ability to conduct joint operations has been expressly taken into account. Actions directed at 
updating  air,  sea  and  terrestrial  assets  (for  example,  by  installing  appropriate  new 
technologies on board to help carry out surveillance activities) implemented through the EBF, 
allowed  national  border  guards  to  participate  (using  their  own  means)  in  the  operational 
activities promoted by Frontex.  

Seven MSs (BE, BG, EE, FI, HU, IT and RO) referred to the EBF's contribution in aligning 
the  training  activities  delivered  to  border  authorities  to  the  common  training  standards 
developed by Frontex.  

Some  MSs  confirmed  that  actions  implemented  under  the  EBF  2011-2013  APs  have  also 
contributed to Frontex's tasks related to information analysis, in particular to risk analysis and 
strategic  analysis.  In  general,  the  improvements  brought  by  the  EBF  to  Member  States' 
surveillance  and  information  systems  facilitated  the  provision  of  relevant  and  high-quality 
data  which  can  be  used  by  Frontex,  for  instance,  in  building  up  an  image  of  the  situation, 
patterns and trends in irregular migration and cross-border criminal activities at the external 
borders. 

47 

 
 
 
 
 
 
9.6 EU added value 

EQ16:  To  what  extent  would  be  the  Member  States  able  to  carry  out  the  investments 
necessary for the implementation of  the EU policies in  the field of  border  management and 
Schengen visa processing, and in particular the investments related to EUROSUR, VIS, SIS II, 
automatic  border  controls,  consular  co-operation,  and  contribute  to  the  Frontex  joint 
operations, without the support of the EBF 2011-2013 actions? 

Main conclusion: The EBF support was assessed as essential or considerable in carrying out 
the investments required to improve the EU external border management systems, especially 
for Member States which are responsible for the surveillance of critical sections of the  EU's 
external borders and which have faced a drastic increase in migratory pressure.  

The  EBF  added  value  has  been  particularly  high  in  Member  States  with  limited  financial 
resources  and/or  facing  tight  budgetary  constraints.  At  the  same  time  it  has  been  noted  that 
where  the  volume  of  EBF  funds  has  been  relatively  limited  in  relation  to  the  total  national 
expenditure in the field of external borders and Schengen visa processing, the incentive effect 
to  make  investments  in  joint  EU  border  management  systems  has  probably  been  the  most 
valuable contribution of the EBF.  In this sense, EBF had a leverage effect which multiplied 
Member States' investments in border management systems, infrastructure and activities.  

On the other hand, the EBF had only limited added value for the acquisition of state-of-the-art 
technology at the EU's external borders (ABC gates). Similarly as highlighted by the Court of 
Auditors, specific actions under Community actions had very limited EU added value and that 
is why they were discontinued as of 2013.  

According to the volume, scope, role and effects of the financial support granted by the EBF 
in the field of border management and Schengen visa processing, the EU added value of the 
Fund  has  been  evaluated  as  either  essential  (the  investments  would  not  have  been  possible 
without the EBF), considerable (the investments would not have been carried out to the same 
extent and/or in the same timeframe without the EBF) or low (i.e. the same project could have 
been realised even without the EBF). 

Most  of  the  NERs  analysed  for  this  evaluation  indicated  that  investments  related  to 
EUROSUR  would  not  have  been  possible  without  EBF  contributions.  For  some 
Mediterranean MSs, which are responsible for the surveillance of critical sections of the EU's 
external borders and had to deal with increasing influxes of migrants since the launch of the 
programme,  the  EBF  contributions  were  essential  in  order  to  ensure  EUROSUR-related 
investments. The same finding is confirmed by other MSs. The ES case study confirmed that 
the  construction  of  the  operations  centre  for  the  maritime  border  and  coastal  surveillance 
would  not  have  been  possible  without  the  EBF,  whose  contribution  reached  95%.  This 
investment allowed ES to comply with the EUROSUR Regulation and to enhance cooperation 
and information sharing with other MSs, Frontex and selected third countries.  

The EBF contribution to the establishment and development of IT systems, and in particular 
of  VIS  and  SIS  II,  was  referred  to  as  essential  or  at  least  considerable  by  several  Member 
States.  In  quantitative  terms,  the  EU  added  value  of  the  EBF  in  this  area  was  75-95% 
coverage  of  the  total  investment  required  for  upgrading  and  extending  the  VIS  in  one 
particular  MS.  In  another  MS,  the  number  of  national  SIS  II  projects  launched  and 

48 

 
 
 
 
implemented increased significantly after the EBF activation. In qualitative terms, in several 
MSs  the  EBF's  input  extended  the  scope  and  quality  of  VIS  and  SIS  II.  In  some  cases,  the 
EBF's added value in the implementation of VIS and SIS II  was the facilitation of software 
development processes. FI and SE stated that their projects would not have been carried out 
within the given timeframe without the support of the Fund. 

The  EBF  was  significant  in  filling  the  gaps  in  national  public  funding  and  supported  the 
national  efforts  in  the  implementation  of  the  different  priorities  underlying  the  funds.  The 
EBF  added  value  has  been  particularly  high  in  Member  States  with  limited  financial 
resources  and/or  facing  tight  budgetary  constraints134,  as  expressly  confirmed  in  the 
national evaluation reports of several MS. Moreover,  without the EBF contributions, a strict 
prioritisation of available resources would have been necessary, with an impact on timeliness, 
quality and quantity of a number of actions. At the same time it has been noted that where the 
volume of EBF funds has been relatively limited in relation to the total national expenditure in 
the  field  of  external  borders  and  Schengen  visa  processing,  the  incentive  effect  to  make 
investments in joint EU border management systems has probably been the most valuable 
contribution of the EBF.  In this sense, EBF had a leverage effect which multiplied Member 
States' investments in border management systems, infrastructure and activities. 

On the other hand, it seems that the EBF had only limited added value for the acquisition of 
state-of-the-art technology at the EU's external borders. Only one Member State reported EBF 
support as essential for the overall Automatic Border Controls domain whilst one Member 
State (FI) assessed the EBF added value in this area as considerable. 

Either due to the high costs related to consular cooperation activities or the pressures to cut 
external representation expenditures, a few MSs135 reported that EBF support was essential, or 
at least  very  considerable. In  the field  of consular cooperation, as  seen under Effectiveness, 
the  ILOs  have  listed  one  of  the  projects  where  EBF  support  had  particular  added  value.  In 
HU, for example, training of consular officials would have been carried out to a much lower 
extent and language training would not have happened without EBF co-financing. However as 
indicated under title 8.1 (Finding 3), Priority 3 - which includes but is not limited to consular 
cooperation - was the least popular priority among the Member States.  

Concerning  the  contribution  to  Member  States'  capability  to  take  part  in  Frontex  joint 
operations,  the  EBF  achieved  a  good  degree  of  added  value.  In  particular,  beneficiaries 
confirmed that the EBF financial support allowed both an increase in the number of available 
assets and an improvement of the technical features of surveillance equipment that have been 
put at the disposal of Frontex. 

In its report on the Fund, the Court of Auditors highlighted that further EU added value of the 
Fund was limited notably with regard to consular cooperation, emergency actions and specific 
actions136. As for consular cooperation, the reasons why the Fund had a limited effect on the 
development  of  consular  cooperation  projects  have  been  analysed  and  lessons  have  been 

134  EL, FR, IT, CY, LT, NL, PT, RO, FI and NO. 
135  AT, BE, BG, FI and HU 
136  Report p.39, para 79. 

49 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
learnt  for  the  programming  period  that  followed.  In  particular,  the  scope  of  the  consular 
cooperation has been extended to other forms of consular cooperation rather than the common 
application centres as provided for by the visa code (colocation, representation, outsourcing), 
hence giving more possibilities to Member States137. This is now reflected in the legal base of 
the  Internal  Security  Fund  (Borders  and  Visas  —  specific  actions)  for  the  period  2014-
2020138. As for emergency assistance, "The added value of the fund is related to the financial 
solidarity  established  through  Member  States  facing  drastically  different  situations  at  their 
external borders. In doing so, the fund has created a tangible solidarity between the Member 
States most exposed to migratory pressure at the borders and the ones less exposed. Thanks to 
the allocation mechanism, the bulk of resources were directed to the most exposed Member 
States  (mostly  south  Mediterranean  ones).  In  addition,  European  added  value  is  also 
represented by the fact that major projects for the Schengen area were supported successfully 
by  the  fund  (VIS,  SIS  II  and  Eurosur)"139.  However  for  specific  actions,  the  Commission 
agreed with the Court and specific actions were cancelled in 2013.   

10. CONCLUSIONS 

to 

the 

relevance,  utility, 

This  report  provides  an  evaluation  of  the  extent  to  which  the  different  EBF  actions 
contributed 
sustainability, 
complementarity  and  coherence,  and  EU  added  value  of  the  Fund.  This  chapter 
summarises  these  findings  and  provides  an  assessment  of  the  EBF’s  overall  role  in  the 
implementation  of  effective  and  common  standards  for  control  and  surveillance  of  the 
external borders. For each of the evaluation criteria as well as at a general level, conclusions 
and relevant lessons learnt are presented below. 

effectiveness, 

efficiency, 

Relevance  and  Utility  -  Overall,  Member  States  considered  the  EBF  objectives  relevant  as 
they  were  satisfied  with  the  degree  of  correspondence  of  EBF  general  objectives  to  their 
needs related to the management of the EU external borders (land, maritime and air external 
borders)  and  the  processing  of  the  Schengen  visas.  Thanks  to  the  design  of  the  distribution 
key  of  annual  allocation,  a  significant  part  of  the  funds  was  allocated  to  Member  States 
experiencing high migration pressure at the southern and south-eastern external borders and to 
the  Member  States  with  significant  traffic  volume  of  bona  fide travellers.  The  objectives  of 
the Fund were therefore broad enough to correspond to the various needs of Member States 
that  varied  in  accordance  with  their  geographical  situation  and  the  migratory  flows. 
Furthermore, the relevance of the EBF was ensured by the annual programming cycle which 
provided an updated and  more detailed analysis of needs. Correspondence  to  the needs  was 
also somehow ensured through the possibility for the Member States to modify their national 
programmes at any time and to reallocate funds in the area which required a stronger financial 
support.  A  weakness  identified  by  the  evaluation  refers  to  the  eligibility  conditions  which 
sometimes prevented certain needs from being fully addressed. 

137  Report, page 53, para 36. 
138  Regulation (EU) No 515/2014, Article 3.3. (c) and Annex IV (a)(i). The list of common indicators linked to consular 

cooperation activities clearly shows that all types of consular cooperation are eligible.  

139  Page 61, para 75. 

50 

 
 
 
                                                            
Due  to  the  absence  of  monitoring  and  evaluation  framework  and  the  limitation  in  the 
evaluation  methodology,  the  evaluation  could  not  bring  conclusive  evidence  with  regard  to 
the utility of the Fund.  

Effectiveness:  Overall  objective  of  financial  solidarity:  The  Fund  was  conceived  as  a 
'Community financial solidarity mechanism in order to support the Member States who bear, 
for  the  benefit  of  the  Community  a  lasting  and  heavy  financial  burden'.  In  that  respect,  the 
evaluation found that the Fund has been effective in achieving financial solidarity among the 
Member  States.  The  key  to  allocate  the  annual  funding  was  designed  in  such  a  way  that  it 
helped support Member States located on Europe's southern maritime borders which were the 
ones under the highest migratory pressure during the period under evaluation. However, given 
the fact that the allocations provided in a given year to the Member States were calculated on 
the basis of data from previous years, the funding could not – for obvious practical reasons – 
take into account sudden and unforeseen circumstances. Consequently, the use of emergency 
measures  proved  to  be  crucial  for  those  Member  States  which  were  subject  to  acute  and 
urgent  migration  pressure.  Hence,  Emergency  measures  partially  counter-balanced  the 
limitations of the distribution key. 

General  Objective  1:  Overall,  the  EBF  was  evaluated  as  having  been  effective  at  national 
level. In particular, border crossing times have been reduced in most Member States thanks to 
automatic checks for regular migrants. The infrastructure at BCPs as well as the systems and 
processes to deal with the flow of persons at BCPs have been improved. With the evaluation 
limitations in mind, the evaluation found that at EU level the EBF 2011-2013 actions made a 
positive  contribution  to  the  establishment  of  the  common  integrated  border  management 
system (priority 1)  by promoting the harmonisation of checks on persons at border crossing 
points  (BCPs)  through  training  programmes;  the  construction  and  upgrading  of  BCPs; 
acquisition of vehicles, vessels and aircraft used for border patrols; acquisition of equipment 
and  ITech  to  undertake  checks  on  persons  and  the  authenticity  of  documents;  purchase  of 
ITech  and  the  establishment/development  of  surveillance  systems,  allowing  for  closer  and 
more extensive monitoring of the external borders and exchange of information; construction 
of  first  reception  and  detention  facilities  for  irregular  migrants  as  well  as  the  purchase  and 
installation of ABC gates (e-gates). The EBF made a positive contribution to the development 
of  a  European  Surveillance  System  for  the  external  borders  and  an  EPN  at  the  Southern 
maritime borders of EU Member States (priority 2),  as the actions funded contributed to  an 
increased surveillance capacity of Member States which resulted in a more efficient detection 
of irregular border crossings.  

General Objective 2: Overall, the actions undertaken under Objective 2 of the EBF appear to 
have fulfilled their purposes, in particular the full implementation of the VIS and SIS II. The 
implementation  of  the  VIS  in  turn  contributed  to  the  real-time  identification  of  forged  and 
falsified documents at BCPs, strengthening visa security. 

General Objective 3: The short- and medium-term outputs and results of the actions funded in 
this area appear to be clearly positive in terms of the number of staff trained, the increase in 
the understanding and application of the Visa Code, operation of the STS and support to other 
EBF  priorities  as  well  as  the  general  objectives  through  training  of  personnel.  Furthermore, 
the  EBF  has  achieved  wide-reaching  effects  in  terms  of  training  of  border  guards, 
construction, renovation and upgrading of Border Crossing Points (BCPs) and first reception 
centres. 

51 

 
 
General Objective 4: The EBF made a weak to moderate contribution to the improvement of 
the  management  of  activities  organised  by  the  consular  and  other  services  of  the  Member 
States in third countries. This is largely due to the fact that a relatively low amount of funding 
was  dedicated  to  funding  priority  3  and  that  Member  States  showed  little  interest  in 
developing  projects  related  to  consular  cooperation  –  including  under  Community  actions. 
External factors, such as difficult diplomatic relations or the situation on the ground, turned 
out to be a barrier for the implementation of some of the projects in this area.  

Efficiency: Due to the absence of monitoring and evaluation framework and the limitation in 
the evaluation methodology, the evaluation could not rely on a cost-benefit analysis to assess 
the efficiency of the Fund. However, Member States indicated that EBF investments, for the 
most  part,  were  overall  efficient.  However  the  majority  of  Member  States  also  reported  on 
efficiency  issues  they  faced,  such  as  issues  linked  to  the  difficulties  in  finding  the  required 
national co-financing, timeliness of the programming cycle length and dissatisfaction with the 
perceived  high  administrative  costs,  especially  in  the  Member  States  with  the  lowest 
allocations.  Further  difficulties  regarding  the  annual  programming  cycle  were  reported,  in 
terms of finalising the acquisition of large and complex equipment and the acquisition of large 
systems  purchased  over  many  years.  The  difficulty  of  having  to  attribute  multiannual 
investments  to  specific  annual  programmes  for  programming  purposes  added  a  level  of 
administrative burden for RAs.  

Sustainability:  Overall,  the  EBF  investments  made  under  the  2011  to  2013  APs  were 
considered to be sustainable: most of the assets acquired and the knowledge generated were 
still being used at the time of the evaluation. RAs highlighted the complementarity with the 
objectives  of  the  ISF  and  possibility  to  build  on  the  results  of  the  previous  programming 
period for the activities implemented under the new one as evidence of the sustainability of 
the investments made under EBF. Sustainability of the investments made is also ensured by 
the  recourse  to  national  funding.  A  few  specific  projects  faced  financial  constraints  and 
therefore raised sustainability concerns, such as the deployment of ILOs in third countries, as 
it  requires  significant  operating  costs  and  consular  cooperation  in  third  countries,  which 
requires recurring costs for the common application centres. 

Complementarity  and  coherence:  The  EBF  investments  made  under  the  2011-2013  APs 
were  complementary  and  coherent  with  activities  funded  both  under  other  EU  Funds 
(European Return Fund, European Refugee Fund, Neighbourhood policy), enlargement funds 
(Phare and the Schengen Facility), with Frontex activities (in particular those conducted in the 
field  of  rapid  response  capability,  and  training),  as  well  as  with  national  investments.  The 
Fund  was  particularly  important  in  ensuring  the  coherence  of  the  systems  which  can  only 
become operational and effective once all building blocks have been finalised (such as the SIS 
II and VIS) in a context where national government funding was scarce.  

EU  added  value:  The  EBF  contribution  has  been  assessed  as  essential  in  order  to  ensure 
EUROSUR-related  investments  and  as  essential  or  at  least  considerable  in  relation  to  the 
establishment and development of IT systems, and in particular of VIS and SIS II. The EBF 
added  value  has  been  particularly  high  in  Member  States  with  limited  financial  resources 
and/or facing tight budgetary constraints. Where the volume of EBF funds has been relatively 
limited  in  relation  to  the  total  national  expenditure  in  the  field  of  external  borders  and 
Schengen  visa  processing,  the  incentive  effect  to  make  investments  in  joint  EU  border 
management systems  has  probably been  the most  valuable contribution of the EBF.  In  this 

52 

 
 
sense,  EBF  had  a  leverage  effect  which  multiplied  Member  States'  investments  in  border 
management  systems,  infrastructure  and  activities.  On  the  other  hand,  the  EBF  had  only 
limited  added  value  for  the  acquisition  of  state-of-the-art  technology  at  the  EU's  external 
borders (ABC gates) and consular cooperation.  

Lessons learnt:  

The limits of the EBF were also tested during this period and some key  lessons were learnt. 
Some corrective measures have already been adopted under ISF Borders and Visa:  

  The  architecture  of  the  EBF  was  rather  complex,  as  it  consisted  of  four  broad 
objectives, numerous  specific  objectives and  five priorities which were  subsequently 
formulated  by  the  Commission  in  an  effort  to  make  the  Fund  more  concrete  and 
operational but which did not fully match the objectives.  
Whilst  the  priorities  of  the  EBF  remained  relevant  also  in  the  successor  fund  (ISF 
Borders  and  Visa  2014-2020),  the  architecture  was  simplified  as  ISF-Borders  and 
Visa  includes  only  two  specific  objectives  (one  for  Borders  and  one  for  Visa) 
supported by seven operational objectives.  

  Some difficulties linked to evaluation limitations emerged when it came to assessing 
the overall effectiveness of the EBF at EU level, given the lack of an initial baseline 
and the fact that the EBF monitoring and evaluation system did not allow for detailed 
monitoring and assessment of the performance of the Fund. Set indicators were rather 
weak and monitoring data were not fully reliable. 
This  issue  has  been  addressed  for  ISF  Borders  and  Visa,  as  the  Commission  has 
included a list of common indicators in the legal base of the instrument.  In addition, a 
Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  2017/207  was  adopted  in  October  2016  on  the  common 
monitoring  and  evaluation  framework  for  ISF  Borders  and  Visa  (covering  also  ISF 
Police and AMIF).  It provides evaluation questions and a set of indicators to be used 
by all MSs for evaluation purposes. The Commission has also developed a guidance 
document  on  the  monitoring  and  evaluation  framework  for  MSs  and  is  organising 
regular workshops on this matter, and a common template for the evaluation reports 
to  be  submitted  by  the  MSs,  to  ensure  consistency.  To  ensure  consistency,  the 
Commission has  also  developed a common template for  the evaluation reports to  be 
submitted  by  the  MSs.  Furthermore,  regular  workshops  in  regard  to  the  guidance 
document are being organized. To raise awareness and develop skills and knowledge 
within  the  responsible  authorities  in  charge  of  the  implementation  of  ISF  (and  also 
AMIF), the Commission has set up an evaluation network composed of staff appointed 
by  MSs,  who  meet  and  discuss  regularly  with  the  Commission  on  evaluation-related 
matters. 

  The Fund had eligibility limitations that prevented the implementation of some actions 
that  could  have  addressed  the  identified  needs  such  as  insufficient  staffing  at  border 
crossing points (BCPs).  
This shortcoming has been addressed under ISF with the introduction of the operating 
support by which MS can cover staff costs at border crossing points.  

53 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Specific  Actions  were  not  sufficiently  well  focused,  were  administratively  heavy  to 
implement  and  resulted  in  an  overlap  with  Emergency  Actions  and  projects 
implemented under the AP.  
To  address  this  problem,  it  was  decided  to  abolish  Specific  Actions  under  direct 
management in the subsequent funding instrument and include such actions in the ISF 
national programmes to allow Member States to have more ownership and flexibility.  

  Member  States  showed  little  interest  in  developing  projects  related  to  consular 
cooperation. This is mainly due to the fact that Member States perceived common visa 
application  centres  to  be  too  costly,  chose  to  keep  their  representations  in  third 
countries or do not consider the visa system as an area where they want to cooperate 
and share costs.  
The Commission has decided to incentivise this area through a 90% co-financing rate 
in  national  programmes  under  the  ISF,  while  the  scope  has  been  extended  beyond 
common application centres to include other types of consular cooperation in addition 
to the renovation, adaptation and/or equipping of consulates. 

  Regardless of the size of the funding, there was a certain level of financial and human 
input necessary to manage the EBF at national level. As a result, proportionally higher 
management  costs  were  experienced  by  countries  receiving  small  volumes  of  funds. 
Under the successor funding instrument, a threshold has been set so as to ensure that 
a more consequent amount of funds is allocated to each MS as a starting block and the 
percentage of allocation that can be used for technical assistance (i.e. costs linked to 
the management of the Fund) has been slightly increased. 

  The  EBF  was  implemented  through  a  strategic  multiannual  programme  covering  the 
whole programming period, but annual programmes were adopted every year and the 
financial  allocations  were  set  each  year.  Even  though  this  annual  cycle  enabled  to 
update  the  distribution  key  of  the  funds  on  annual  basis,  the  annual  programming 
cycle  was  felt  to  be  a  burden  by  some  MSs  and  it  brought  about  some  difficulties 
when major investments required implementation periods exceeding the two and half 
year eligibility period of each AP.  
For  the  2014-2020  programming  period  this  issue  has  been  addressed,  as  in  ISF 
Borders  and  Visa  the  programming  instrument  of  the  Member  State  –  the  national 
programme – is a multiannual instrument and covers the whole period from 2014 to 
2020. The national programme lays down the objectives that are to be achieved using 
the resources of the Fund, identifies targets and examples of actions, thereby ensuring 
to the Member States some flexibility to cover - to a certain extent - the evolution of 
their needs.   

Lessons learnt not addressed in ISF: 

  Efficiency was addressed to a limited extent in the ex post evaluation of EBF. A major 
limitation  was  the  lack  of  quantitative  data  in  border  management,  as  there  are  no 
harmonised  official  statistics  on  border  management  resources  and  investments,  or 
comparable studies on their impact on apprehending illegal crossings.  The evaluation 
study concluded that it was not feasible to compare 'cost of actions' under EBF with 
other similar actions or with some average market prices.   

54 

 
 
 
 
 
 
55 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 1 - PROCEDURAL INFORMATION 

Leading Directorate-General 
Participating Units of DG HOME 

Participating DGs  

Roadmap approval 
Agenda Planning  
External consulting firm 
specialised in evaluation 

DG HOME 
A2 – Legal Affairs 
B2 – Visa Policy and document security 
B3 – Information Systems for Borders and Security 
C2 – Border Management and Schengen 
E1 – Union Actions 
E2 – National programmes for South and East 
Europe, evaluation, AMF/ISF Committee 
E3 - National programmes for North and West 
Europe, budget, MFF, agencies 
Secretariat-General 
DG BUDG 
DG JUST 
DG TAXUD 
October 2015 
2016/HOME/055 
Contract signed in June 2015 with consortium of :  
  Matrix Insight Ltd, UK (now Optimity 

Advisors, UK); 

  International Centre for Migration Policy 

Development (ICMPD), AT; 

  Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE), BE;  
  Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), BE 

Number of steering group meetings  5 
Last deliverable handed in 
Approval of the final report by 
Steering Group 
Regulatory Scrutiny Board (RSB) 
meeting  
Resubmission of the SWD to the 
RSB 

December 2016 
December 2016 

March 2017 

June 2017 

56 

 
 
 
 
 
Changes 
(Ares(2017)1147765 of 3/03/2017)  

response 

in 

to 

the  Regulatory  Scrutiny  Board's 

recommendations 

(B) Main considerations 

The evaluation does not make clear the relevant 
context of the programme at the start and end of 
the review period, and the contribution of the 
programme to the changed circumstances. 

The political context of the programme related to 
irregular and legal migration has been explained 
in Section 3. 'Background to the initiative'.  
The contribution of the programme to changed 
circumstances has been developed in Section 
9.1.1. 'Relevance' and in Section 'Effectiveness' 
under the title 'Effectiveness of the principle of 
solidarity'. 

The evaluation does not draw clear conclusions 
on the strong and weak points of the programme, 
and the extent to which these conclusions remain 
relevant for policy makers today. 

The lessons drawn from the evaluation, including 
the ones that remain valid for the post-2020 
instrument have been added to the Section 10 
'Conclusions'. 

The relationship between the Fund's objectives 
and priorities is unclear. Given the programme's 
disparate and broad objectives, the report fails to 
establish how funding decisions related to goal 
achievement. As a result, the report presents little 
basis to conclude that the fund met its objectives. 

In Section 4 'the EBF as Funding instrument' we 
have clarified how the general objectives and 
priorities of EBF related to each other. Within the 
limitations expressed in Section 6. 'Method', we 
have developed the point on the achievement of 
the objective in Section 9.2 'Effectiveness'.   

The evaluation does not explain how effectively 
and efficiently funds were distributed. It is also 
unclear whether the EBF addressed Member 
States' priorities and the EU's most pressing 
needs, especially in countries with less pressure at 
their borders. There is a discrepancy between case 
study evidence and the conclusions of the 
evaluation. 

The method for allocating the funds to MSs was 
clarified in Section 7.1.  'Shared management 
through the implementation of the national 
programme'. The impact of this method was 
assessed in Section 9.1.1 'Relevance'. Data 
limitations on the use of case studies have been 
explained in Section 6. 'Method'. 

The evaluation does not provide clear lessons for 
the future implementation of EU financial 
instruments in the field of border controls and 
visas. 

In Section 10 'Conclusions' we have included 
lessons learnt that were not addressed by the 
current Fund and could be considered for the 
preparation of the post-2020 funding instrument. 

(C) Further considerations (of the RSB) and adjustment requirements 

(1) Drawing lessons  

The Staff Working Document (SWD) should 
clarify the purpose and general context of this 
evaluation. It should explain which other related 
evaluations are being or will be carried out (e.g. 
on the Internal Security Fund or ISF), what is the 
timing of these evaluations, whether they will 

The clarification of the purpose and general 
context has been improved, notably in Section 2. 
Introduction.  

57 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
analyse the longer-term effects of the EBF 
actions, and how their findings will feed into 
future programmes.  

The SWD should better describe the political 
context in which the EBF was conceived, and 
outline how the context has evolved over time. 
On this basis, the SWD should draw clear lessons 
from the evaluation of the 2011-13 period, 
explain which aspects have already been 
addressed in the current programming period (and 
how), and which lessons are still relevant in 
today's changed context. The SWD should clarify 
its interpretation of programme flexibility, 
including how this relates to multiannual 
programming. The relevance and value added 
sections should reflect these considerations.  

The political context and its evolution related to 
irregular and legal migration has been explained 
in Section 3. 'Background to the initiative'.  

The lessons drawn from the evaluation have been 
added to the Section 10. 'Conclusions' and are 
reflected in the whole document.  

In Section 9.1.1 Relevance we have explained 
better the flexibility of the Fund and how this 
impacted on the relevance. The lack of flexibility 
linked to the annual programming cycle is further 
explained in Section 9.3 'Efficiency', including 
how the current Fund addressed this issue.  

The SWD should more clearly link the case study 
evidence to the conclusions. Conclusions should 
inform policy maker for their deliberations for the 
post-2020 programming period, with appropriate 
caveats regarding data limitations.  

Data limitations on the use of case studies have 
been explained in Section 6. 'Method'. 
In Section 10. 'Conclusions' we have included 
lessons learnt not addressed by the current Fund 
which could be of interest for the preparation of 
the post-2020 funding instruments. 

The SWD could integrate these different aspects 
in a shorter report that does not repeat the 
findings of the detailed evaluation questions from 
the main report. 

DG HOME has opted for an encompassing SWD 
which includes the clarifications required; hence 
there will be no separate shorter report. 

Clarifications on Fund's objectives and priorities 
have been elaborated in Section 4 'the EBF as 
Funding instrument'  

(2) Intervention logic  

The SWD should explain how the Fund's 
objectives and priorities were defined and clarify 
how these relate to each other. It should also 
comment on the continued relevance of the 
Fund's objectives today. In case the objectives 
were defined in too broad terms, it should explain 
how they were used or modified in practice to 
guide programme implementation. If the defined 
objectives were not useful for evaluating the 
Fund's effectiveness, the SWD should clearly 
acknowledge this, and explain whether (and how) 
this has been addressed in the ISF. The SWD 
should then indicate relevant conclusions for 
setting objectives beyond 2020. 

58 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(3) Effectiveness and efficiency  

The SWD should better describe the criteria and 
mechanism for the geographical allocation of the 
funds. It should explain how the programme 
made operational the solidarity objective. It 
should provide data that illustrates the actual 
needs of Member States (e.g. 3 migratory 
movements, border crossings, length of external 
borders, risk factors etc.) and show how the funds 
were allocated with respect to these needs and 
added value to Member States' actions. This is 
important because the case studies describe 
several projects where EU value added was not 
obvious. The SWD should explain how projects 
were selected in a shared management context.  

The SWD should also explain practical 
limitations to measuring the Fund's efficiency, 
whether these limitations are addressed in the 
ISF, and how they might be further addressed in 
the next programming period. In particular, it 
should explore the underlying reasons for high 
administrative burdens observed in some 
countries. The SWD should take a more nuanced 
position on the extent to which public tendering 
delivers efficiency. 

The criteria and mechanism for the geographical 
allocation of the funds (including risk assessment 
by Frontex) and project selection in the shared 
management context have been described in 
Section 7.1 'Shared management through the 
implementation of the national programme'.  
The solidarity principle has been explained in 
Section 3. 'Background to the initiative', in 
Section 7.1 'Shared management through the 
implementation of national annual programmes' 
(method to allocate the funds to the MSs). Its 
effectiveness has been assessed in Section 9.2 
under 'Effectiveness of the solidarity principle'. 
In this part, examples have also been provided to 
show how emergency assistance was used to cater 
to the evolving needs of Member States. 
The selection of projects at national level is 
carried out by national authorities in full 
independence. A clarification on this point has 
been added in Section 3. 'Background to the 
initiative'. 

Limitations to measuring the Fund's efficiency 
and its mitigations have been explained in Section 
9.3.' Efficiency'. In the same section we have also 
explained whether these limitations are addressed 
in the ISF and we have explained the limitations 
of the use of public tendering as a tool to assess 
efficiency.  

Changes 
(Ares(2017)5760613 of 24 November 2017)  

in  response 

to 

the  Regulatory  Scrutiny  Board's  recommendations 

Main recommendations 

The report does not always clarify which 
conclusions/lessons from the EBF evaluation 
are still relevant today for the future 
development and implementation of financial 
programmes on EU border controls 

At this stage, as we cannot anticipate the 
outcome of the midterm review, all lessons 
learnt from this exercise are relevant for the 
development of the next generation of Fund 
on external borders.  

59 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The report does not sufficiently explain how 
the limited number of emergency measures 
allowed the EBF to accommodate the 
evolving needs of Member States due to 
changing circumstances. 

The contractor's report has been used to the 
maximum possible.  No additional 
information or analysis could be added to the 
report. The contractor's report was not very 
detailed with regards to the assessment of 
emergency actions. The contractor's report 
moreover underlines that 'The effects of the 
Emergency actions and how they correspond 
to Member States’ needs are more difficult to 
establish, as assistance has been released in 
highly dynamic and quickly changing 
circumstances, hence integrating target 
indicators into the actions was not the highest 
priority. Emergency actions follow no strict 
definition/scope; rather, funding under this 
type of action was assessed on a case by case 
basis.It was more important to address the 
urgent need than to develop detailed 
indicators and targets'. 

C) Further considerations and recommendations 

(1) Lessons to be learnt  

See above (first main recommendation) 

Section 6.1 has been further developed to 
include clarifications as to the changes 
introduced in the ISF legal framework. 

The report now lists the lessons learnt and 
indicates whether they were taken into 
account by the successor fund (ISF). The 
report could further clarify whether there are 
any lessons from the EBF evaluation which – 
without anticipating on the mid-term 
evaluation of the ISF - may still be of 
relevance for the programming of the next 
MFF.  

In particular:  
- The report could further develop the 
weaknesses of monitoring and how the 
necessary data collections can be ensured in 
the future. Given that the evaluation was 
hindered by data limitations, the report could 
be more precise in the conclusion on the data 
missing (e.g. average administrative costs, 
costs of staff for measuring efficiency) and 
indicate whether the ISF addresses these 
problems.  

- Regarding administrative costs, the report 

60 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
refers to the solutions brought by the ISF to 
address the sometimes high management 
costs of the Fund, especially for smaller 
countries. The report could clarify for 
example how "increasing the percentage of 
allocation that can be used for technical 
assistance" will help to reduce these costs 
(see footnote 160).  

The report could better reflect important data 
limitations in order to avoid too affirmative 
conclusions on the programme's performance 
(see for example how successes in border 
control and in flows of persons at borders are 
too easily attributed to the fund in section 
9.2).  

We understand this comment is linked to 
footnote 129. The text linked to this footnote 
has been clarified.  

Nuances were made throughout Section 9.2 
to clarify that, due to the lack of a baseline 
and of comparable indicators the evaluation 
of the programme's performance relied on 
qualitative reporting from Member States and 
focused mostly on outputs. Several 
affirmative conclusions were re-drafted to 
clarify that, based on Member State reports, 
the Fund has been found to have contributed 
to positive outputs. No causal links have been 
established but where possible potential links 
have been suggested. 

(2) Lack of flexibility of the Fund 

The report explains the problems that 
Member States encountered with the annual 
programming cycles and how flexibility has 
been provided in the context of the EBF 
(section 9.3). However, the report could be 
more precise in setting out whether the Fund 
has been flexible enough and sufficiently 
resourced to respond to the rapidly changing 
migratory patterns. The report could further 
clarify in how far the need for flexibility has 
been met by the new measures under the ISF. 

The contractor's report has been used to the 
maximum possible.  No additional 
information or analysis could be added to the 
report. The contractor's report was not very 
detailed with regards to the assessment of 
emergency actions, which were the most 
flexible part of the Fund and help addressed 
changing needs of the Member States. 
However additional clarifications were made 
concerning the elements of flexibility brought 
by the ISF (emergency assistance) in 
comparison to the emergency assistance 
granted under the EBF (Section 9.1). 

61 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 2 - STAKEHOLDERS' CONSULTATION 

Overview 

In  order  to  inform  the  ex  post  evaluation  of  the  External  Borders  Fund  (EBF)  2011-2013, 
several stakeholders were consulted through public and targeted consultations conducted both 
by  the  European  Commission  on  the  one  hand,  and  an  external  consulting  company 
specialised in evaluation in the framework of their contract with the Commission to provide a 
study on the ex post evaluation of the implementation of the EBF ('the external evaluators'). 
This Annex provides an overview of the consultation processes and the type of stakeholders 
consulted, and presents the results of these consultations.  

The public consultation conducted by the European Commission 

Between 10 May 2016 and 9 August 2016, the European Commission held an Internet-based 
open  public  consultation  on  the  EBF  2011-2013  in  the  form  of  an  online  questionnaire. 
Contributions  were  sought  from  individuals  (experts,  beneficiaries),  local  and  national 
Member  State  authorities,  intergovernmental  and  non-governmental  organisations,  social 
partners  and  civil  society,  academic  institutions,  international  organisations,  and  EU 
Institutions  and  Agencies.  The  final  number  of  respondents  was  low:  ten  participants  from 
eight Member States (CY, ES, HU, LT, LV, MT, PT and SI), all representatives of a public 
authority.  Given  this  low  response  rate,  contributions  cannot  be  considered  as  being 
representative  of  the  targeted  stakeholders,  but  the  results  may  provide  additional  insights 
nonetheless and will be presented below together with the findings of the other consultations. 
Another limitation is the fact that the information available on the identities of the participants 
is based on self-reported values which cannot be verified. 

The consultations conducted by the external evaluators 

The  external  evaluators  conducted  a  targeted  consultation  using  three  different  types  of 
interview with varied types of stakeholders. This section provides an overview of each type of 
interview and the consultation process that took place in each case. Access to the relevant EU-
level stakeholders, as well as RAs, was supported by the unit responsible for the evaluation 
(DG  HOME,  Unit  E2),  while  access  to  relevant  beneficiaries  was  often  provided  by  the 
Responsible Authorities. Stakeholders were first approached via e-mail introducing the study 
and the importance of their contribution, including a letter of introduction from DG HOME. 

1)  EU-level  interviews  were  carried  out  with  relevant  personnel  currently  or  formerly 
working for DG HOME. In total 20 stakeholders from DG HOME and one stakeholder from 
Frontex were consulted either through telephone interviews or through face to face interviews. 
In  these  interviews,  stakeholders  were  asked  about  the  intervention  logic  (problems  and 
needs, objectives, inputs, activities, outputs, results and impacts) of the EBF 2011-2013 as a 
whole at EU level, and on the evaluation criteria (relevance, utility, effectiveness, efficiency, 
sustainability, coherence, complementarity and EU added value). 

2) National interviews were also carried out with the RAs of all 28 participating countries, 
first  through  a  telephone  interview  on  the  same  topics  as  the  EU  representatives,  and  then 
focusing on the national level instead of EU-wide level. This second conversation built upon 
the  information  already  provided  in  the  National  Evaluation  Reports  (NERs)  submitted  by 
Member States to the European Commission by November 2015. 

62 

 
 
 
 
3) The RAs in the 12 selected case studies (FR, IT, ES, DE, CZ, FI, EL, CH, BG, PO, HU, 
NO)  were  then  consulted  a  second  time  through  case  study  interviews  regarding  the 
intervention logic elements of the specific National Action the case study related to, as well as 
the evaluation criteria of this National Action. From October 2015 to March 2016, a total 110 
beneficiaries  from  these  case  study  countries  were  also  consulted  on  these  same  subjects 
through  face-to-face  interviews  held  during  field  visits.  Over  140  interviews  with  RAs  and 
beneficiaries took place, as well as 12 field visits to the case study countries. 

Results 

The most  relevant results of the consultations carried out by the European Commission and 
the  external  evaluators are  grouped  in  this  section  and  presented  according  to  the following 
evaluation  criteria:  relevance  and  utility,  effectiveness,  efficiency,  sustainability,  coherence 
and complementarity, and EU added value. 

Relevance  

Generally, the RAs and beneficiaries consulted found that the actions funded by the EBF were 
relevant  (EBF  objectives  corresponded  to  their  needs)  both  at  EU  level  and  for  individual 
Member States. The European Commission public consultations support the positive findings 
of  the  other  stakeholder  consultations.  Question  8  of  the  Commission's  public  consultation 
asked participants whether, in their opinion, the projects and activities supported or financed 
by the Fund addressed the needs related to the management of the EU external borders and 
the processing of the Schengen visas. The majority (6/10) replied "Yes", 2/10 "Generally yes, 
but with some problems" and 2/10 "Don't know". 

Interviews with representatives of RAs indicated that potential beneficiaries of the EBF (such 
as  Border  Police/National  Police  and  various  structures  within  the  Ministries  of  Foreign 
Affairs (MFA) or Ministries of the Interior (MOI)) were involved in the identification of high-
priority  needs  related  to  their  specific  areas  of  responsibility.  The  Multiannual  Programmes 
(MAP) and Annual Programmes (APs) were elaborated through a participatory process where 
potential  beneficiaries  were  invited  to  present  their  specific  needs  to  the  national  RA.  RAs 
from IT, PL, HU, RO and BG highlighted that they sought to ensure that planned investments 
were in line with national strategic priorities, in order to guarantee that projects selected for 
implementation under Member States' APs corresponded to their needs. 

Regarding the prioritisation of needs, the major criterion for investments at external borders 
was the migration pressure experienced by Member States in recent years (interview with DG 
Migration  and  Home  Affairs  official),  but  some  countries  also  highlighted  the  need  for 
investments  at  borders  not  experiencing  immediate  migration  pressures  (eastern  and  north-
eastern EU borders). 

Direct  management  actions,  including  Community,  Emergency  and  Specific  Actions,  had 
separate  objectives  and  priorities  identified  and  agreed  on  an  annual  basis,  which  refer  to 
those in  the basic  act. In general, Community action  priorities have  been stable but flexible 
enough to direct resources where they are most needed, for example for using the majority of 
annual funds for emergency assistance. They have also been of high relevance to support the 
needs of broader and strategic EU-level initiatives such as EUROSUR through support to the 

63 

 
 
 
 
interlinking  and  exchange  of  information  between  Member  State  National  Coordination 
Centres. 

Effectiveness 

EBF  investments  contributed  to  the  national  components  of  the  common  Integrated  Border 
Management  System  (IBMS)  for  the  protection  of  the  EU  external  borders,  especially 
regarding:  checks  on  persons  at  BCPs,  the  development  and  implementation  of  the  national 
components of a European Surveillance System for external borders, and the strengthening of 
cooperation  between  different  national  EU  agencies  involved  in  the  protection  of  borders. 
Question  4  of  the  Commission's  public  consultation  asked  participants  whether,  based  on 
respondents'  experience,  the  actions  financed  by  the  Fund  in  their  Member  State  were 
consistent  with  the  general  and  specific  objectives  of  the  Fund.  The  vast  majority  of 
respondents  (8/10)  thought  that  the actions  were  consistent  with  the  objectives  of  the  Fund, 
thus replied "Yes", 1/10 answered "Generally yes" and 1/10 "Don't know". 

The  EBF  promoted  a  homogenous  approach  to  checks  on  persons  applied  by  the 
participating States at the external EU borders and increased the overall quality of these 
checks, through the installation of ABC gates (in BE, BG, EE, ES, FI, HU, IT, NL and NO, 
for example) as well as the implementation of large information sharing systems such as VIS. 
EL and RO constructed or upgraded the most detention facilities (20 and 12 respectively). In 
terms of the effectiveness of e-gates, BE, FI, IT and NL reported an increase in efficiency of 
border  checks  of  travellers,  a  reduction  of  the  processing  time  per  passenger  (BE),  more 
effective  use  of  human  resources  (BE,  EE,  NO)  and  the  quality/security  of  border  checks 
through facial recognition and document checks (BE, NL, NO). Some countries found that e-
gates contributed to smooth border crossings (FI and NL), reduced queuing (FL and NL) and 
improved  customer  satisfaction  (FI  and  NO).  NO  however  indicated  that  the  time  spent  at 
border  controls  was  not  necessarily  shortened  when  passengers  used  the  automated  border 
control check (NO case study). BG and HU also noted a lower than expected usage rate of the 
e-gates by passengers. 

Several countries acquired equipment or set up systems aimed at improving the detection of 
false travel documents or visas, such as the provision of access to databases or the setting up 
of  data  systems  for  the  verification  of  document  validity  and  authenticity  (BE,  DE,  NO), 
equipment for checking security features on travel documents and detecting their counterfeits 
(EE, EL, FR, IT, LT). 

Regarding the area of surveillance, four Member States (ES, FR, NO and SI) established or 
upgraded  a  single  National  Coordination  Centre  (NCC)  with  EBF  funding  under  Specific 
Priority 2.1 in the time-frame of 2011-2013. All actions in this area were perceived by these 
countries  as  effective.  Four  countries  took  actions  to  establish  or  upgrade  the  national 
surveillance system (EE, ES, FR, and HU) under Specific Priority 2.2. As they had already set 
up surveillance systems by 2011, their investments aimed to upgrade or improve the current 
systems. 

Most EBF funding under Priority 2 was used by Member States (BG, EE, ES, FI, IT, MT, and 
NL) to purchase, upgrade or repair different types of equipment for detection, identification 
and intervention at the borders under Specific Priority 2.3. This included, for example: 

•  Thermal, night vision and/or infrared cameras (EE and SE). 

64 

 
 
•  Radars and/or sensors (HU, EE, SE). 
•  Helicopters and aircraft (BE, CY, EL, ES, FI, FR, IT and MT, SI). 
•  Vessels/boats (DE, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HU, IT, LT, MT, NL, NO, PT, RO). 
•  Vehicles (BG, EL, ES, FI, HU, IT, LT, MT, NO, PL, PT, RO, SE, SI, SK). 

The  purchase  of  surveillance  equipment  enabled  Member  States  to  increase  their  border 
surveillance  capacity  to  detect  irregular  migrants  at  the  border  and  improve  the  reaction 
capacity.  EE  and  SE  for  example  noted  that,  as  a  large  part  of  the  surveillance  activities  in 
their  countries  is  conducted  at  night  time  or  in  the  winter  season,  infrared  and  night  vision 
cameras  helped  to  improve  visibility  and  enabled  detection  of  vessels  at  the  sea  border  and 
irregular migrants at the land border. 

Only a few countries invested in the building and upgrading of areas and centres for persons 
whose  entry  is  refused  and  for  persons  who  are  intercepted  after  having  crossed  the  border 
irregularly. Interview responses show that RAs and/or beneficiaries experienced difficulties in 
assessing exactly which element of funding was relevant for which fund. Only four Member 
States  (CY,  EL,  LT  and  RO)  invested  in  the  construction  or  upgrading  of  38  detention 
facilities  and  construction  or  upgrading  of  547  places  with  detention  facilities  through  EBF 
2011-2013 funding. 

Strengthening  of  cooperation  took  place  between  different  national  and  EU  agencies 
involved in the protection of borders, through the implementation of the information sharing 
system SIS II or other large surveillance systems that allow for sharing of information with 
other  Member  States  (for  example  SPATIONAV  in  FR  and  SIVE  in  ES),  or  through  the 
deployment of Immigration Liaison Officers (ILOs) and by allowing Frontex to use some of 
the  equipment  purchased.  Some  problems  were  identified  in  the  rolling  out  of  large  ITech 
systems,  sometimes  due  to  the  different  technical  standards  used  by  Member  States.  FI 
reported a trade-off between ensuring a system was built adequately and the need to do so in a 
timely manner, such as where a temporary solution had to be developed. Some actions funded 
under  the  EBF  2011-2013  APS  which  were  seen  to  foster  operational  cooperation  between 
Member  States  in  the  field  of  border  control  were  the  establishment  of  NCCs  (ES,  NO  and 
SI),  and  the  fact  that  some  Member  States  subscribed  to  international  databases/systems, 
which  allows  them  to  authenticate  and  check  travel  documents  such  as  the  Public  Key 
Directory of the ICAO (BE and SE) and the Interpol ASF SLTD (DE). 

Under  EBF  Community  Actions  (2010-2013  AWPs)  there  were  25  Emergency  Actions, 
which  were  focused  mainly  on  the  provision  of  first  aid  and  medical  assistance  (IT),  the 
reinforcement  of  BCPs  in  Ceuta  and  Melilla  (ES),  the  reinforcement  of  first  reception 
services, provision of support for migrant reception, and the deployment of border guards and 
multidisciplinary teams (BG and EL). Part of the emergency assistance was also allocated to 
assist CY, CZ, EE, LU, MT, NL, PT and SK in the final stages of the SIS II development. The 
RA  from  ES  reported  that  emergency  assistance  was  instrumental  to  handling  critical 
situations, because it was the most flexible part of the EBF and allowed funding to be released 
quickly where most needed. Emergency assistance was also found highly effective in the case 
of BG, whose authorities had in general very little experience of handling migration influx to 
the extent seen in the second half of 2013. 

Other  responses  were  mixed.  Representatives  of  Implementing  Authorities  from  IT  and  ES 
reported  lengthy  and  cumbersome  procurement  procedures  which  were  not  compatible  with 
the  objectives  and  needs  underlying  Emergency  Actions.  Implementing  Authority 

65 

 
 
representatives  from  IT  highlighted  challenges  related  to  implementing  Emergency  (and 
Specific) Actions and assessing their effectiveness (interview with two representatives of the 
Central  Directorate for Technical-Logistic Services  and Assets  Management, IT Ministry  of 
Interior). The interviewees reported that since the implementation of the Emergency Actions, 
there has been a 30% improvement in the intervention performances of the IT authorities, but 
it was difficult to measure the extent to which this improvement is due to the EBF given the 
absence  of  precise  reporting  indicators  and  duties  established  ex-ante  for  the  actions 
conducted  using  EBF-purchased  goods/resources.  At  the  same  time,  introducing  reporting 
duties  for  the  beneficiaries  seemed  at  odds  with  the  emergency  nature  of  the  implemented 
actions.  In the  case of IT, in  order to precisely assess the outcomes/results of the actions, it 
would have been necessary to register every single operation conducted using tools/resources 
obtained  through  the  EBF.  This  would  have  constituted  a  further  burden  for  the  authorities 
engaged in the actual operations. 

Efficiency 

Overall,  reports  from  RAs  and  beneficiaries  on  the  implementation  of  the  EBF  2011-2013 
tended to be positive and suggested that the observed effects of the EBF were achieved, in the 
majority  of  cases,  at  an  efficient  cost.  Question  9  of  the  Commission's  public  consultation 
asked  whether  participants  considered  that  the  effects  of  the  actions  carried  out  under  the 
Fund were achieved at a reasonable cost in terms of financial and human resources deployed. 
The majority of respondents (6/10) considered that the effects of the EBF actions carried out 
in their country were achieved at a reasonable cost in terms of financial and human resources 
deployed  to  some  extent.  3/10  answered  "Generally  yes,  but  with  some  problems",  1/10 
"Don't know" 

to  comprehensive  management  and  control  systems, 

At the national level, EBF actions were reported as being implemented efficiently thanks in 
large  part 
including  stringent 
procurement procedures. At the European level, the Commission was reported to have been 
dedicated to ensuring efficiency through the time committed to the management of the EBF, 
the  provision  of  support  to  Member  States  and  the  carrying  out  of  audits  and  monitoring 
processes. Several countries reported positive interactions with the Commission, but most also 
highlighted issues such as a perceived high level of administrative burden, management costs, 
and the timeliness of programming cycle lengths. 

Regarding  the  efficiency  of  procurement  procedures,  the  findings  of  the  12  country  case 
studies show high levels of efficiency in the processes used, despite the pressures to complete 
the procedures in a limited amount of time. Examples of cases worth highlighting are: 

•  In  2011  in  IT  the  limited  time  made  available  by  the  EBF  annual  programme 
conditioned  the  choice  of  the  type  of  public  procurement  process  adopted  for  the 
implementation  of  the  action.  Given  some  delay  in  the  drafting  of  the  tender 
specification  for  the  acquisition  of  two  helicopters,  an  extension  for  the  delivery  and 
testing of the vehicles was agreed. 

•  In  CH,  the  costs  of  the  contracts  were  determined  only  after  negotiation  procedures 
between the contracting authority, relevant stakeholders and the contractors. To a large 
extent, the costs were based on hourly rates of work, which allowed some comparison to 
market  prices.  A  monitoring  and  supervision  system  ensured  that  resources  were 

66 

 
 
 
allocated and spent efficiently (data provided by the beneficiary). An ad-hoc audit on all 
public  procurement  relevant  to  the  EBF  was  conducted  by  the  Swiss  Federal  Audit 
Office. The European Commission identified irregularities on two contracts of the AP 
2011 due to conflict of interests, but established that this did not lead to financial loss 
for  the  contracting  authority.  However,  the  Commission  applied  a  100%  financial 
correction on the affected contracts and decreased the amount of the  EBF contribution 
(CH case study). 

•  Existing  frameworks  played  an  important  role  in  ensuring  the  efficiency  of  the 
procedures.  In  FI,  the  central  purchasing  body  of  the  government  signed  framework 
contracts with vehicle suppliers, whereby the RA and Finnish Border Guards (FBG) had 
input in specifying requirements through the system's website, with the lowest price as a 
key selection criterion. This simplified the process of selecting and acquiring the desired 
vehicles,  eliminated 
tender  procedures,  negotiations  and  appeals,  and 
guaranteed maximum efficiency (FI case study). 

lengthy 

Regarding  efficiency  at  the  national  level,  the  majority  of  countries  whose  RAs  were 
interviewed, found that, to a large extent, EBF-funded actions were undertaken in an efficient 
manner,  with  the  'value  for  money'  principle  considered  as  a  key  driver  (BE,  BG,  CY,  CZ, 
DE, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HU, IS, IT, LT, MT, NL, NO, PL, RO, SE, SI and SK). National 
management  and  control  systems  were  regarded  as  vital  to  ensuring  efficiency,  the  AT 
Federal Ministry (BMI), for example, stated that "processing the EBF required an appropriate 
management  and  control  system".  RO  stated  that  following  public  procurement  regulations 
was  the  main  instrument  to  ensure  efficiency  of  the  resources  utilised  (RO  NER).  In  LT,  it 
was essential for public procurement procedures to be undertaken in accordance with national 
procurement  law  as  well  as  Article  11  of  the  EBF  Implementing  Rules.  Additional  success 
factors  reported  by  AT,  BG  and  RO  were  the  presence  of  staff  with  experience  in  the 
management of EU funds and continuity of staff/minimal turnover. 

Difficulties  encountered  by  participating  countries  varied.  PT  reported  that  efficiency  could 
not  be  evaluated  due  to  a  lack  of  foresight  at  national  level  in  determining  relevant  and 
consistent impact, result and output indicators, and in implementing a system to collect such 
data. PT also encountered difficulties approving projects and problems in public procurement 
due  to  a  lack  of  familiarity  with  EU  legislation  on  this  area.  Other  issues  reported  included 
insufficient financial and HR capacities (AT, BE, PT, CZ, EE, EL, FI, IT and RO); incorrect 
interpretation  of  priorities  (BE  and  PT);  and  issues  such  as  the  need  to  impose  financial 
corrections  on  contractors  and/or  difficulties  in  appealing  against  public  procurement 
decisions (BG, CZ, EE, IT and RO). 

In  relation  to  specific  types  of  projects,  many  countries  perceived  ITech  projects  to  be 
relatively inefficient, particularly those related to Priority 4 (AT, EE, FI, NO, RO). 

Regarding efficiency at EU level, Member States reported on a number of positive elements 
related  to  the  Fund's  management  which  improved  its  efficiency.  One  element  was  good 
cooperation  between  the  Member  States  and  European  Commission  desk  officers.  For 
example,  the  AT  RA  representative  stated  that  frequent  consultation  with  the  European 
Commission  was  considered  very  useful,  especially  as  they  had  the  same  desk  officer 
throughout  the  Fund's  duration.  Several  countries,  such  as  ES,  highlighted  advantages 
resulting from the Fund's flexibility.  

67 

 
 
 
However, European Commission (EC) representatives and the majority of countries reported 
some issues regarding EBF efficiency, such as a lack of human resource capacity to monitor 
implementation  of  national  actions.  Both  Commission  representatives  and  countries  also 
mentioned: timeliness related to the programming cycle length (EC, AT, BE, IT, NL, NO and 
RO);  interpretation  of  the  scope  of  the  EBF  (EC  and  MT);  and  issues  relating  to  project 
implementation (EC). Several Member States (AT, BE, DK, DE, EE, FI, IS, IT, NL and PT) 
also reported dissatisfaction with the level of administrative and management costs they had 
to contribute. Factors influencing this dissatisfaction included: the use of EBF rules (such as 
procurement  procedures)  alongside  national  rules  (DK);  unfamiliarity  with  EBF  rules  and 
procedures and difficulty implementing these rules (AT); and lack of programme planning at 
national and EU level (IS). 

Sustainability 

Overall, most of the actions funded under the EBF in 2011-2013 were considered sustainable 
by  the  stakeholders  interviewed,  as  shown  in  the  case  studies  carried  out  by  the  external 
evaluators.  This  is  confirmed  by  the  findings  of  the  European  Commission  public 
consultations. Question 10 of the public consultation questionnaire asked participants whether 
they  considered  that  improved  services  and  procedures  (achieved  also  through  the  Fund) 
would  continue  without  EU  support  in  their  country.  The  majority  of  respondents  (7/10) 
stated  that  improved  services  and  procedures  (achieved  also  through  the  Fund)  would 
continue  without  EU  financial  support.  1/10  replied  "Generally  yes,  although  with  some 
problems", 1/10 "Don't know" and 1/10 "No". 

Some  minor exceptions mentioned by RAs were  due to delays or  lack of trained personnel. 
For example, BG RA and beneficiary (Border Police) reported that mobile surveillance posts 
that  are  part  of  the  integrated  surveillance  system  at  the  Bulgarian-Turkish  border  were 
introduced only in March 2016 due to administrative obstacles. NO also reported that mobile 
border check units were utilised to a limited extent due to a lack of operators. 

Regarding warranties, beneficiaries and the RAs reported when interviewed that these were 
in  place  for  all  acquired  assets.  PL  reported  a  good  practice  in  this  area,  where  in  order  to 
secure a longer useful life of the purchased equipment selection criteria in the procurement of 
surveillance  equipment  included  the  length  of  warranty  terms  and  the  offered  technical 
support (interview with a Border Guard beneficiary in PL). Most of the acquired equipment 
therefore  obtained  a  five-year  warranty.  Border  officers  were  also  required  to  purchase 
personal  accident  insurance,  covering  personnel  use  of  equipment  (interview  with  the  PL 
Border Guard). RO identified a similar practice. 

Regarding  financial  support,  most  of  the  officers  from  the  RAs  interviewed  claimed  that 
financial  support  for  the  continued  utilisation  of  acquired  assets  is  secured  either  through 
national budgets or through the ISF (NL, RO). The issue of insufficient finances or finances 
not guaranteed was highlighted as being of serious concern for a number of investments. For 
example  when  helicopters  were  acquired  under  the  2011  AP  in  IT,  operational  and 
maintenance costs were not secured in the budget of the beneficiary (National Police), as no 
ex-ante  assessment  of  the  investment  was  carried  out.  As  public  tenders  were  applied,  the 
beneficiary  expressed  concerns  that  lengthy  procedures  may  lead  to  interruptions  in  the 
validity of the helicopters for emergency response (IT case study). 

68 

 
 
 
Other  projects  reported  as  having  raised  sustainability  concerns  due  to  financial  constraints 
were: 

•  the deployment of ILOs in third countries, as it required significant operating costs after 

the EBF actions were terminated (HU, CH NER); 

•  consular  cooperation  in  third  countries,  as  it  also  involves  recurring  costs  for  the 
common application centres (interview with DG Migration and Home Affairs officer); 
•  the  deployment  of  sufficient  border  guard  officers  in  EL  after  the  end  of  the  ad-hoc 
reinforcement operation at the land border with Turkey, although by design, the ad-hoc 
operation  had  very  limited  sustainability  as  it  covered  operational  costs  for  the 
redeployment of police officers from EL (case study). 

Regarding training of personnel, interviews with RAs and beneficiaries in BG, IT and PL 
revealed  that  for  complex  equipment  systems  such  as  surveillance  systems  and  helicopters, 
the  terms  of  procurement  included  training  of  end-users.  This  ensured  the  sustainability  of 
assets, as trainees could share their knowledge and skills with additional end-users (MT). HU 
and NO mentioned that when the intervention itself was training of staff, the sustainability of 
the positive effects was shorter due to changing technologies and practices and the need for 
continuous  training.  AT  and  HU  quoted  the  high  turnover  of  personnel  as  a  negative  factor 
affecting sustainability of training projects. 

The different types of activities funded under Community Actions do not allow a general 
statement  on  their  sustainability.  ILOs  and  common  visa  application  centres  were  generally 
assessed  as  unsustainable  beyond  the  end  of  the  particular  project  due  to  the  high  running 
costs  involved.  Investments  made  on  surveillance  capacities  and  interoperability  of 
surveillance tools are expected to be sustainable due to the continued needs for their use under 
EUROSUR integration. Regarding Emergency Actions, there was interest from beneficiaries 
in BG in the continuation of emergency assistance with follow-up actions. 

Coherence and Complementarity 

Overall,  stakeholders  assessed  positively  the  coherence  and  complementarity  of  the  EBF 
actions  with  other  EU  and  national  interventions  related  to  the  management  of  the  EU 
external  borders  and  the  Schengen  visa.  The  EBF  was  also  found  to  complement  national 
resources used by Member States to comply with both relevant EU legislation in the field of 
border  management  and  visa  processing,  and  international  commitments  taken  at  a  higher 
security  level.  Synergies  between  overall  EBF  programming  and  activities  conducted  by 
Frontex were also identified. 

The  results  of  the  European  Commission's  public  consultation  confirm  these  findings. 
Question 11 of the consultation asked participants whether they considered that projects and 
actions supported by the Fund were coherent and complementary to other actions in the same 
field funded by other EU financial instruments and national resources of the Member States, 
including  activities  implemented  by  Frontex.  The  majority  of  respondents  (8/10)  found  that 
projects and actions funded by the EBF were coherent and complementary to other actions in 
the  same  field  funded  by  other  EU  financial  instruments.  1/10  replied  "Generally  yes,  but 
some  actions  were  not  coherent  with  and  complementary  to  other  actions"  and  1/10  stated 
"Don't know". 

69 

 
 
 
The  degree  of  complementarity  between  the  EBF  and  other  EU  financing  tools  varied 
significantly  across  Member  States.  Member  States  (BG,  EU,  HU,  LT,  RO  and  SI)  which 
benefited from the SF (Schengen Facility) and PHARE (Programme of Community aid to the 
countries  of  Central  and  Eastern  Europe),  highlighted  strong  programmatic  and  operational 
interlinks  between  these  funds  and  the  EBF.  But  AT,  DK  and  NL  indicated  that  projects 
funded under the EBF were isolated activities and that no other EU financial instruments were 
used for actions in the field of external border and Schengen visa processing. In EL, ES, IT 
and  CY,  EBF  priorities  were  complemented  by  EU  funds  not  specifically  directed  at 
supporting border control and visa processing activities. 

Some Member States (AT, BU, EE, LT and PT) noted that they built on the knowledge and 
experience  gained  through  the  implementation  of  previous  and/or  interrelated  EU  funds  for 
the implementation of EU actions. For example, in LT, training projects carried out under the 
EBF's  Priority  5  (STS)  are  the  follow  up  of  the  Special  Kaliningrad  Transit  programme  for 
2004-2006,  the  training  financed  by  the  European  Social  Fund  and  by  the  Norwegian 
Financial Mechanism. These trainings corresponded highly to those financed by the EBF and 
further enhanced the skills of officers used in the Schengen visa processing and external EU 
border control systems. 

The  external  evaluators  also  found,  based  on  National  Evaluation  Reports  (NERs),  that 
synergies  were  developed  between  the  EBF  and  EU  initiatives  undertaken  under  the 
Neighbourhood Policy framework with, for example, the Estonia-Latvia-Russia cross-border 
cooperation  Programme;  the  European  Structural  and  Investment  Funds,  in  particular  the 
European Regional development Fund (ERDF); and the European Social Fund. 

Regarding complementarity between the EBF and national activities relating to external 
borders and short-term visa processing, 11 Member States (AT, BG, CZ, DK, EL, ES, FR, 
HU, FI, IT and NO) reported that the 2011-2013 EBF APs were implemented as components 
of  larger  national  projects  and  supplemented  other  strategies  and  activities  financed  from 
national  budgets.  CZ,  ES,  FR  and  NL  also  reported  that  complementarity  was  ensured  by 
avoiding  overlaps  and  double  financing.  FR  highlighted  a  strong  complementarity  among 
EBF funds and national contributions, particularly in the area of visa equipment. 

In  relation  to  synergies  between  EBF  overall  programming  and  activities  conducted  by 
Frontex,  EL,  FI,  FR  and  IT  confirmed  that  the  actions  conducted  in  the  framework  of  the 
EBF,  particularly  actions  under  EBF  Priorities  1  and  2,  were  coherent  with  Frontex's 
objectives  of  increasing  Member  State  response  rapidity  and  overall  capability.  ES,  IT,  FI, 
LT, NL, PT, RO and SE reported that when implementing EBF supported actions directed at 
the  purchase  of  aircraft,  vessels,  vehicles  and  equipment,  the  ability  to  conduct  joint 
operations has been expressly taken into account. Other Member States (BE, BG, EE, FI, HU, 
IT  and  RO)  found  that  EBF  contributed  in  some  way  to  aligning  the  training  activities 
delivered  to  border  authorities  to  the  common  training  standards  developed  by  Frontex.  EE 
and  FI  also  identified  synergies  between  EBF  actions  and  Frontex's  role  in  the  field  of 
research and development. 

EU added Value 

According to the interviews conducted with Member State RAs and the case studies, the EBF 
was  found  to  have  significantly  helped  to  fill  gaps  in  national  public  funding,  and  to  have 

70 

 
 
 
supported the national efforts in the implementation of the different priorities underlying the 
funds.  The  results  of  the  European  Commission  public  consultation  confirm  this  trend. 
Question 1 asked participants whether they considered that the implementation of the Fund in 
their  country  had  affected  positively  the  work  of  the  public  administrations  dealing  with 
border  management.  The  majority  of  survey  participants  found  that  the  implementation  of 
EBF during 2011-2013 had indeed affected positively the work of the public administrations. 
8/10 replied "Generally yes, to a great extent", 1/10 Partially yes, but to limited extent", 1/10 
"Don't know" 

The  EBF  added  value  was  seen  as  particularly  high  in  countries  with  limited  financial 
resources and/or facing tight budgetary constraints (CY, EL, FI, FR, IT, LT, NL, NO, PT and 
RO). According to these countries, the EBF helped to make possible large investments which 
would not have been made otherwise, or would only have been made with significant delays 
occurring  in  all  areas  of  intervention  of  the  EBF.  EL,  ES  and  IT  also  indicated  that 
investments related to EUROSUR would not have been possible without EBF contributions. 
For  example,  interviews  conducted  during  the  ES  case  study  visit  confirmed  that  the 
construction  of  the  operations  centre  for  the  Maritime  Border  and  Coastal  Surveillance 
Control Centre would not have taken place without EBF funding, as EBF provided 95% of the 
funds for these actions. 

For DE, EE and FI the EBF also had a considerable added value in the area of Smart Borders 
Package, as it either made funds available which were not available to the required extent for 
the purpose of improving the sustainability of surveillance systems, or it significantly speeded 
up  the  upgrade  and  renewal  of  operational  equipment  for  border  surveillance.  No  country 
reported low EU added value in this area. Regarding investments made for the conduction of 
border  management  activities  in  general,  6  Member  States  (BE,  BG,  HU,  EE,  ES  and  IT) 
reported the EBF to be an essential or substantial source of financial support. In this area, the 
EBF was seen to have had limited added value only with respect to the acquisition of state-of-
the-art technology at EU external borders. 

Nine Member States (CY, CZ, EE, EL, ES, IT, LT, PT and SI) referred to the establishment 
and  development  of  ITech  systems,  in  particular  VIS  and  SIS  II,  as  essential  or  at  least 
considerable. 

Five Member States (AT, BE, BG, FI and HU) highlighted Consular cooperation as another 
area  where  the  EBF  contributions  allowed  several  beneficiary  countries  to  implement 
measures that could not have been implemented to the same extent by national funding alone. 
HU indicated the ILOs as one of the projects where EBF support had particular added value. 

Regarding  Frontex  operations,  IT,  SE  and  BG  affirmed  that  the  EBF  financial  support 
allowed  both  an  increase  in  the  number  of  available  assets  and  an  improvement  of  the 
technical  features  of  vehicles  that  have  been  put  at  the  disposal  of  Frontex.  Without  EBF 
contributions, a strict prioritisation of available resources would have been necessary. The RA 
of SE stated in an interview that without the Fund the investment for SIS II would have been 
made using national resources, but this would have engendered a lack of resources for other 
initiatives  which  proved  both  relevant  to  the  beneficiary's  needs  and  the  overall  EBF 
objectives, but also complementary to Frontex activities. 

71 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX 3 - METHODOLOGY 

Study conducted by external evaluators   

The preparatory ex post evaluation study conducted by the external evaluators was regarded 
as  providing  the  most  robust  and  impartial  overview  possible  of  the  Fund  because  it  was 
highly structured: 

•  A regular and transparent dialogue took place between the Commission services and the 

contractors; 

•  The parameters of the contract were clearly set out and respected; 
•  The Fund's management modes are clearly distinguished in the methodology; 
•  All data sources were assessed and presented data are clearly labelled; 
•  3-tiered analysis was elaborated. 

Communication between the Commission services and the external evaluators 

The  study's  progress  was  followed  by  an  Inter-service  Steering  Group  (ISG)  comprised  of 
officials from SG, DG BUDG, DG JUST, DG TAXUD, DG HOME (particularly Units A2, 
B2, B3, C2, E1, E2 and E3) as well as the contractors with their partners and experts. Four 
meetings  took  place  between  the  contractors  and  the  ISG  and  structured  feedback  (in  both 
directions)  was  provided  on  a  weekly  basis  throughout  the  contract.  This  two-way  dialogue 
was  enriched  by  the  active  participation  in  the  ISG  of  policy  and  implementation  units  and 
shadowed by horizontal units and the Secretariat-General.   

Modes and phases 

Shared  and  direct  management  modes  are  clearly  distinguished  in  the  external  study's 
methodology and in the presentation of findings. Shared management comprises actions co-
financed by the EBF under the 2011-2013 Annual Programmes implemented by the Member 
States (including the Special Transit Scheme). The scope of direct management in the study 
was  the  EBF  2010-2013  Community  Actions  (including  Emergency  Actions)  and  the  EBF 
2010-2012 Specific Actions.  

Another structuring feature of the external evaluation was the segmentation of the tasks into 
clearly  defined  phases  which  were  closely  observed  by  all  parties.  These  phases  had  been 
determined in the Terms of Reference. Adherence to the Terms of Reference made the study 
itself more efficient and transparent. 

Data sources and quality 

The information analysed by the contractors can be regrouped into two categories: 

1.  Documentation relating to implementation – legal acts; high level contextual documents 
(i.e.  Frontex  risk  analysis);  Programme  documents  (Annual  Work  Programmes)  and 
addition  evaluation  documents  (National  evaluation  reports  for  shared  management  and 
Technical implementation reports for direct management). 

2.  Statistical data – this includes: 

•  Official statistics from Eurostat, Frontex etc. (i.e. border guards, illegal crossings); 

72 

 
 
 
 
 
 
•  Financial data extracted from ABAC on 10/08/2016 for EBF and all SOLID Funds in 

order to present programmed and net EU contributions and absorption rates;   

•  Financial  data  extracted  from  SFC2007  on  11/05/2016  to  present  the  breakdowns  by 

priority and specific priority;  

•  Financial data extracted from SFC2007 on 31/12/2016 to present Programmed and Net 
EU  contributions  and  absorption  rates  for  Annual  Programmes  that  were  closed  after 
10/08/2016; and 

•  Financial  data  for  direct  management  were  provided  by  the  Commission  services. 

Figures presented are the sum of the cost claims minus the ineligible costs. 

Output and result indicators 

By systematically combing information through the NERs, it has been possible to aggregate 
information  on  the  main  types  of  investment  supported  under  the  EBF  2011-2013  national 
actions  and  compile  a  series  of  output  and  result  indicators.  Commonly  reported  output 
indicators include: 

•  Improvement  to  surveillance  equipment  at  Border  Crossing  points  (BCPs)  (data 

provided by 23 countries); 

•  Training of border guards (22 countries) and consular officials (16 countries); 
•  Connectivity to the VIS (17 countries) and issuance of Schengen visas. 

Result indicators include: 

•  The  number  of  consulates  equipped  with  operating  equipment  for  Schengen  visa 
processing under the  2011-2013 annual programmes  – which  has notably increased to 
889 out of a possible 2 189. 

However,  there  are  gaps  in  the  information  provided  in  the  NERs.  Out  of  18  indicators 
identified by the external contractors, the Member States best able to provide data were ES 
(15 indicators); FR (14) and BE, HU, LT (12 each).   

Analysis 

Three different levels of analysis were undertaken by consulting company: 

•  Descriptive analysis, at two levels, to provide context and a basis for the development of 

other types of analysis: 

  EU level: Different official documentation, such as the Decision establishing the EBF, 
as well as interviews with DG HOME were analysed and used to describe the context 
of  the  EBF,  such  as  the  objectives  it  was  aiming  to  achieve  and  the  type  of  actions 
eligible for funding under the EBF.  

  Case studies: The analysis of the data collected relating to the national actions as part 
of  the  case  studies  (all  programmatic  documents,  national  evaluation  reports  and 
interview  notes)  was  carried  out  and  described  according  to  the  intervention  logic 
elements,  as  well  as  all  the  evaluation  criteria  in  the  case  study  reports.  The  case 
studies  were  selected  according  to  four  fixed  criteria  to  improve  representativeness 
(objectives,  priorities,  types  of  intervention);  relevance  (external  borders  and 
migratory pressure); solidarity (where investments exceed input) and coverage of the 
evaluation questions in the national evaluation reports. 

73 

 
 
 
 
•  Thematic  analysis:  For  this  analysis,  Nvivo,  a  qualitative  analysis  tool,  was  used  to 
encode  and  subsequently  analyse  the  information  from  the  national  evaluation  reports 
and  relevant  interviews  (EU  level  and  interviews  with  RAs).  The  encoding  was  done 
according  to  a  coding  framework  which  included  all  the  different  intervention  logic 
elements,  as  well  as  all  the  evaluation  criteria,  and  allowed  for  the  creation  of  “sub-
nodes” as further themes emerged from the analysis. Through the encoding, trends and 
themes  emerged  across  the  Member  States  under  the  different  evaluation  criteria  and 
EBF objectives and priorities. In addition, quantitative data collected was analysed, such 
as  the  context  and  effectiveness  indicators  from  the  final  reports  (as  presented  in  the 
SFC2007  database)  and  national  evaluation  reports.  This  quantitative  analysis  also 
allowed for key messages to emerge from the data (such as type of priority receiving the 
most funding).  

•  Comparative analysis: Building on the descriptive and thematic analysis, a comparative 
analysis  was  undertaken,  comparing  the  findings  from  different  Member  States  under 
each  of  the  evaluation  criteria.  The  comparative  analysis  allowed  the  study  team  to 
assess  the  extent  to  which  the  research  findings  were  coherent.  The  case  studies  were 
also included in the analysis and used to illustrate certain findings.  

Assessing the impacts of the EBF 

Evaluating  the  impacts  of  the  EBF  at  national  level  is  more  complicated  as  it  requires 
experiment  conditions  with  a  matched  control  where  EBF  was  not  utilised.  In  order  to 
mitigate this, the external study used information from the case studies and interviews, as well 
as the evaluators' own judgement. 

Public consultation 

Between 10 May 2016 and 9 August 2016, the European Commission also held an Internet-
based public consultation on the EBF 2011-2013 in the form of an online questionnaire. The 
types  of  stakeholder  invited  to  participate  in  this  consultation  were:  individuals  (experts, 
beneficiaries),  local  and  national  Member  State  Authorities,  intergovernmental  and  non-
governmental  organisations,  social  partners  and  civil  society,  academic  institutions, 
international  organisations,  and  EU  Institutions  and  Agencies.  The  final  number  of 
respondents was small: ten participants from eight Member States (CY, ES, HU, LT, LV, MT, 
PT,  SI).  This  means  that  contributions  cannot  be  considered  as  being  representative  of  the 
targeted  stakeholders,  but  the  results  provide  additional  insights.  All  stakeholders  that 
participated in this consultation were representatives of a public authority. 

74 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 4 - LIST OF EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

Relevance 

EQ1a.  To  what  extent  did  the  objectives  of  the  EBF  correspond  to  the  needs  related  to  the 
management of the EU external borders and the processing of the Schengen visas? 

Utility 

EQ1b. To what extent did the actual effects of the EBF 2011-2013 actions correspond to the 
needs  related  to  the  management  of  the  EU  external  borders  and  the  processing  of  the 
Schengen visas? 

Effectiveness  

EQ2. To what extent did the EBF 2011-2013 actions contribute to the efficient organisation of 
control, covering both checks and surveillance tasks relating to the external borders? 

EQ3. To what extent did the EBF 2011-2013 actions contribute to the efficient management 
by the Member States of the flows of persons at the external borders in order to ensure, on the 
one  hand,  a  high  level  of  protection  at  the  external  borders  and,  on  the  other,  the  smooth 
crossing of the external borders in conformity with the Schengen acquis and the principles of 
respectful treatment and dignity?  

EQ4. To what extent did the EBF 2011-2013 actions contribute to the gradual establishment 
of the common integrated border management system as regards the checks on persons at and 
the surveillance of the external borders? 

EQ5.  To  what  extent  did  the  EBF  2011-2013  actions  contribute  to  the  development  and 
implementation  of  the  national  components  of  a  European  Surveillance  System  for  the 
external  borders  and  of  a  permanent  European  Patrol  Network  at  the  southern  maritime 
borders of the EU Member States? 

EQ6. To what extent did the EBF 2011-2013 actions contribute to the establishment of ITech 
systems  required  for  implementation  of  the  EU  legal  instruments  in  the  field  of  external 
borders and Schengen visas? 

EQ7. To what extent did the EBF 2011-2013 actions contribute to the uniform application by 
border  guards of the provisions of EU law on the crossing of external borders,  in particular 
Regulation (EC) No 562/2006? 

EQ8. To what extent were the EBF 2011-2013 actions, and in particular the EBF Community 
Actions,  effective  in  providing  support  services  to  Member  States  in  duly  substantiated 
emergency situations requiring urgent action at external borders?  

EQ9. To what extent did the EBF 2011-2013 actions, and in particular the EBF Community 
Actions,  contribute  to  the  improvement  of  the  management  of  activities  organised  by  the 
consular  and  other  services  of  the  Member  States  in  third  countries  as  regards  the  flows  of 
third-country nationals into the territory of the Member States and the co-operation between 
Member States in this regards?  

75 

 
 
EQ10. To what extent did the EBF 2011-2013 actions contribute to the effective processing of 
Schengen  visas  and  the  tackling  of  illegal  immigration,  including  the  detection  of  false  or 
falsified documents by enhancing the activities organised by the consular and other services 
of the Member States in third countries? 

EQ11. To what extent did the EBF 2011-2013 actions contribute to the effective and efficient 
application of relevant EU legal instruments in the field of Schengen visas, in particular the 
Visa Code? 

Efficiency  

EQ12. To what extent were the effects of the EBF 2011-2013 actions achieved at a reasonable 
cost in terms of financial and human resources deployed?  

Sustainability 

EQ13. To what extent have the positive effects of the EBF 2011-2013 actions lasted after the 
interventions were terminated? 

Complementarity and coherence  

EQ14. To what extent were the EBF 2011-2013 actions coherent with and complementary to 
other  actions  related  to  the  management  of  the  EU  external  borders  and  the  Schengen  visa 
processing  financed  by  other  EU  financial  instruments  and  from  national  resources  of  the 
Member States? 

EQ15. To what extent were the EBF 2011-2013 actions complementary to the activities of the 
European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of 
the Member States of the European Union? 

EU added value 

EQ16.  To  what  extent  would  the  Member  States  be  able  to  carry  out  the  investments 
necessary for the implementation  of the EU  policies in  the field  of border management and 
Schengen visa processing and in particular the investments related to EUROSUR, VIS, SIS II, 
automatic  border  controls,  consular  co-operation  and  contribute  to  the  Frontex  joint 
operations, without the support of the EBF 2011-2013 actions? 

76 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX  5  -  DETAILED  OVERVIEW  OF  THE  BUDGET  ALLOCATED  TO  COMMUNITY,  EMERGENCY 
AND SPECIFIC ACTIONS UNDER EBF 2010-2013ANNUAL WORK PROGRAMMES 

Year 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

TOTAL 

COMMUNITY and EMERGENCY ACTIONS (in EUR)  

Programmed EU Contribution 
Awarded EU Contribution: Community 
Actions   (All 29 projects) 
Awarded EU Contribution: Emergency 
actions   (All 25 projects) 
Awarded EU Contribution: Community 
and Emergency Actions (All 54 projects) 
Final EU Contribution:  
Community Actions (Closed 21 projects) 
Final EU Contribution: Emergency Actions 
(Closed 25 projects) 
Final EU Contribution: Community and 
Emergency Actions (Closed 46 projects) 

11 650 000 

16 000 000 

21 607 080 

11 848 562 

61 105 642 

60 165 

2 336 668 

10 582 562 

670 260 

13 649 654 

6 078 132 

13 409 973 

10 469 979 

9 999 610 

39 957 693 

6 138 297 

15 746 640 

21 052 541 

10 669 870 

53 607 347 

54 652 

1 828 951 

2 427 134 

0 

4 310 738 

3 991 839 

10 057 362 

8 872 356 

9 054 660 

31 976 218 

4 046 491 

11 886 314 

11 299 490 

9 054 660 

36 286 955 

SPECIFIC ACTIONS (in EUR)  

Programmed EU Contribution 
Awarded EU Contribution:  
Specific Actions (23 projects) 
Final EU Contribution:  
Specific Actions (23 projects) 

10 000 000 

5 000 000 

10 000 000 

8 705 101 

4 976 765 

8 584 870 

0 

0 

25 000 000 

22 266 735 

5 862 872 

3 700 965 

5 360 121 

0 

14 923 958 

SUMMARY FOR CLOSED PROJECTS (69 Projects) 

TOTAL Final EU Contribution (closed 
projects only) 
TOTAL Absorption Rate  
(closed projects only) 

9 909 363 

15 587 279 

16 659 611 

9 054 660 

51 210 913 

67% 

75% 

71% 

91% 

74% 

A  sharp  reduction  in  the  volume  of  activities  in  the  final  year,  when  only  one  Community 
Action  and  six  Emergency  Actions  were  implemented,  resulted  in  a  higher  absorption  rate. 
Overall,  the  amounts  awarded/committed  only  differ  noticeably  from  the  programmed  EU 
contribution  in  2010  when  the  programmed  contribution  for  Community  and  Emergency 
Actions was not fully awarded. Once operational, in some cases, the total actual costs turned 
out to be lower than the budgeted total costs. In other cases, the declared costs may have been 
considered  ineligible  by  the  Commission  (for  example,  falling  outside  the  scope  of  the 
eligible activities, or outside the eligible territorial and temporal scope).  

77 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 6 - LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND COUNTRY CODES 

ABC Gates 
AP 
AWP 
BCP 
EASA 
EBF 
EPN 
ERDF 
EUROSUR 
Frontex 

FTE 
IBMS 
ICAO 
ILO 
ISF 
ITech 
MAP 
NCC 
NER 
PHARE 
SF 
SIRENE 
SIS 
VIS 

Automated Border Control Gate  
Annual Programme 
Annual Work Programme 
Border Crossing Point 
European Aviation Safety Agency 
External Borders Fund 
European Patrols Network 
European Regional Development Fund 
European Border Surveillance System 
European  Border  and  Coast  Guard  Agency  as  of  16/10/2016,  previously 
European  Agency  for  the  Management  of  Operational  Cooperation  at  the 
External Borders of the Member States of the European Union 
Full Time Equivalent 
Integrated Border Management System 
International Civil Aviation Organisation 
Immigration Liaison Officer 
Internal Security Fund  
Information Technology 
Multiannual Programme 
National Coordination Centre 
National Evaluation Report  
Programme of Community aid to the countries of Central and Eastern Europe 
Schengen Facility 
Supplementary Information Request at the National Entries 
Schengen Information System 
Visa Information System  

List of country codes 

AT 
BE 
BG 
CH 
CY 
CZ 
DE 
DK 
EE 
EL 
ES 
FI 
FR 
HR 
HU 
IE 
IS 
IT 
LT 

Austria  
Belgium 
Bulgaria 
Switzerland 
Cyprus 
Czech Republic 
Germany 
Denmark 
Estonia 
Greece 
Spain 
Finland 
France 
Croatia 
Hungary 
Ireland 
Iceland 
Italy 
Lithuania 

78 

 
 
 
LU 
LV 
MT 
NL 
NO 
PL 
PT 
RO 
SE 
SI 
SK 
UK 

Luxembourg 
Latvia 
Malta 
Netherlands 
Norway  
Poland 
Portugal 
Romania 
Sweden 
Slovenia 
Slovakia 
United Kingdom  

79