Study to assess the impacts related to possible evolutions of EUROSUR : final report.
Date: 2019-10-02
Institutions: Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs
Subjects: EU migration policy, biometrics, border control, cooperation policy, cross-border cooperation, data processing, exchange of information, external border of the EU, human rights, illegal migration, information system, migration control, report

Study to assess the impacts 
related to possible evolutions 
of EUROSUR - Final Report 

Written by ICF 

September 2019 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs 

Directorate B — Borders, Interoperability and Innovation 

Unit B.1 — Borders and Schengen 

Contact: Patrick CHATARD MOULIN 

E-mail:  HOME-B1-BORDERS@ec.europa.eu 

European Commission 

B-1049 Brussels 

 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Study to assess the impacts 
related to possible evolutions 
of EUROSUR - Final Report 

Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs 

September, 2019 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to assess the impacts related to possible evolutions of EUROSUR - Final Report 

Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers  
to your questions about the European Union. 

Freephone number (*): 

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 

(*) 
may charge you). 

The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels 

LEGAL NOTICE 

This document has been prepared for the European Commission however it reflects the views only of the 
authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information 
contained therein. 

More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://www.europa.eu). 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2019 

ISBN 978-92-76-11211-2 

DOI 10.2837/82414 

© European Union, 2019 

Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to assess the impacts related to possible evolutions of EUROSUR - Final Report 

Table of Contents 

Preliminary definitions ........................................................................................ 1 
Executive summary ........................................................................................... 2 

Background and context .................................................................................. 2 
Methodology .................................................................................................. 2 
Options assessed ............................................................................................ 2 
Findings ......................................................................................................... 5 

1 

Introduction to the Study .............................................................................. 6 

Study context and objectives .................................................................. 6 
1.1 
Study scope .......................................................................................... 7 
1.2 
1.3  Description of EUROSUR ......................................................................... 8 

2  Methodology...............................................................................................11 

2.1 
2.2 
2.3 
2.4 

Cost model ..........................................................................................11 
Benefit model .......................................................................................12 
Sources of data ....................................................................................16 
Strengths and limitations of the methods .................................................17 

3  Proposals for the possible evolutions of EUROSUR ...........................................19 

3.1  Option 0: Baseline situation ...................................................................19 
3.2  Option 1: Improved EUROSUR with the current scope (“Baseline plus”) .......22 
3.3  Option 1.1: Improved EUROSUR with the current scope (“Baseline plus”) with 
an “EU-Confidential communication network” ....................................................27 
3.4  Option 2: Compulsory inclusion of Border Crossing Points (BCPs) ...............31 
3.5  Option 3: Compulsory inclusion of Air Border Surveillance .........................37 
3.6  Option 4: Inclusion of other Integrated Border Management components ....42 
3.7  Option 4.3: Enhanced coordinated planning and conduct of border control 
operations ....................................................................................................53 

4  Conclusions ................................................................................................57 
Annex 1  Glossary of terms .............................................................................65 
Annex 2  Detailed cost calculations ...................................................................69 

A2.1 
A2.2 
A2.3 
A2.4 
A2.5 
A2.6 
A2.7 
A2.8 

Tables in Excel file cover sheet ...........................................................69 
Option 0 – Baseline ...........................................................................69 
Option 1 - Baseline Plus .....................................................................73 
Option 2 - Compulsory Inclusion of Border Crossing Points .....................78 
Option 3 - Compulsory inclusion of Air Border Surveillance .....................81 
Option 4.1 - Improved information exchange with third Countries ...........84 
Option 4.2 - Inclusion of secondary movements ...................................86 
Option 4.3 - Enhanced coordinated / integrated planning .......................88 

Annex 3  Detailed benefit assumptions ..............................................................90 

Improvement in data quality, flow and speed of reporting ......................90 
A3.1 
A3.2 
Improved interagency cooperation through exchange of data across 
geographies and sectors (EU LEVEL) ................................................................91 
A3.3 
Improved interagency cooperation through exchange of data across 
geographies and sectors (Member State level) ..................................................93 
A3.4 
Improved interagency cooperation through exchange of data across 
geographies and sectors (Regional Networks and Third Countries) .......................95 
A3.5 
Improved situational awareness at Member States’ NCCs and across 
Europe  96 
A3.6 
Enhanced planning and operational coordination between NCCs in different 
Member States ..............................................................................................97 
Improved reaction capabilities from Border Guard Agencies and EBCGA...99 
A3.7 

 
 
 
 
 
Study to assess the impacts related to possible evolutions of EUROSUR - Final Report 

Preliminary definitions 

This  study  builds  on  several  concepts  and  definitions  of  importance  for  the  reader's 
understanding of the content and findings of the report. These are:  

  EBCGA: the  European  Agency for the Management of  Operational Cooperation at 
the  External  Borders  of  the  Member  States  of  the  European  Union,  commonly 
referred to as Frontex, was established by Council Regulation (EC) No 2007/2004 
(3). Since taking up its responsibilities on 1 May 2005, it assists Member States with 
implementing the operational aspects of external border management through joint 
operations  and  rapid  border  interventions,  risk  analysis,  information  exchange, 
relations  with  third  countries  and  the  return  of  irregular  migrants.  The  EBCGA  is 
tasked to provide the necessary assistance for the development and  operation of 
the EUROSUR.  

  EUROSUR:  The  European  Border  Surveillance  System  establishes  a  common 
framework  for  the  exchange  of  information  and  for  the  cooperation  between  EU 
Member  States  and  EBCGA  to  improve  situational  awareness  and  to  increase 
reaction capability at the external borders for detecting, preventing and combating 
irregular  immigration  and  cross-border  crime  and  contributing  to  ensuring  the 
protection and saving the lives of migrants. EUROSUR components are presented in 
full in section 1.3 of this proposal  

  Border Surveillance: The surveillance of borders between border crossing points 
and the surveillance of border crossing points outside the fixed opening hours, to 
prevent persons from circumventing border checks. 

  External  EU  border:    EU  Member  States’  land  borders,  including  river  and  lake 
borders,  sea  borders  and  their  airports,  river  ports,  seaports  and  lake  ports, 
provided that they are not internal borders. Member States implementing EUROSUR 
are EU 26 Member States (i.e. all but the United Kingdom and Ireland) as well as 
four Schengen Associated Countries (Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland).  

  Situational awareness: In the context of border surveillance, it denotes the ability 
to monitor, detect, identify, track and understand irregular cross-border activities 
to  find  reasoned  grounds  for  reaction  measures  on  the  basis  of  combining  new 
information with existing knowledge, and to be better able to reduce the loss of lives 
of migrants at, along or in the proximity of, the external borders.  

  Reaction capabilities: The ability to perform  actions aimed at countering illegal 
cross-border  activities  at,  along  or  in  the  proximity  of,  the  external  borders, 
including the means and timelines to react adequately. 

  Joint operations: EBCGA provides technical and operational assistance to Member 
States and non-EU countries in support of operations that may arise during border 
surveillance operations. Joint operations take place at three types of border – sea, 
land and air. Each operation is based on risk analysis and uniquely tailored to the 
circumstances identified by the Agency in one of its risk analysis products.  

  Irregular migrant: Non-EU national present on the territory of a Schengen State 
who  does  not  fulfil,  or  no  longer  fulfils,  the  conditions  of  entry  as  set  out  in  the 
Schengen Borders Code (Regulation 562/2006), or other conditions for entry, stay 
or residence in an EU State.  

The concepts and definitions for the study are presented in full in the glossary of terms in 
Annex 1 of this study. 

September, 2019 

1 

 
 
 
 
Study to assess the impacts related to possible evolutions of EUROSUR - Final Report 

Executive summary 

This  is  the  Final  Report  of  a  Study  which  assessed  the  impacts  related  to  the  possible 
evolution  of  the  European  Border  Surveillance  System  (EUROSUR)  –  the  common 
framework  for  information  exchange  and  cooperation  between  Member  States  and 
Schengen  Associated  Countries’  (thereafter  referred  to  as  Member  States1)  national 
authorities with a responsibility for border surveillance and the European Border and Coast 
Guard Agency (EBCGA, ex-Frontex). The Study aimed to support Directorate-General for 
Migration and Home Affairs of the  European Commission (DG HOME)  in elaborating and 
assessing proposals for possible modifications of Regulation 1052/20132 and built on the 
results of DG HOME’s evaluation of Regulation 1052/2013 (the 'EUROSUR Regulation).  

Background and context 

The  Study  took  place  in  the  context  of  the  drafting  of  the  proposal  for  a  new  European 
Border and Coast Guard Regulation3 (amending Regulation (EU) 2016/ 16244 – the EBCG 
Regulation and Regulation (EU) No 1052/2013 – the EUROSUR Regulation). This proposed 
new EBCG Regulation incorporates EUROSUR within it and proposes  an extension of the 
scope  of  EUROSUR  as  a  necessary  element  of  the  functioning  of  the  EBCG.  Other  legal 
instruments that form part of the Schengen Acquis, such as the Schengen Border Code, 
were also considered during the Study.  

The Study covered 30 Member States, as well as 19 third countries part of four Regional 
Networks. It considered the further development of EUROSUR within the eight-year period 
from 2019, including the next multi-annual financial period from 2021 to 2027. The costs 
of  the  possible  evolution  of  EUROSUR  were  estimated  independently  of  the  EU  funding 
instruments available to the Member States and to EBCGA.  

Methodology 

The Study relied on cost and benefit models to assess the impact of the possible evolutions 
of EUROSUR. The inputs into the cost and benefit models were derived from desk research, 
stakeholder consultations and reasoned assumptions. The Study methodology's strengths 
reside in its bottom-up approach to the elicitation of the costs of the possible evolution of 
EUROSUR and the validity tests performed by experts involved in the Study. Its limitations 
relate  to  the  reach  of  its  findings  in  that  the  Study  is  useful  to  provide  an  order  of 
magnitude  of  the  cost  implications  rather  than  a  line-by-line  assessment  of  the  price  to 
implement each of the solutions implied by each of the options considered by the Study. 
The  policy  benefits  that  EUROSUR  will  contribute  to  as  part  of  the  Integrated  Border 
Management Concept have not been assessed in detail, and were considered outside the 
scope of the study. Rather, the assessment of benefits focused on operational benefits. 

Options assessed 

The Study considered several options, which were eventually all included in the proposed 
new  EBCG  regulation.  The  options  below  are  not  alternative  but  rather  build  upon  each 

1 Member States in the context of Eurosur are EU Member States (Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, 
Czech  Republic,  Denmark,  Estonia,  Finland,  France,  Germany,  Greece,  Hungary,  Italy,  Latvia,  Lithuania, 
Luxembourg,  Malta,  Netherlands,  Poland,  Portugal,  Romania,  Slovakia,  Slovenia,  Spain,  Sweden,  except  the 
United  Kingdom  and  Ireland;  as  well  as  the  Schengen  Associated  Countries  (Iceland,  Lichtenstein,  Norway, 
Switzerland).  
2 Regulation (EU) No 1052/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 establishing 
the European Border Surveillance System (Eurosur), OJ L 295, 6.11.2013, p. 11–26  
3 Proposal for a regulation European Parliament and of the Council on the European Border and Coast Guard and 
repealing Regulation (EU) n° 1052/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EU) n° 
2016/1624 of the European Parliament and of the Council (COM(2018)0631 – C8-0406/2018 – 2018/0330A(COD)) 
4 Regulation (EU) 2016/1624 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 September 2016 on the European 
Border and Coast Guard and amending Regulation (EU) 2016/399 of the European Parliament and of the Council 
and repealing Regulation (EC) No 863/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Council Regulation 
(EC) No 2007/2004 and Council Decision 2005/267/EC OJ L 251, 16.9.2016, p. 1–76 

September, 2019 

2 

 
 
 
                                           
Study to assess the impacts related to possible evolutions of EUROSUR - Final Report 

other -- all costs and benefits, therefore, are cumulative. Each option builds upon the costs 
and benefits of previous one:  

  Option  0  –  The  baseline  situation  describes  the  status  quo  of  the  operational 
implementation  of  EUROSUR  in  EBCGA  and  in  the  Member  States  as  well  as  the 
corresponding costs of current operations. It serves as a reference to compare the 
additional  costs  and  benefits  derived  from  the  options  related  to  the  possible 
evolutions of EUROSUR. However, the 2018 EUROSUR evaluation showed that there 
is  still  some  degree  of  non-compliance  with  Regulation  1052/2013  by  Member 
States5.  

  Option  1  –  Baseline  plus  describes  a  situation  whereby  the  EBCGA  and  the 
Member  States  fully  comply  with  and  implement  the  full  scope  of  Regulation 
1052/2013. In addition, it proceeds to include Joint Operations Reporting Application 
(JORA)  data  in  EUROSUR,  improves  the  quality  of  the  data  exchange  via 
standardisation  of  reporting  and  establish  information  exchange  gateways  to 
support the verification of data. Option 1 will cost an average of € 24 million a year 
to EBCGA and €56 million a year to Member States (an increase of € 4 million – or 
€  3  million  excluding  EBCGA  staff  costs-  and  €  12  million  respectively  when 
compared to Option 0). Its main benefits reside in the improvement in data quality, 
flow and speed of reporting, thus resulting in an improved situational awareness at 
Member  States’  National  Coordination  Centres  (NCCs)  across  Europe  and 
improvements in reaction capabilities. 

  Option 1.1 – Improved EUROSUR with the current scope (“Baseline plus”) 
with  an  “EU  confidential  communication  network”  considers  the  scope  of 
Option 1 whilst upgrading the EUROSUR Communication Network to EU-Confidential 
level  to  allow  for  the  exchange  of  classified  data  at  ‘EU  Confidential’  level.  In 
comparison to Option 0, Option 1.1 will cost an additional € 22 million a year. The 
upgrade  to  the  communication  network  supporting  the  EUROSUR  system  to  EU-
Confidential  level  will  broaden  the  scope  of  data  shared  via  EUROSUR  (e.g. 
intelligence  data,  information  related  to  suspects,  as  well  as  certain  analytical 
reports), and improve intra-agency cooperation at Member State level.   

  Option 2 – Compulsory inclusion of Border Crossing Point (BCPs) builds on 
Option  16  and  includes  the  compulsory  and  systematic  reporting  of  events 
emanating from checks at all border crossing points. Compared to Option 0, Option 
2  involves  additional  costs  of  €  4  million  a  year  for  EBCGA  (mainly  related  to 
communication costs and maintenance) and € 18 million a year for Member States 
(mainly  related  to  the  additional  cost  of  infrastructure  and  staff  costs).  The  main 
benefit  of  this  option  is  it  will  result  much-improved  risk  analysis  and  situational 
awareness  thus  also  improving  reaction  capabilities  across  Europe.  It  will  fill  an 
important gap, as data from BCPs is crucial to complement data coming from sea, 
land, and air borders outside BCPs. 

  Option 3 – Compulsory inclusion of Air Border Surveillance builds on Option 
2 and includes the information from Air Border Surveillance systems. It extends the 
scope of EUROSUR to report on irregular crossing information into the air space of 
Member States by aircrafts, remotely piloted aircraft (RPAS). Compared to Option 
0, Option 3 involves additional costs of € 10 million a year for EBCGA and €5 million 
for Member States. Option 3 will further strengthen situational awareness of Member 

the 

European 

5 COM(2018) 632 final - Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the evaluation 
of 
at: 
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/soteu2018-eurosur-report-632_en.pdf   
6 Note that the assessment also provides cost estimates including an EU confidential network. As the additional 
costs and benefits being similar, the report on the cost estimates of the inclusion of an EU confidential network as 
part of the main options. 

(EUROSUR), 

Surveillance 

Available 

System 

Border 

September, 2019 

3 

 
 
 
                                           
Study to assess the impacts related to possible evolutions of EUROSUR - Final Report 

States  and  EBCGA,  building  a  comprehensive  understanding  of  the  trends  and 
modus operandi in the use of this growing threat.    

Option  4  corresponds  to  a  range  of  additional  sub-options  to  cover  the  components  of 
Integrated Border Management as defined in Article 4 of  the EBCG Regulation7. Options 
4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 build on Option 3 but are non-cumulative between one another:  

  Option  4.1  –  improved  information  exchange  with  third  countries  aims, 
within  the  framework  of  the  EUROSUR  Regulation,  to  exchange  information  with 
neighbouring third countries that have already established a cooperation agreement 
relating  to  information  exchange  on  border  surveillance  either  through  bilateral 
relationships with a Member State (proxy) via regional networks (such as Seahorse 
Networks) or directly with the EBCGA via a working arrangement. The nature and 
extent of the data exchanged is expected to vary accordingly from one third country 
to another. A dedicated data model and  or data governance arrangements would 
need to be defined on a third country basis. Some EUROSUR Fusion Services8 will 
be  available  to  third  countries  and  events  from  third  countries  will  be  fed  into 
European,  national  or  specific  situational  pictures9  once  validated.  Compared  to 
Option 3, Option 4.1 will involve additional costs (mostly related to the development 
and implementation of a technical solution for third country information exchange 
within the context  of EUROSUR and  corresponding additional EBCGA  staff)  of €  3 
million a year for EBCGA and € 0.5 million for Member States (related to the upgrade 
of  the  EUROSUR  Fusion  operational  applications),  as  well  as  €16  million  for  third 
countries  (mostly  related  to  the  set-up  of  EUROSUR  physical  and  communication 
infrastructure, operational applications and corresponding staff). It will bring value 
by strengthening the benefits of Option 3 and result in a much-improved interagency 
cooperation with regional networks and third countries.   

  Option 4.2 –  Inclusion of secondary movements includes data  on secondary 
movements in the data being reported to EUROSUR for risk analysis and situational 
awareness purposes. Hence, secondary movement data and analyses will feature in 
the European and National Situational Pictures (ESP and NSP). Compared to Option 
3, Option 4.2 will involve additional costs totalling € 1 million for EBCGA a year and 
about € 2 million for Member States. It will bring value by strengthening the benefits 
of Option 3 and result in a more complete situational awareness.   

  Option  4.3  –  Enhanced  coordinated  planning  and  execution  of  border 
control operations will make use of the EUROSUR framework for the coordination 
of  operational  planning  between  Member  States  and  the  EBCGA  both  within  and 
outside the context of Joint Operations, Pilot Projects and Rapid Interventions. This 
will apply particularly to operational plans concerning border sections with high and 
critical impact levels. Compared to Option 3, Option 4.3 will involve additional costs 
of € 7 million a year for EBCGA (mostly related to communication and maintenance 
costs) and € 5 million a year for Member States (mostly related to additional staff 
involved in the joint planning and coordination of operations and the associated cost 
of accommodation and systems maintenance). It will bring value by strengthening 
the  benefits  delivered  by  Option  3  and  enhancing  the  planning  and  operational 
coordination capabilities of NCCs across Member States and thus in their reaction 
capabilities.  

7 In the context of this study the EBCG refers to Regulation (EU) 2016/1624 and the new EBCG Regulation.  
8  EUROSUR  Fusion  Services,  coordinated  by  the  EBCG,  supply  the  NCCs,  the  Commission  and  EBCGA  with 
information on the external borders and on the pre-frontier area from a variety of sources and technologies. (Art. 29 
of new proposed EBCG Regulation) 
9  According  to  Art.  28  of  the  new  proposed  EBCG  Regulation,  EBCGA  and  Member  States  may  establish  and 
maintain specific situational pictures in order to support specific operational activities at the external borders or to 
share information with third countries. The scope of information is yet to be defined by the implementing acts.  

September, 2019 

4 

 
 
 
                                           
Study to assess the impacts related to possible evolutions of EUROSUR - Final Report 

Findings 

The full implementation and possible evolutions of EUROSUR, in addition to the EBCGA's 
budget (which already includes staff costs), would involve an additional annual €20 million 
for the Agency for the period of 2020 and 2027. For Member States, the full implementation 
and possible evolutions of EUROSUR will have budgetary implications of an overall €698 
million over the same period. 

Furthermore, the study considered an additional yearly amount of €14 to €15 million for 
2020 and across the entire period of the next Multi-annual Financial Framework for other 
instruments to support the development of EUROSUR (both as part of the Copernicus Space 
Programme and via other instruments to support cooperation with third Countries). In turn, 
this will deliver the following operational benefits: 

 

 

improvement  in  data  quality,  flow  and  speed  of  reporting  of  information  into 
EUROSUR;  

improved  interagency  cooperation  through  exchange  of  data  across  geographies 
and sectors at EU and Member State level as well as with third countries;  

  a thorough situational awareness at Member States’ NCCs and across Europe, that 
goes  beyond  land  and  sea  borders,  to  include  information  from  border  crossing 
points, air-border surveillance, and secondary movement;   

  enhanced planning and operational coordination between NCCs in different Member 
States in particular in respect to border sections under significant migration pressure 
and during times of migratory crises; and,   

 

improved  reaction  capabilities  of  national  border  management  authorities  and 
EBCGA. 

September, 2019 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to assess the impacts related to possible evolutions of EUROSUR - Final Report 

1 

Introduction to the Study   

This  Final  Report  of  the  Study  to  assess  the  impacts  related  to  possible  evolutions  of 
EUROSUR  (the  Study)  was  undertaken  by  ICF  on  behalf  of  Directorate-General  for 
Migration and Home Affairs of the European Commission (DG HOME). It is structured as 
follows:  

  Section 1 presents the purpose and scope of the study;  

  Section 2 presents the method of approach of the study, including the strengths and 

limitations of the method applied;   

  Section  3  presents  options  for  the  possible  evolution  of  EUROSUR  alongside  their 

costs of implementation and expected benefits; and 

  Section 4 presents the conclusion for the Study.  

The annexes present technical information supporting the findings presented in Section 3.  

1.1  Study context and objectives 

The Study aimed to support Commission services in elaborating and assessing proposals 
for possible modifications of Regulation 1052/2013. It built on the results of the evaluation 
of  the  EUROSUR  Regulation  previously  undertaken  by  Commission  services10.  In  early 
2018, the Commission identified several options defining the way forward for the possible 
development of EUROSUR. These proposals, presented in the Terms of Reference of the 
Study, were refined by DG HOME in anticipation of this Study11 and during the Study; a 
detailed description of which is presented in Section 3.  

The Study also took place in the context of the drafting of the proposal for a new Regulation 
on the European Border and Coast Guard12 (the EBCG Regulation). The proposal called for 
an extension of the scope of EUROSUR and incorporated EUROSUR in the proposed EBCG 
Regulation as a necessary element of the functioning of the European Border and Coast 
Guard. Against this background, the two main Study tasks13 were: 

  a Cost/Benefit Analysis (CBA) of options on the future of EUROSUR; and 

  consultations  with  industry  bodies,  the  research  community  and  non-government 

organisations (NGOs). 

Some  of  the  Study  interim  results  were  used  to  assess  the  financial  impact  of  the 
amendments of EUROSUR in the Commission proposal on the European Border and Coast 
Guard and, in particular, the corresponding part in the Legislative Financial Statement. 

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/soteu2018-eurosur-report-632_en.pdf 

10 
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/soteu2018-eurosur-evaluation_en.pdf.  
11 On 6th and 7th February 2018, the Commission set up a dedicated workshop to discuss the technological and 
industrial aspects of EUROSUR with industry representatives, researchers and governmental experts from Member 
States, EU institutions and Agencies, the results of which are reported in a separate document called "EUROSUR 
Industry Workshop - Summary Report".  
12 COM(2018) 631 final: Proposal for a Regulation of the European parliament and of the council on the European 
Border  and  Coast  Guard,  repealing  Council  Joint  Action  n°98/700/JHA,  Regulation  (EU)  n°  1052/2013  of  the 
European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EU) n° 2016/1624 of the European Parliament and of the 
Council.  
13 The foreseen analysis of the results of an open public consultation as in the ToR did not take place and additional 
efforts was hence put on the two other tasks of the Study.  

& 

September, 2019 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Study to assess the impacts related to possible evolutions of EUROSUR - Final Report 

1.2  Study scope 

The scope of the Study is multi-faceted. It covers Schengen Member States (all options) 
and 3rd countries (Option 4.1 only): 

  26 of the 28 EU Member States14 and four Schengen Associated Countries15; 

 

 

third  countries  across  four  Regional  Networks:  SEAHORSE  Atlantic  network16, 
SEAHORSE  Mediterranean  network17,  the  Baltic  Sea  Region  Border  Control 
Cooperation  network  CoastNet18  and  the  Black  Sea  Border  Coordination  and 
Information Centre19; 

third countries in the Western Balkans20 as well as Moldova and Ukraine21; and 

  other  non-EU  countries  with  whom  EBCGA  has  working  arrangements  may  be 
included in the scope, but were not included in the central cost estimates22,23. 

The Study engaged with three stakeholder types:  

  EU institutions (European Commission - DG HOME), EU Agency (European Border 

and Coast Guard Agency - later EBCGA); 

  national  authorities  (ministries,  agencies  and  bodies 

involved 

in  border 

surveillance); and 

 

industry representatives.  

The Study considered three main legal frameworks of relevance to EUROSUR: 

  Regulation  1052/2013  establishing  the  European  Border  Surveillance  System 

(EUROSUR); 

  Regulation 2016/ 1624 on the European Border and Coast Guard; and 

  Regulation  2016/399  on  a  Union  Code  on  the  rules  governing  the  movement  of 

persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code). 

The  Study  considered  the  further  development  of  EUROSUR  within  the  eight-year 
period from 2020, including the next multi-annual financial period from 2021 to 2027.  

The Study estimated the costs of the possible evolution of EUROSUR independently of the 
funding instruments available to EBCGA or to Member States. It is expected that EBCGA 
and Member States will be able to rely on the following funding instruments:  

 

the  Integrated  Border  Management  Fund  (€  9.3  billion  over  the  period  2021  to 
2027)24; 

14 Except the United Kingdom and The Republic of Ireland.  
15 Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland.  
16 Mauritania, Morocco, Cape Verde and Senegal. 
17 Algeria, Egypt, Libya and Tunisia.  
18 Russia 
19 These countries are: Ukraine, Turkey, Georgia, Macedonia, and Russia.  
20 These Countries are: Albania; Bosnia Herzegovina; FYROM; Kosovo; Montenegro; Serbia. 
21 These Countries are: Moldova and Ukraine.  
22  These  countries  are:  (Albania),  Armenia,  Azerbaijan,  Belarus,  (Bosnia  Herzegovina),  Canada,  (Cape  Verde), 
(Georgia); (Kosovo); Moldova, (Montenegro), Nigeria, (Serbia), (FYROM), (Russia), USA, (Turkey), (Ukraine). 
23 A total of nineteen third countries were included in the cost analysis.  These are the nations listed in footnotes 16 
to 21. The additional nations listed in footnote 22 (i.e. not between parentheses) were not included as they are not 
currently in a regional programme with nations currently in the EUROSUR programme, and an assessment of the 
need to include the nations in EUROSUR.  
24 Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing, as part of the Integrated 
Border Management Fund, the instrument for financial support for border management and visa COM(2018) 473 
final.  

September, 2019 

7 

 
 
 
                                           
Study to assess the impacts related to possible evolutions of EUROSUR - Final Report 

  Copernicus  and  Galileo  (part  of  a  €  16  billion  Space  Programme  over  the  period 

2021 to 2027)25; and  

  EBCGA budget (€ 1.2 billion and € 11.3 billion allocated to the EU agency supporting 
Member States in the management and protection of the external border over the 
periods 2019-2020 and from 2021-202726 respectively). 

The method for assessing the costs and benefits of the different proposals is presented in 
Section 2 of this report.  

1.3  Description of EUROSUR  

The  evaluation  of  EUROSUR27  describes  the  intervention  in  the  following  way:  “The 
EUROSUR  Regulation  establishes  an  information  exchange  and  cooperation  mechanism, 
which allows national authorities carrying out border surveillance activities and the Agency 
to exchange information and to cooperate at tactical, operational and strategic level.” The 
following subsections build on this description of EUROSUR.  

1.3.1  Objectives of EUROSUR   

The general objectives of EUROSUR are to28: 

  contribute  to  the  management  of  migration  flows  by  reducing  the  number  of 

irregular migrants entering the Schengen area undetected; 

  protect  and  save  lives  at  the  external  borders  by  diminishing  considerably  the 

unacceptable death toll of migrants at sea; and 

 

increase the internal security of the European Union and of the people residing in 
the EU by preventing serious crime at the external borders of the Schengen area. 

The EUROSUR Regulation’s specific objectives are to significantly increase the situational 
awareness and the reaction capability of the Member States' border control authorities and 
of  the  Agency,  with  the  aim  of  preventing  the  establishment  of  –  or,  if  not  possible, 
identifying and interrupting any new route or method for – irregular migration and cross-
border crime shortly after it has been established. 

‘Situational awareness’ means the ability to monitor, detect, identify, track and understand 
illegal  cross-border  activities  to  find  reasoned  grounds  for  reaction  measures  based  on 
combining new information with existing knowledge, and to be better able to reduce loss 
of lives of migrants at, along or in the proximity of, the external borders29.  This can be 
accomplished by achieving the following operational objectives at national and European 
level: 

 

improving  interagency  cooperation  by  streamlining  structures  and  interlinking 
systems in the law enforcement domain; 

  using data fusion combined with modern technological capabilities for detecting and 

tracking cross-border movements, in particular (small) vessels; 

25 Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the council establishing the space programme of 
the Union and the European Union Agency for the Space Programme COM/2018/447.  
26 See Legislative Financial Statement section 1.3.1 of the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament 
and of the Council on the European Border and Coast Guard and repealing Council Joint Action n°98/700/JHA, 
Regulation 1052/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EU) n° 2016/1624 of the 
European Parliament and of the Council COM(2018) 631 final  
27  Evaluation  of  the  Regulation  1052/2013  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  22  October  2013 
establishing the European Border Surveillance System.  
28  See  page  7  of  Evaluation of the  Regulation  1052/2013  of  the  European  Parliament  and of  the  Council  of  22 
October 2013 establishing the European Border Surveillance System (Eurosur) SWD(2018) 410 final. 
29 As defined by Article 3b of the Regulation 1052/2013. 

September, 2019 

8 

 
 
 
                                           
Study to assess the impacts related to possible evolutions of EUROSUR - Final Report 

  exchanging information  across  different  sectors  with  other  actors  in  the  maritime 
and air domain, such as transport, customs, fisheries control and defence; and 

 

improving information exchange with neighbouring third countries. 

‘Reaction capability’ means the ability to perform actions aimed at countering illegal cross-
border activities at, along or in the proximity of the external borders, including the means 
and timelines to react adequately30. The following operational objectives should therefore 
be attained at national and European level: 

  exchange of data, information and intelligence in close-to-real time and, whenever 
needed,  in  a  secure  manner,  thereby  moving  from  a  patrolling-driven  to  an 
intelligence-driven approach based on risk analysis;  

  effective management  of personnel and resources, including sensors  and patrols; 

and, 

  effective  measurement:  evaluating  the  effect  of  border  surveillance  activities, 
thereby  providing  a  new  baseline  for  risk  assessment  and  re-arrangement  of 
priorities. 

1.3.1.1  The EUROSUR Regulation and its scope  

The  EUROSUR  Regulation  establishes  a  common  framework  for  the  exchange  of 
information  and  for  the  cooperation  between  Member  States  and  the  Agency.  The 
EUROSUR Regulation applies to the surveillance of the external land and sea borders and, 
if  Member  States  voluntarily  decide,  to  the  surveillance  of  air  borders  and  to  checks  at 
border  crossing  points  (BCPs).  The  surveillance  activities  of  EUROSUR  include  the 
monitoring, detection, identification, tracking, prevention and interception of unauthorised 
border  crossings  for  detecting,  preventing  and  combating illegal immigration  and  cross-
border crime and contributing to ensuring the protection and saving the lives of migrants. 
However, the EUROSUR Regulation does not apply to any legal or administrative measure 
taken once the responsible authorities of a Member State have intercepted cross-border 
criminal activities or unauthorised crossings by persons of the external borders. 

1.3.1.2  EUROSUR Components  

The EUROSUR framework consists of the following components:  

  national coordination centres (NCC) established, operated and maintained by each 
Member State31, operating 24/7, coordinating and exchanging information among 
all national authorities with a responsibility for external border surveillance as well 
as with the national coordination centres of the other Member States and with the 
Agency (Article 5 of Regulation 1052/2013); 

  national  situational  pictures  (NSP):  established  and  maintained  by  each  NCC  and 

composed of several information layers (Article 9 of Regulation 1052/2013); 

  a EUROSUR communication network supporting the information exchange, including 
both sensitive and EU classified information and hosting a video conferencing service 
(Article 7 of Regulation 1052/2013); 

  a  European  situational  picture  (ESP)  to  provide  NCCs  with  accurate  and  timely 

information and analysis (Article 10 of Regulation 1052/2013); 

  a common pre-frontier intelligence picture (CPIP) to provide NCCs with accurate and 
timely  information  and  analysis  on  the  pre-frontier  area  (Article  11  of  Regulation 
1052/2013); and 

30 As defined by Article 3c of the Regulation 1052/2013. 
31 See section  1.2 for understanding the geographical scope of application of the EUROSUR Regulation i.e. 26 
Member States and four Schengen Associated Countries.   

September, 2019 

9 

 
 
 
                                           
Study to assess the impacts related to possible evolutions of EUROSUR - Final Report 

 

the  common  application  of  surveillance  tools,  better  known  as  EUROSUR  Fusion 
Services, to supply the Member States and the Agency with surveillance products 
(Article 12 of Regulation 1052/2013). 

1.3.1.3  EUROSUR Border Sections and Impact Levels  

Each  Member  State  divided  its  external  land  and  sea  borders  into  border  sections  and 
notified them to the Agency (Article 14 of Regulation 1052/2013). The Agency, based on 
its risk analysis and in agreement with the Member State  concerned,  attributed to each 
identified  border  section  an  impact  level  on  border  security  (Article  15  of  Regulation 
1052/2013).  The  Member  States  are  obliged  to  ensure  that  the  surveillance  activities 
carried  out  at  the  external  border  sections  correspond  to  the  attributed  impact  levels 
(Article 16 of Regulation 1052/2013). 

1.3.1.4  Cooperation with external partners 

Article  18  of  Regulation  1052/2013  sets  out  the  principles  of  cooperation  of  the  Agency 
with third parties, other Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies, and international 
organisations,  while  Article  20  of  Regulation  1052/2013  frames  the  exchange  of 
information with neighbouring third countries, with the NCCs being the contact points for 
such cooperation.” 

September, 2019 

10 

 
 
 
Study to assess the impacts related to possible evolutions of EUROSUR - Final Report 

2  Methodology 

The  Study  method  followed  a  bottom-up  approach  to  the  elicitation  of  the  costs  for  the 
possible  evolutions  of  EUROSUR.  Cost  estimates  were  developed  via  a  cost  model,  the 
details of which are presented in this section. 

First, a taxonomy of costs applicable to the EU and the national levels was set out. The 
current implementation of EUROSUR at EU and Member State level was then costed (see 
Option 0). The cost implications for the possible evolutions of EUROSUR (Option 1 to 4.3) 
were defined alongside the volume of expected changes (e.g. increase in the number of 
analysts,  Border  Crossing  Points,  etc.)  triggered  by  the  options.  Cost  implications  were 
compared to the baseline situation (Option 0) to derive the additional costs of each option 
of EUROSUR. The results of the costing exercise were then subject to a series of tests.  

The  elicitation  of  the  benefits  of  the  possible  evolutions  of  EUROSUR  followed  a  similar 
approach. The benefit taxonomy was established through desk research and expert inputs 
and informed a benefit model. The implications of the possible evolution of EUROSUR also 
fed into assumptions for assessing the benefits. Validity tests were mainly performed via 
expert review and making sure benefits were commensurate to those presented in similar 
studies.  

2.1  Cost model  

The cost model comprises of cost variables as well as scope and volume variables. Cost 
variables  are  structured  into  one  unique  taxonomy.  The  cost  taxonomy  distinguishes 
between two main cost categories: 

  One-off costs representing the investments or capital expenditures necessary to 
implement EUROSUR. This category further contains two main cost types: “Building 
and infrastructure” (the physical infrastructure necessary for the functioning of the 
EUROSUR  operations);  and  “Operating  and  IT  equipment”  (representing  the 
elements  of  the  IT  systems  necessary  for  EUROSUR  to  function).  Each  cost  type 
includes corresponding costs items.  

  Recurring  costs  representing  the  running  costs  or  operating  expenditure 
necessary  to  organise,  manage  and  use  EUROSUR  daily.  This  category  further 
contains three main cost types: “Operational personnel” (staff or staff-related costs, 
such  as  training);  “Communication  and  maintenance"  (telecommunication 
expenditure  and  services  necessary  to  maintain  the  EUROSUR  infrastructure  and 
keep systems up and running); and “Operational applications” (products or services 
necessary  to  produce  EUROSUR  services).  Each  cost  type  includes  corresponding 
cost items.32 

A  single  monetary  value  was  assigned  to  each  cost  item  to  be  representative  of  the 
situation in each Member State. When not possible, EU average was inputted for missing 
Member State data. This enabled the study team to reduce the number of data points and 
or assumptions and thus simplify the cost model.  

Figure 1 provides an overview of the taxonomy used for the Study. Variables other than 
costs items were used to capture the scope and volume effects of the possible evolution of 
EUROSUR:  

  Scope variables:  The  study captures the  current state  of the implementation of 
EUROSUR  and  depicts  its  future  state  in  terms  of  functions  supported  and/or 
enabled. The binary assessment of the implementation states serves to identify the 
cost implications for Member States and/or the Agency.  Examples of such variables 

32 The staffing costs falling within the scope of EUROSUR mainly relate to the cost of information exchange, analysis 
and coordination within and between the NCCs. However, the cost of Command and Control functions in the NCC, 
and staff costs relating to reaction capabilities at BCPs have not been estimated. Such staffing costs relates to the 
cost of providing border guards, and are outside the scope of EUROSUR specific implementation as command and 
control functions would still need to be performed in absence of EUROSUR.  

September, 2019 

11 

 
 
 
                                           
Study to assess the impacts related to possible evolutions of EUROSUR - Final Report 

include: “Inclusion of air-border surveillance data”; “NCC open 24/7”; and “BCP data 
included”.  

  Volume  variables:  The  study  also  captures  the  number  of  staff,  physical 
infrastructures, systems or externally-procured products and services necessary to 
implement the options.  

Based on the cost taxonomy, scope  and volume  variables and  reasoned assumptions, a 
cost model was developed, the results of which are presented in this report (See Figure 1 
overleaf).  

The results of the costing exercise went through a series of tests:  

 

the value of cost items was derived from desk research and expert inputs (e.g. from 
the study team, from EBCGA or national stakeholders); 

  elements  of  the  additional  costs  of  the  possible  evolution  of  EUROSUR  were  also 

compared to the previous study33;  

  validity  tests  were  performed  to  assess  whether  some  implications  were 
commensurate  to  the  current  implementation  of  EUROSUR  (e.g.  number  of  staff, 
number of BCPs, etc.);  

 

financial  tests  assessed  whether  the  overall  cost  implications  are  commensurate 
with the amount of funding currently earmarked by European Institutions regarding 
the budget of JHA Agencies (e.g. EBCGA) or funding programmes (e.g. ISF-Borders, 
Copernicus) or current national budgets of specific border forces; and  

  ratios of different members of staff for each policy option were compared, to ensure 
that  changes  in  the  number  of  a  specific  type  of  staff  member  did  not  lead  to 
unrealistic numbers of other staff members (for example, increasing the number of 
analysts  did  not  lead  to  an  unrealistically  low  estimate  of  support  staff  for  the 
successful functioning of an NCC). 

Adjustments to the  cost model took account of the above tests, but also of the need to 
factor in economies of scale between the different options.  

2.2  Benefit model 

The  benefit  model  comprises  of  benefit  variables  and  describes  the  functioning  of  the 
possible  evolutions  of  EUROSUR.  Operational  benefits  and  their  relationships  were 
modelled (see Figure 2) by distinguishing between outputs and outcomes34.  

33 Technical study on the financial impact of the European External Border Surveillance System - EUROSUR – (DG 
HOME) - 2011 
34 Note that policy related benefits arising from the implementation of EUROSUR are mentioned in the model but 
not assessed. The rationale being that EUROSUR is a Framework for exchanging information which in and by itself 
cannot contribute to delivering policy impacts.  

September, 2019 

12 

 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Study to assess the impacts related to possible evolutions of EUROSUR - Final Report 

Figure 1.  Cost taxonomy used for the Study  

September, 2019 

13 

 
 
 
Study to assess the impacts related to possible evolutions of EUROSUR - Final Report 

Figure 2.  Operational benefit model  

September, 2019 

14 

 
 
 
 
Study to assess the impacts related to possible evolutions of EUROSUR - Final Report 

The benefits of each option were assessed by retracing the cause and effect chains of each 
possible evolution of EUROSUR and changes in the value of benefit indicators. The benefit 
taxonomy  distinguished  between  three  types  of  operational  benefits,  each  type  being 
further defined by benefit indicators35:  

  Output-related benefits:  

- 

- 

Improvement in data quality, flow and speed of reporting: 

◦  Data quality (re-entry rate). 
◦  Volume of data.  
◦  (Latency) of data.  

Improved interagency cooperation through exchange of data across geographies 
and sectors at international level, EU level and Member State level:  

◦  Cooperation agreements across levels of governance by sector. 
◦  Data or functional services covered across levels of governance.  
◦  Analytical services exchanged across levels of governance falling within the 

scope of the agreements. 

  Outcome-related benefits:  

- 

Improved situational awareness at Member States’ NCCs and across Europe: 

◦  Coverage of border sections.  
◦  Coverage of border crossing points.  
◦  Coverage of external air border. 
◦  Coverage of irregular activities across the border. 
◦  Coverage of border control assets.  

-  Enhanced  planning  and  operational  coordination  between  NCCs  in  different 

Member States: 

◦  Extent to which NCC’s operational plans are shared with neighbouring NCCs 
(including third countries) and EBCGA on a regular basis (within and outside 
Joint Operations). 

◦  Extent to which local and regional operational plans are shared  with NCC’s 

operational management level (excluding joint operations). 

◦  Extent  of  coordination  of  daily  surveillance  activities  at  bilateral  level 

(excluding joint operations) by type of border section.  

◦  Extent  of  coordination  of  daily  surveillance  activities  at  multilateral  level 

(within and outside joint operations) by type of border section.  

- 

Improved  reaction  capabilities  (speed  of  and  cost  of  response)  from  Border 
Guard Agencies and EBCGA: 

◦  Extent of the synergies derived by jointly developed / coordinated response.  
◦  Speed of response. 

The benefit model also depicts the impact that EUROSUR might be expected to ultimately 
contribute to as part of the Integrated Border Management Concept, but these were not 
assessed by the study.  

35 Refer to Annex 3 for detailed definitions and operational benefits and linked assumptions.  

September, 2019 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Study to assess the impacts related to possible evolutions of EUROSUR - Final Report 

The benefit taxonomy distinguished between three types of aspirational / impact benefits:  

  Cost  savings  to  police  and  border  control  authorities.  Better  surveillance 
information, planning and coordination are likely to render the operations of police 
and  border  control  authorities  more  efficient.  It  is  expected  that  with  the  same 
amount of assets and staff, EU authorities will either be able to do more surveillance 
and control and or reduce their level of activities by doing such activities jointly.  

  Cost  avoidance  due  to  a  decrease  in  irregular  migration.  The  expected 
increase in operational efficiency is likely to contribute to, alongside other factors, 
reducing the flows of irregular migrants to Europe and thereto its associated costs. 
The type of costs thus avoided include:  

-  cost  associated  with  the  loss  of  life  and/or  injury  of  irregular  migrants  by  not 

attempting the crossing of EU external borders;  

-  cost  of  migration-related  cross-border  crime  (smuggling,  organised  crime, 

corruption of officials etc.);  

-  cost  of  providing  public  services  for  irregular  migrants  (i.e.  health  and  social 

care, education, housing, employment, policing);  

-  cost linked to the processing of asylum claim applications (i.e. procedural costs, 

reception costs / detention costs, financial stipend, legal costs); and  

-  cost  of  return  (i.e.  detention  costs,  flight  and  escort  related  costs,  return  and 

reintegration assistance). 

  Cost avoidance by preventing other cross border crime, such as smuggling 
of illegal drugs and illicit tobacco. This would lead to a reduction in the volume 
of  illegal  drugs  for  sale  in  the  EU  and  increase  the  tax  receipts  for  national 
Governments as citizens purchase more illicit tobacco products.  

Based on the benefit taxonomy and benefit indicators and reasoned assumptions, a benefit 
model was developed, the results of which are presented in this report.  

2.3  Sources of data 

Data  sources  include  desk  research  and  stakeholder  consultations.  Regarding  the  desk 
research exercise, the following sources were reviewed and compiled: 

  national  reports  from  the  Member  States,  including  legal  mapping,  description  of 

activities provided and funding36; 

  consultations with EBCGA, DG HOMEHOME relating to IT systems and data collection 

on costs and benefits; 

  Technical study assessing the financial impact of establishing EUROSUR37; 

 

the EUROSUR evaluation38  

  European Border Fund and Internal Security Fund - Border39; and, 

  Eurostat (e.g. GDP deflator40).   

The  cost  items  and  other  variables  entering  into  the  calculations  of  the  costs  and 
operational benefits are presented in Annex 2 and Annex 3.  

36 Not publicly available.   
37 Not publicly available.  
38 Refer to https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/soteu2018-eurosur-evaluation_en.pdf  
39 Not publicly available.  
40 See for instance: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database?node_code=teina110  

September, 2019 

16 

 
 
 
                                           
Study to assess the impacts related to possible evolutions of EUROSUR - Final Report 

Regarding consultation exercises, Table 1 presents a list of stakeholders consulted during 
the Study. Member States provided limited input into the Study41 as Member State officials 
were  assessing  and  negotiating  the  proposed  EBCG  Regulation.  Most  Member  State 
resources which could be useful for the study were mobilised during the study.   

  Stakeholders consulted to inform the cost estimates 

Option 

Stakeholder  Data and information collected  

Option 1 

Option 2 

EBCGA, 
industry 
(to 
get  a  second 
assessment) 

EBCGA,  DG 
HOME 

Cost  items  on  information  exchange  gateways,  data  quality 
validation protocols, requirements for merging EUROSUR and 
JORA 
of 
upgrade 
communication infrastructure 

replacement 

datasets; 

and/or 

Knowledge of technical requirements of collecting data from 
BCPs; advise on whether NCC should feed data directly into 
EUROSUR  and/or  to  import  data  via  EU-LISA’s  EURODAC 
system 

Option 3 

EBCGA 

EBCGA:  Knowledge  of  technical  requirements  of  collecting 
data from different organisations with different IT systems 

EBCGA:  Maritime 
EMSA/EFCA and EBCGA 

surveillance 

cooperation  between 

Option 4.1  EBCGA 

EBCGA: Knowledge of setting-up NCCs and establishing third 
country relationships, technical requirements 

Option 4.2  EBCGA 

EBCGA:  Technical  knowledge  of  collecting  additional  data 
from  organisations  with  different 
IT  systems  and 
incorporating into EUROSUR 

Option 4.3  EBCGA 

Knowledge of the requirements of coordinating planning from 
Joint Operations. 

2.4  Strengths and limitations of the methods 

The strengths of the method of approach are as follows:  

  The bottom-up up approach to modelling costs offer multiple advantages:  

-  The  cost model built on the  current42 implementation of  EUROSUR at  Member 
State  level.  Option  0  was  estimated  which  enabled  additional  costs  to  be 
modelled  with  the  understanding  of  the  current  state  of  play  in  each  Member 
State.  

-  A  single  value  for  specific  cost  items  was  estimated  drawing  on  several  data 
points from Member State specific information to arrive to an EU average.  

-  Cost  implications  were  estimated  in  a  similar  way  across  Member  States  and 

aggregated and reported at an EU level.  

  Using a top-down approach allowed the study team to test the results of the costing 

exercise, namely:  

-  Testing  the  cost  estimates  by  consulting  with  officials  in  EBCGA  or  industry 

experts.  

41  Member  States  were  consulted  over  the  summer  2018  in  a  workshop  setting.  They  were  presented  with  the 
possible evolutions of EUROSUR and provided feedback orally and in writing to the options and cost implications.  
42 The status of the implementation of EUROSUR was captured by the evaluation of EUROSUR also published 
online at https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/soteu2018-eurosur-evaluation_en.pdf.  

September, 2019 

17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Study to assess the impacts related to possible evolutions of EUROSUR - Final Report 

-  Testing  the  results  of  the  cost  model  with  data  from  procurement  exercises 
and/or legal financial instruments funding part of the EUROSUR deployment.  

-  Testing the order of magnitude of the implications via non-cost variables (e.g. 

staffing levels) compared to the current implementation of EUROSUR.  

The limitations of the method are as follows:  

  The study is useful to provide an order of magnitude of the cost implications rather 
than a line-by-line assessment of the price to procure the solution. The Study aims 
to assess the financial costs of EUROSUR for authorities to plan and budget for its 
implementation in view of its evolutions. It is not a detailed costing exercise for each 
Member State. 

  The  future  costs  of  implementation  are  likely  to  be  influenced  by  several  factors 

which are difficult to consider in the assessment, namely:  

-  The  evolution  of  technology:  Although  current  technologies  and  their  cost 
implications  are  known,  it  is  likely  that  emerging  technologies  will  become 
affordable by 2027. Such technologies are difficult to identify and to price, either 
because  of  a  lack  of  a  competitive  market  or  because  the  commercial 
technological solutions required may not yet exist.  

-  Procurement  strategies:  The  price  of  implementing  the  possible  evolutions  of 
EUROSUR may vary according to the procurement routes, roadmap, or whether 
joint procurement exercises are conducted, etc.  

- 

In  the  case  of  the  absence  of  hard  evidence  (i.e.  facts),  several  reasoned 
assumptions had to be  made to fill information gaps. This might influence the 
accuracy  of  the  calculations  but  not  the  order  of  magnitude  of  the  cost 
assessments.  

  It was difficult to estimate the potential benefits of the policy options of EUROSUR, 
as  there  was  limited  existing  evidence  the  likely  impacts  of  a  framework  for 
information exchange and cooperation between Member States and the Agency in 
the  area  of  border  control.  Therefore,  the  policy  benefits  that  EUROSUR  will 
contribute  as  part  of  the  Integrated  Border  Management  Concept  have  not  been 
assessed  in  detail.  Rather,  the  assessment  of  benefits  focused  on  operational 
benefits.  For  each  benefit  indicator  a  baseline  value  and  a  maximum  value  was 
established. The effect of the options on specific outputs and/or outcomes-related 
benefits have been subject to expert opinions and reasoned assumptions.  

September, 2019 

18 

 
 
 
Study to assess the impacts related to possible evolutions of EUROSUR - Final Report 

3 

Proposals for the possible evolutions of EUROSUR 

This section describes and assesses the cost and benefits of implementing the proposals 
for  further  enhancing  EUROSUR.  These  proposals  were  derived  from  the  results  of  the 
evaluation EUROSUR Regulation43. The proposals include three main options i.e. Options 
1, 2 & 3 which are cumulative (each option builds on the previous one) a as well as three 
non-cumulative  options  (4.1,  4.2  and  4.3)  which  can  be  added  independently  from  the 
other  options.  Option  0  describes  the  status  quo,  i.e.  the  current  state  of  the 
implementation of EUROSUR or the baseline situation. Option 1.1 concerns the investment 
in  an  EU-Confidential  Network  supporting  the  EUROSUR  system  –  it  is  reported  once 
separately under Option 1.1.  

3.1  Option 0: Baseline situation 

Under Option 0, the EBCGA and the Member States continue to provide EUROSUR “as is”. 
The  baseline  situation  describes44  the  status  quo  of  the  operational  implementation  of 
EUROSUR in EBCGA and in the Member States as well as corresponding costs of current 
operations.  This  means  that  EUROSUR  is  not  fully  implemented  as  mandated  in  the 
Regulation with a subset of Member States collecting some BCP and air border surveillance 
data. Option 0 builds on the following assumptions:  

  The status quo is preserved throughout the defined time horizon of the analysis (up 
until 2027). This means that the activities currently being undertaken by NCCs and 
EBCGA will continue to be provided until 2027.  

  EUROSUR will continue being implemented within the current scope of Regulation 
1052/2013. For example, where a Member State does not provide all activities or 
services required in the EUROSUR Regulation, they will continue to not provide these 
activities until 2027 (unless the Member State has specified a date when the activity 
will begin).  

  Similarly, none of the recommendations made in the evaluation of EUROSUR will be 

implemented.  

Overall,  the  total  estimated  costs  of  Option  0,  that  is  replacing  building  security 
equipment, incurring communication and maintenance costs of existing equipment as well 
as staff and training costs over the period until 2027, is €517 million45. Table 2 breaks 
down the total cost for Option 0. 

  Total cost of Option 0 (million EUR)  

EBCGA 

Infrastructure 

Operating and IT equipment 

Staff cost 

Communication & maintenance 

Total EBCGA 

Member States 

Infrastructure 

Operating and IT equipment 

Option 0 (million EUR)  

0.2 

046 

44 

119 

163 

Option 0 (million EUR)  

2 

0 

to:  https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/soteu2018-eurosur-report-632_en.pdf  & 

43  Refer 
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/soteu2018-eurosur-evaluation_en.pdf.  
44 See also section 1.3 for a description of the EUROSUR Regulation.  
45 See Annex 1 of detailed cost calculations 
46 Note that the replacement for depreciated or broken equipment is included in communication and maintenance.  

September, 2019 

19 

 
 
 
                                           
Study to assess the impacts related to possible evolutions of EUROSUR - Final Report 

Staff cost 

Communication & maintenance 

Total Member States 

Overall Total Costs of Option 0 

191 

161 

354 

517 

The estimated annual total number of staff related to EUROSUR  at Member State 
level is 890. The staff related to EUROSUR oversight, management and development in 
EBCGA  (49  staff)  is  expected  to  stay  the  same  until  2027.  There  will  be  no  additional 
benefits from the Regulation other than those reported in the evaluation of the EUROSUR, 
which are:  

  existence of a legal framework for structured cooperation at EU level;  

  regular information exchanged between the Member States; and  

  existence  of  a  common  European  situational  picture  and  related  situational 

awareness.  

However, the operational benefits currently delivered by the current EUROSUR regulation 
are presented in Table 347.  

  State  of  play  of  the  current  operational  benefits  delivered  by  the  current 

EUROSUR Regulation 

Type of operational benefit  

Baseline value  

Improvement in data quality, flow and speed of reporting 

Data quality (re-entry rate) 

Volume of data – events 

Volume of data - assets participating in joint operations 

Volume of data - analytical reports 

Latency of data (events)  

Greater than 
135% 

28,000 

0% 

500 

50% reported 
within 24 hours 

Improved interagency cooperation through exchange of data across 
geographies and sectors (EU LEVEL) 

Number of cooperation agreement by sector  

Number of data or functional services covered by EU level inter-
agency agreements  

9 

13 

Number of analytical services exchanged at EU level falling within the 
scope of the agreements 

A minimum of 
300 per year 

Improved interagency cooperation through exchange of data across 
geographies and sectors (Member State level) 

Proportion of NCCs exchanging data related to events with 
neighbouring NCCs on a regular basis  

77% 

Proportion of NCCs exchanging data related to operational assets with 
neighbouring NCCs on a regular basis  

0% 

Proportion of NCCs exchanging data related to analytical reports with 
neighbouring NCCs on a regular basis 

7% 

47 Refer to Annex 3 for detailed benefit calculations and assumptions.  

September, 2019 

20 

 
 
 
                                           
Study to assess the impacts related to possible evolutions of EUROSUR - Final Report 

Type of operational benefit  

Baseline value  

Proportion of national authorities involved in border control 
exchanging data with NCCs on a regular basis by governance level 
(Local, Regional, National level) 

33% 

Improved interagency cooperation through exchange of data across 
geographies and sectors (Regional Networks and Third Countries) 

Working arrangements between EBCGA and third countries 

Number of data or analytical services covered by EBCGA working 
arrangements with 3rd countries  

Bilateral agreements between Member States and third countries (or 
third countries part of the regional networks)  

19 

0 

26 

Improved situational awareness at Member States’ NCCs and across Europe 

Coverage of border sections (by Land / Sea / Air border) (%) 

50% 

Coverage of border crossing points (%)  

Max 66% 

Coverage of external air border (%)  

Coverage of irregular migration phenomena  

Coverage of border control assets included in the operational layer 
(%) 

0% 

3 

30% 

Enhanced planning and operational coordination between NCCs in different 
Member States 

Extent to which NCC’s operational plans are shared with neighbouring 
NCCs (including third countries) & EBCGA on a regular basis (outside 
Joint Operations) 

Extent to which local and regional operational plans are shared with 
NCC’s operational management level (excluding joint operations) 

Extent of coordination of daily surveillance activities at bilateral level 
(excluding joint operations) by type of border section  

Extent of coordination of daily surveillance activities at multilateral 
level (outside joint operations) by type of border section  

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

Improved reaction capabilities from Border Guard Agencies and EBCGA 

Number of multipurpose aerial surveillance coordinated at multilateral 
level / Number of overall patrolling hours  

1934 hours 

Size of the area covered by joint patrols (Km2) in high risk areas  

784,870 km2 

Number of interceptions made following EFS detections 

127 

September, 2019 

21 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to assess the impacts related to possible evolutions of EUROSUR - Final Report 

3.2  Option 1: Improved EUROSUR with the current scope (“Baseline 

plus”)  

Under Option 1, the EBCGA and the Member States comply fully with – and implement the 
full scope of – Regulation 1052/2013. In addition, this Option involves incorporating JORA 
data into EUROSUR and improves the quality of the data exchanged via standardisation of 
reporting and establish information exchange gateways and establishes a shared quality 
control mechanism. This option can be introduced right before the start of the next multi-
annual financial period (i.e. 2020).  

It builds on the following assumptions on cost implications:  

  EBCGA  and  Member  States  implement  all  the  provisions  as  in  the  Regulation 
1052/2013  (e.g.  24/7  service,  generating  analytical  services  and  products;  the 
provision of an exhaustive situational picture of EU external borders). 

  EBCGA  and  Member  States  implement  all  the  recommendations  made  in  the 
EUROSUR evaluation to improve the EUROSUR system such as the implementation 
of  information  exchange  gateways  automating  the  data  exchange  between  the 
national and European level as well as assuring the quality of the data exchanged 
via standardisation of the reporting (both nature of events and procedure)48.  

  The operational and systems costs of including JORA data into EUROSUR are borne 

by EBCGA.  

  Data quality monitoring on the network (e.g. via the definition and enforcement of 
a new data model) is performed by EBCGA and information is shared with NCCs. 

  The deployment of the EBCGA positioning system for border surveillance assets in 
national  and/or  in  joint  operations  available  to  all  Member  States  and  Schengen 
Associated Countries (through EUROSUR Fusion Services).  

Overall, the total estimated cost of Option 1 is €647 million. In addition to the costs 
reported under Option 0, Option 1 will involve the development of the technical solution to 
combine  JORA  and  EUROSUR  information,  the  development  of  information  exchange 
gateways as well as staff to operate the gateways in  EBCGA, and at Member State level 
staff to provide EUROSUR services as specified in Regulation 1052/2013, and to analyse 
BCP and air border surveillance data for those Member States which are already doing  it 
as well as EBCGA-related training costs benefiting NCC staff. The estimated additional 
cost of Option 1 (on top of Option 0) is €130 million. Table 4 breaks down the total 
cost for Option 1. 

  Total and additional cost of Option 1 (million EUR)  

EBCGA 

Infrastructure 

Operating and IT equipment 

Staff cost 

Communication & maintenance 

Total EBCGA 

Total cost Option 1 
(million EUR)  

Additional cost compared 
to Option 0 (million EUR) 

0.2 

12 

52 

130 

193 

0 

12 

8 

10 

30 

48  The  EUROSUR  evaluation  and  Expert  Groups  recommended  improvements  to  the  EUROSUR  system,  for 
example  improving  the  quality  of  the  data  exchanged  via  standardisation  of  reporting  and  automation  of  data 
exchange  (and  establishing  information  exchange  gateways  to  support  the  verification  of  data)  –  see 
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/soteu2018-eurosur-report-632_en.pdf. 
the 
EUROSUR Evaluation please refer to https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/soteu2018-eurosur-
evaluation_en.pdf  

For 

September, 2019 

22 

 
 
 
                                           
Study to assess the impacts related to possible evolutions of EUROSUR - Final Report 

Total cost Option 1 
(million EUR)  

Additional cost compared 
to Option 0 (million EUR) 

Member States 

Infrastructure 

Operating and IT equipment 

Staff cost 

Communication & maintenance 

Total Member States 

17 

29 

241 

167 

454 

Overall Total Costs of Option 1  647 

15 

29 

50 

5 

100 

130 

Under Option 1, the  average annual total  number of staff  related to  EUROSUR  at 
Member State level is 1,115 (representing 225 additional FTE compared to Option 
0).  This  is  due  to  apply  to  all  Member  States  implementing  the  EUROSUR 
Regulation. The staff related to EUROSUR oversight, management and development in 
EBCGA are expected to increase to 61 from 49 FTE under Option 0. 

In terms of operational benefits, Option 1 is expected to achieve the operational benefits 
foreseen  in  Regulation  1052/2013  –  further  improvement  of  the  situational  awareness 
Member State and Schengen Associate Countries (SAC), and reaction capabilities at the 
external EU borders. More specifically, the benefits will fall into the following areas: 

  The standardisation of reporting processes, systematic exchange of data as well as 
the  verification  of  the  data  exchanged  performed  via  the  information  exchange 
gateways  is  expected  to  increase  data  quality.  This  is  expected  to  eliminate 
redundant information and contribute to enhancing the  quality of data included in 
EUROSUR. Data quality can also be measured via a proxy indicator (the so called 
‘re-entry rate’, or the proportion of incomplete and or incorrect data entries divided 
by the number of data entered into the EUROSUR system) which is expected to drop 
as a result of the aforementioned features of option 1. 

  The systematic exchange of data will lead to higher volumes of data exchanged as 
well as with the speed at which the data is reported (data latency).  In turn, this 
can  lead  to  an  increase  in  the  volume  of  the  analytical  reports  generated  by  this 
enhanced EUROSUR dataset.  

  The timely and higher availability of good quality data and analytical reports is also 
expected to improve interagency cooperation between neighbouring NCCs via the 
exchange  of  data  related  to  events,  analytical  reports,  and  relevant  assets  on  a 
regular basis.  

In turn, these direct benefits have the potential to enhance the situational awareness at 
Member  State  and  Schengen  Associate  Countries  (SAC)  level49,  thus  potentially 
contributing to enhanced planning and coordination in the context joint operations, pilot 
projects and rapid interventions coordinated by EBCGA and increasing reaction capabilities 
in such a context.   

49 A more complete situational picture for Europe and individual member states will be established if Member States 
fully apply the EUROSUR Regulation and incorporate the recommendations for the improvement of EUROSUR.  

September, 2019 

23 

 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Study to assess the impacts related to possible evolutions of EUROSUR - Final Report 

Figure 3 illustrates the key operational benefits delivered through Option 1. 

Figure 3.  Illustration of the key operational benefits delivered through Option 1 

Table 5 summarises the benefits brought by Option 150.  

  Operational benefits delivered by Option 1 compared to the baseline situation 

Type of operational benefit  

Baseline 
values 

Option 1 
indicator 
values 

Improvement in data quality, flow and speed of reporting 

Re-entry rate - proportion of incomplete or incorrect 
data entries divided by the number of data entered 
the EUROSUR 

Greater than 
135% 

Less than 
100% 

Volume of data – annual number of events and 
products in the analysis layer  

Volume of data - assets participating in joint 
operations 

Volume of data - analytical reports by MS/SAS 

28,000 

0% 

500 

Latency of data - time elapsed between the 
occurrence of the new information and the entry in the 
EUROSUR Application  

50% reported 
within 24 
hours 

Improved interagency cooperation through exchange of data 
across geographies and sectors (EU LEVEL) 

Number of cooperation agreements by sector  

9 

Number of data or functional services covered by EU 
level inter-agency agreements  

13 

56,000 

Limited 
benefits  

1,000  

All events are 
reported 
within 24 
hours  

9  

13 

Number of analytical services exchanged at EU level 
falling within the scope of the agreements 

A minimum of 
300 per year 

A minimum of 
300 per year 

50 Refer to Annex 3 for detailed benefit calculations and assumptions.  

September, 2019 

24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Study to assess the impacts related to possible evolutions of EUROSUR - Final Report 

Type of operational benefit  

Baseline 
values 

Option 1 
indicator 
values 

Improved interagency cooperation through exchange of data 
across geographies and sectors (Member State level) 

Proportion of NCCs exchanging data related to events 
with neighbouring NCCs on a regular basis  

77% 

80% 

Proportion of NCCs exchanging data related to 
operational assets with neighbouring NCCs on a 
regular basis  

0% 

Limited 
benefits 

Proportion of NCCs exchanging data related to 
analytical reports with neighbouring NCCs on a regular 
basis 

7% 

14% 

Proportion of national authorities involved in border 
control exchanging data with NCCs on a regular basis 
by governance level (Local, Regional, National level) 

33% 

33% 

Improved interagency cooperation through exchange of data 
across geographies and sectors (Regional Networks and Third 
Countries) 

Working arrangements between EBCGA and third 
countries 

Number of data or analytical services covered by 
EBCGA working arrangements with 3rd countries  

19 

0 

19 

0 

Bilateral agreements between Member States and 
third countries (or third countries part of the regional 
networks)  

26 

26 

Improved situational awareness at Member States’ NCCs and 
across Europe 

Coverage of border sections (by Land / Sea / Air 
border) (%) 

50% 

Max 50% 

Coverage of border crossing points (%)  

Max 66% 

Max 66% 

Coverage of external air border (%)  

Coverage of irregular migration phenomena  

0% 

3 

Limited 
benefits 

A minimum of 
3 

Coverage of border control assets included in the 
operational layer (%) 

30% 

30% 

Enhanced planning and operational coordination between NCCs 
in different Member States 

Extent to which NCC’s operational plans are shared 
with neighbouring NCCs (including third countries) & 
EBCGA on a regular basis (outside Joint Operations) 

0% 

Only 
deployment 
plans are 

September, 2019 

25 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to assess the impacts related to possible evolutions of EUROSUR - Final Report 

Type of operational benefit  

Baseline 
values 

Extent to which local and regional operational plans 
are shared with NCC’s operational management level 
(excluding joint operations) 

0% 

Extent of coordination of daily surveillance activities at 
bilateral level (excluding joint operations) by type of 
border section  

0% 

Extent of coordination of daily surveillance activities at 
multilateral level (outside joint operations) by type of 
border section  

0% 

Improved reaction capabilities from Border Guard Agencies 
and EBCGA 

Option 1 
indicator 
values 
shared in 
cases of joint 
operations, 
pilot projects 
and rapid 
interventions 
as per Art. 
10.5(a) 
Regulation 
2013/1052 

Only 
deployment 
plans are 
shared in 
cases of joint 
operations, 
pilot projects 
and rapid 
interventions. 
as per Art. 
10.5(a) of 
Regulation 
2013/1052 

No effect  

No effect 

Number of multipurpose aerial surveillance 
coordinated at multilateral level / Number of overall 
patrolling hours  

1934 hours 

1934 hours 

Size of the area covered by joint patrols (Km2) in high 
risk areas  

784,870 km2  784,870 km2 

Number of interceptions made following EFS 
detections 

127 

127 

Key:  indicators  marked  in  green  denote  an  improvement  compared  to  the  baseline  situation.  Indicators 
marked in amber denote a potential for improvement compared to the baseline situation. Indicators left in 
black do not signal any change.   

September, 2019 

26 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to assess the impacts related to possible evolutions of EUROSUR - Final Report 

3.3  Option 1.1: Improved EUROSUR with the current scope (“Baseline 

plus”) with an “EU-Confidential communication network”  

Upgrading  the  EUROSUR  network  to  EU-Confidential  level  will  allow  the  exchange  of 
classified data across the network. The cost implications are additional to those of Option 
1 and involve:  

  upgrading network to EU-Confidential level for each of the NCCs at Member State 

and Schengen Associated Country level;  

  upgrading NCC buildings to support EU-Confidential network;  

  replacing IT hardware for staff with new equipment that supports EU-

Confidentiality; 

  recruiting additional security staff51 to support EU-Confidentiality at Member State 

level;  

  hiring technical staff to manage encryption, cyber-security as well as data quality 

within the EUROSUR system in EBCGA; and  

  communication network costs. 

Overall, the total estimated cost of Option 1.1 is €680 million (compared to €647 
million  in  Option  1).  The  additional  costs  of  Option  1.1  compared  to  Option  1  are 
therefore estimated to be €33 million to upgrade the communication network supporting 
the  EUROSUR  system  to  EU-Confidential.  Table  6  breaks  down  the  total  cost  for  Option 
1.1. 

  Total and additional cost of Option 1.1 (EUR millions)  

Total cost Option 1.1 
(million EUR)  

Additional cost compared 
to Option 0 (million EUR) 

EBCGA 

Infrastructure 

Operating and IT equipment 

Staff cost 

Communication & maintenance  131 

Total EBCGA 

206 

Member States 

Infrastructure 

Operating and IT equipment 

Staff cost 

Communication & maintenance  170 

Total Member States 

Overall Total Costs of 
Option 1.1 

474 

680 

0.2 

12 

63 

25 

33 

246 

0 

12 

19 

11 

42 

23 

33 

55 

9 

120 

163 

Total cost Option 1.1 
(million EUR)  

Additional cost compared 
to Option 0 (million EUR) 

Under Option 1.1. the estimated annual total number of staff related to EUROSUR 
at Member State level is 1,115 (the same number of staff as required in Option 
1). The staff related to EUROSUR oversight, management and development in EBCGA is 
expected to increase (from 49 FTE under option 0 and 61 FTE under Option 1) to 77. 

51 For instance, for ensuring that the premises are facility cleared and managing security at such level.  

September, 2019 

27 

 
 
 
                                           
Study to assess the impacts related to possible evolutions of EUROSUR - Final Report 

In terms of operational benefits in addition to the benefits already brought by Option 1, 
Option 1.1 is expected to improve interagency cooperation through the exchange of data 
across  geographies  and  sectors  at  Member  State  level  related  to  events  and  analytical 
reports.  The  upgrade  of  the  (EUROSUR)  Communication  Network  to  handle  confidential 
information will allow for the increase of entries of certain categories information, such as 
intelligence data, positioning of certain operational assets, information related to suspects, 
as well as analytical reports. In turn, this has the potential to lead to a better risk analysis 
and  situational  awareness  and  faster  reaction  capability;  stronger  cooperation  between 
Member States, SACs, and EU institutions, including EBCGA and Europol.  

Compared to Option 1, the benefits of an EU confidential network are a higher propensity 
to record sensitive events, disclose the positioning of relevant assets as well as analytical 
reports, a higher frequency of the exchange of classified information between neighbouring 
NCCs. In turn, this has the potential to lead to a better situational awareness and faster 
reaction capability. 

Figure 4 illustrates the key operational benefits delivered through Option 1.1. 

Figure 4.  Illustration of the key operational benefits delivered through Option 1.1 

Table 7 summarises the benefits brought by Option 1.152.  

  Operational benefits delivered by Option 1.1 compared to the baseline 

situation 

Type of operational benefit  

Baseline 
values 

Option 1.1 
indicator values 

Improvement in data quality, flow and speed of reporting 

Data quality (re-entry rate) 

Volume of data – events 

Volume of data - assets participating in joint 
operations 

Volume of data - analytical reports 

Greater than 
135% 

Less than 100% 

28,000 

0% 

500 

Greater than 
56,000 

Moderate 
benefits 

Greater than 1,000  

52 Refer to Annex 3 for detailed benefit calculations and assumptions.  

September, 2019 

28 

 
 
 
 
                                           
Study to assess the impacts related to possible evolutions of EUROSUR - Final Report 

Type of operational benefit  

Latency of data (events)  

Baseline 
values 

Option 1.1 
indicator values 

50% 
reported 
within 24 
hours 

All events are 
reported within 
24 hours  

Improved interagency cooperation through exchange of data across 
geographies and sectors (EU LEVEL) 

Number of cooperation agreement by sector  

9 

Number of data or functional services covered by EU 
level inter-agency agreements  

13 

9  

13 

Number of analytical services exchanged at EU level 
falling within the scope of the agreements 

A minimum 
of 300 per 
year 

A minimum of 300 
per year 

Improved interagency cooperation through exchange of data across 
geographies and sectors (Member State level) 

Proportion of NCCs exchanging data related to 
events with neighbouring NCCs on a regular basis  

77% 

100% 

Proportion of NCCs exchanging data related to 
operational assets with neighbouring NCCs on a 
regular basis  

0% 

Moderate 
benefits 

Proportion of NCCs exchanging data related to 
analytical reports with neighbouring NCCs on a 
regular basis 

7% 

15% 

Proportion of national authorities involved in border 
control exchanging data with NCCs on a regular basis 
by governance level (Local, Regional, National level)  33% 

33% 

Improved interagency cooperation through exchange of data across 
geographies and sectors (Regional Networks and Third Countries) 

Working arrangements between EBCGA and third 
countries 

Number of data or analytical services covered by 
EBCGA working arrangements with 3rd countries  

19 

0 

19 

0 

Bilateral agreements between Member States and 
third countries (or third countries part of the regional 
networks)  

26 

26 

Improved situational awareness at Member States’ NCCs and across Europe 

Coverage of border sections (by Land / Sea / Air 
border) (%) 

50% 

50% 

Coverage of border crossing points (%)  

Max 66% 

Max 66% 

Coverage of external air border (%)  

0% 

Limited benefits 
% 

September, 2019 

29 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to assess the impacts related to possible evolutions of EUROSUR - Final Report 

Type of operational benefit  

Baseline 
values 

Option 1.1 
indicator values 

Coverage of irregular migration phenomena  

3 

A minimum of 3 

Coverage of border control assets included in the 
operational layer (%) 

30% 

0% 

Enhanced planning and operational coordination between NCCs in different 
Member States 

Extent to which NCC’s operational plans are shared 
with neighbouring NCCs (including third countries) & 
EBCGA on a regular basis (outside Joint Operations) 

Extent to which local and regional operational plans 
are shared with NCC’s operational management level 
(excluding joint operations) 

Extent of coordination of daily surveillance activities 
at bilateral level (excluding joint operations) by type 
of border section  

Only deployment 
plans are shared 
in cases of joint 
operations, pilot 
projects and 
rapid 
interventions as 
per Art. 10.5(a) 
Regulation 
2013/1052 

Only deployment 
plans are shared 
in cases of joint 
operations, pilot 
projects and 
rapid 
interventions. as 
per Art. 10.5(a) 
of Regulation 
2013/1052 

No effect  

0% 

0% 

0% 

Extent of coordination of daily surveillance activities 
at multilateral level (outside joint operations) by type 
of border section  

0% 

No effect 

Improved reaction capabilities from Border Guard Agencies and EBCGA 

Number of multipurpose aerial surveillance 
coordinated at multilateral level / Number of overall 
patrolling hours  

1934 hours  1934 hours 

Size of area covered by joint patrols (Km2) in high 
risk areas  

784,870 
km2 

784,870 km2 

Number of interceptions made following EFS 
detections 

127 

127 

Key:  indicators  marked  in  green  denote  an  improvement  compared  to  the  baseline  situation.  Indicators 
marked in amber denote a potential for improvement compared to the baseline situation. Indicators left in 
black do not signal any change.   

September, 2019 

30 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to assess the impacts related to possible evolutions of EUROSUR - Final Report 

3.4  Option 2: Compulsory inclusion of Border Crossing Points (BCPs) 

Option  2  builds  on  Option  1  and  includes  the  compulsory  and  systematic  reporting  of 
incidents emanating from checks at all border crossing points (BCPs). EUROSUR will hence 
apply  to  the  surveillance  of  external  air53,  land  and  sea  borders.  This  option  would  be 
introduced one year before the start of the next multi-annual financial period (i.e. 2020). 
It builds on the following assumptions on cost implications:  

 

 

 

the  reception  and  analysis  of  information  from  all  BCPs  in  the  30  Member  States 
and Schengen Associated Countries (including airports) will have to be reported to 
their NCCs and shared on EUROSUR;  

the reception and analysis of aggregated information from large-scale information 
systems  (Schengen  Information  System,  Visa  Information  System,  Entry,  Exist 
System54) on trend data related to migration and events at the BCPs; and  

the increase of analytical capability from EUROSUR Fusion Services to process an 
increasing volume of data. 

Overall, the total estimated cost of Option 2 is €826 million55. On top of the costs 
reported under Option 1, Option 2 will involve additional:  

  Investments  in  physical  infrastructure:  The  set-up  or  enhancement,  organisation 

and operations of NCCs in some of the Member States56;  

  Investments in operating and IT equipment such as: the development of a technical 
solution for NCCs to access BCP data as part of EUROSUR57; the implementation the 
new software solution in NCC premises; the installation of a communication link with 
all BCPs and the NCC as well as the development of  cooperation and  information 
exchange  for  the  reception  and  analysis  of  aggregated  data  from  large-scale 
information systems.  

  Staff costs for analysing BCP data at Member State level and for EUROSUR Fusion 
Services. Moreover, staff training costs for analysing BCP data will be incurred and 
provided centrally by the EBCGA.  

  Communication  and  maintenance  related  costs  such  as:  decision  support 
applications  for  EUROSUR  Fusion  Services  to  provide  the  information  needed  to 
support NCCs and decision making.   

The estimated additional cost of Option 2 (over and above the cost of Option 1) 
is €179 million.  

Table 8 overleaf breaks down the total cost for Option 2. 

53 In 2019, Member States should be collecting, analysing and sharing information from BCPs at the land and sea 
borders on a compulsory basis and at the air border  on a voluntary basis. This allows EUROSUR to provide an 
exhaustive situational picture of EU external border, and creates differences between the reporting from different 
Member States.  
54 Note that the reception and analysis of data from EURODAC is covered under option 4.2.   
55 If an EU confidential communication network is considered these costs will rise to €857 million.  
56 It is assumed that five Member States will have to move the location of their NCCs. The inclusion of all BCP data 
into  the  NCC  might  require  a  transfer  of  the  NCC  from  one  national  authority  responsible  for  border  control  to 
another authority. The most relevant entity to host the NCC might may also correspond to the relative importance 
of volume of data reported from new BCPs to the NCCs; i.e. the national authority with the highest volume of data 
to report is assumed to be running the NCC (if different from the baseline situation).  
57 e.g. the set-up of communication links as data exchange systems and protocols between existing BCPs and the 
existing NCCs  

September, 2019 

31 

 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Study to assess the impacts related to possible evolutions of EUROSUR - Final Report 

  Total and additional cost of Option 2 (EUR million)  

Total cost Option 2 
(million EUR)  

Additional cost compared 
to Option 1 (million EUR) 

Communication & maintenance 

144 

EBCGA 

Infrastructure 

Operating and IT equipment 

Staff cost 

Total EBCGA 

Member States 

Infrastructure 

Operating and IT equipment 

Staff cost 

0.2 

22 

60 

226 

129 

31 

264 

Communication & maintenance 

176 

Total Member States 

Overall Total Costs of Option 
2 

Overall Total Costs of Option 
2.1 (including an EU confidential 
communication network)  

600 

826 

857 

0 

10 

8 

14 

33 

121 

1 

20 

8 

149 

179 

Total cost Option 2 
(million EUR)   

Additional cost compared 
to Option 1 (million EUR) 

Under Option 2, the  average annual total  number of staff  related to  EUROSUR  at 
Member State level is 1,189 (compared to 1,115 under Option 1). The staff related to 
EUROSUR oversight, management and development in EBCGA is expected to increase to 
71. If an EU-Confidential network58 is considered, the FTE figures would be 1,189 and 87 
respectively.  

Table 9 summarises the benefits brought by Option 2 compared to the baseline situation59. 
Compared to Option 1, Option 2 will lead to:   

  An improved situational awareness at the external borders via the coverage of the 

majority of BCPs60. This will be achieved via:  

-  An increase in the volume of the data reported and analytical reports generated, 
related  to  the  situation  and  issues  linked  to  all  categories  of  BCPs.  This  will 
strengthen the risk analysis capability of EBCGA and of Member States.  

-  An  improved  interagency  cooperation  at  EU  level  via  sectoral  agreement  (i.e. 

customs).  

  Improved surveillance capabilities and response capabilities as a result of a greater 
number  of  EFS  data  or  functional  services  covered  by  EU  level  interagency 
agreements.  Presently,  EFS  covers  13  areas  (e.g.  vessel  monitoring,  detection, 
etc.), but it is expected that EBCGA will bring in more services, such as BCP analysis 
and Europol big data services.  

58 i.e. between the NCC and EBCGA nodes.  
59 Refer to Annex 3 for detailed benefit calculations and assumptions.  
60 A more comprehensive situational picture at Member State and EU level will also be achieved via a better quality 
control of data and systematic reporting of events as supported by Options 1 and 1.1.  

September, 2019 

32 

 
 
 
 
                                           
Study to assess the impacts related to possible evolutions of EUROSUR - Final Report 

  An  improved  interagency  cooperation  between  Member  States  ,  as  well  as  within 
these  countries  via  the  exchange  of  information  coming  from  BCPs  as  well  as 
corresponding analytical reports. 

  Improved  reaction  capabilities  due  to  the  improved  situational  picture  and  new 
functional services provided by EFS leading to better reaction capabilities, which will 
allow border guards to  control existing migration routes in a timelier manner and 
forecast future migration routes.  

Compared to Option 2, the benefits of an EU-Confidential network brought by Option 2.1 
are a potential increase in the number of analytical report generated, a potential increase 
in  the  number  of  operational  assets  reported  in  the  operational  layer  and  a  higher 
frequency in the exchange of sensitive information between neighbouring NCCs. In turn, 
this  has  the  potential  to  lead  to  a  better  situational  analysis  and  improved  reaction 
capability. 

Figure 5 illustrates the key operational benefits delivered through Option 2.  

Figure 5.  Illustration of the key operational benefits delivered through Option 2 

Table 9 summarises the benefits brought by Option 261.  

  Operational benefits delivered by Option 2 compared to the baseline situation 

Type of operational benefit  

Baseline 
values 

Option 2 
indicator 
values 

Improvement in data quality, flow and speed of reporting 

Data quality (re-entry rate) 

Volume of data – events 

Greater than 
135% 

Less than 
100% 

28,000 

60,000 

Volume of data - assets participating in joint operations 

0% 

Limited 
benefits  

Volume of data - analytical reports 

500 

1,100 

61 Refer to Annex 3 for detailed benefit calculations and assumptions.  

September, 2019 

33 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Study to assess the impacts related to possible evolutions of EUROSUR - Final Report 

Type of operational benefit  

Latency of data (events)  

Baseline 
values 

Option 2 
indicator 
values 

50% 
reported 
within 24 
hours 

All events 
are reported 
within 24 
hours  

Improved interagency cooperation through exchange of data 
across geographies and sectors (EU LEVEL) 

Number of cooperation agreement by sector  

Number of data or functional services covered by EU level 
inter-agency agreements  

9 

13 

10  

15 

Number of analytical services exchanged at EU level falling 
within the scope of the agreements 

A minimum 
of 300 per 
year 

A minimum of 
300 per year 

Improved interagency cooperation through exchange of data 
across geographies and sectors (Member State level) 

Proportion of NCCs exchanging data related to events with 
neighbouring NCCs on a regular basis  

77% 

  80% 

Proportion of NCCs exchanging data related to operational 
assets with neighbouring NCCs on a regular basis  

0% 

Proportion of NCCs exchanging data related to analytical 
reports with neighbouring NCCs on a regular basis 

7% 

Less than 
100% 

28% 

Proportion of national authorities involved in border control 
exchanging data with NCCs on a regular basis by 
governance level (Local, Regional, National level) 

33% 

Greater than  

33% 

Improved interagency cooperation through exchange of data 
across geographies and sectors (Regional Networks and Third 
Countries) 

Working arrangements between EBCGA and third countries  19 

Number of data or analytical services covered by EBCGA 
working arrangements with 3rd countries  

0 

Bilateral agreements between Member States and third 
countries (or third countries part of the regional networks)   26 

Improved situational awareness at Member States’ NCCs and 
across Europe 

19 

0 

26 

Coverage of border sections (by Land / Sea / Air border) 
(%) 

50% 

Min 50% 

Coverage of border crossing points (%)  

Max 66% 

100% 

Coverage of external air border (%)  

0% 

Limited 
benefits  

September, 2019 

34 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to assess the impacts related to possible evolutions of EUROSUR - Final Report 

Type of operational benefit  

Coverage of irregular migration phenomena  

Baseline 
values 

3 

Option 2 
indicator 
values 

A minimum 
of 3 

Coverage of border control assets included in the 
operational layer (%) 

30% 

30% 

Enhanced planning and operational coordination between NCCs 
in different Member States 

Extent to which NCC’s operational plans are shared with 
neighbouring NCCs (including third countries) & EBCGA on 
a regular basis (outside Joint Operations) 

Extent to which local and regional operational plans are 
shared with NCC’s operational management level 
(excluding joint operations) 

Only 
deployment 
plans are 
shared in 
cases of 
joint 
operations, 
pilot 
projects and 
rapid 
intervention
s as per Art. 
10.5(a) 
Regulation 
2013/1052 

Only 
deployment 
plans are 
shared in 
cases of 
joint 
operations, 
pilot 
projects and 
rapid 
intervention
s. as per Art. 
10.5(a) of 
Regulation 
2013/1052 

0% 

0% 

Extent of coordination of daily surveillance activities at 
bilateral level (excluding joint operations) by type of 
border section  

Extent of coordination of daily surveillance activities at 
multilateral level (outside joint operations) by type of 
border section  

0% 

No effect  

0% 

No effect 

Improved reaction capabilities from Border Guard Agencies and 
EBCGA62 

62 Adding a confidential network is likely to result in improved reaction capabilities going beyond the effects brought 
by Option 2. See also Table A3.7 in Annex 2.  

September, 2019 

35 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Study to assess the impacts related to possible evolutions of EUROSUR - Final Report 

Type of operational benefit  

Baseline 
values 

Option 2 
indicator 
values 

Number of multipurpose aerial surveillance coordinated at 
multilateral level / Number of overall patrolling hours  

1934 hours 

at least 
2000 hours 

Size of the area covered by joint patrols (Km2) in high risk 
areas  

784,870 
km2 

at least 
800,000 km2 

Number of interceptions made following EFS detections 

127 

at least 250 

Key:  indicators  marked  in  green  denote  an  improvement  compared  to  the  baseline  situation.  Indicators 
marked in amber denote a potential for improvement compared to the baseline situation. Indicators left in 
black do not signal any change.   

September, 2019 

36 

 
 
 
 
 
Study to assess the impacts related to possible evolutions of EUROSUR - Final Report 

3.5  Option 3: Compulsory inclusion of Air Border Surveillance 

This option builds on Option 2 and includes the information from Air Border Surveillance 
systems63. It aims to extend the scope of EUROSUR64 to report incident at EU external Air 
borders including by aircraft and remotely piloted aviation systems (RPAS)65. This option 
can be introduced immediately before the start of the next multi-annual financial period 
(i.e. 2020). It builds on the following assumptions on cost implications:  

  Operating and IT equipment: The reception and analysis of information from air 
border surveillance systems in the 30 Member States   will have to be reported to 
their NCCs and shared on EUROSUR. The EBCGA will develop a technical solution to 
allow NCCs to access air border surveillance data as part of EUROSUR. The technical 
solution will have to be implemented in each of the NCCs not currently receiving / 
analysing  this  data  flow.  EUROSUR  Fusion  Services  will  have  to  develop  an 
application for analysing and reporting on air border surveillance data at EU level.  

  Additional staff: At Member State level, extra staff will be needed to analyse air 
border surveillance data in the NCC. At EU level, EUROSUR Fusion Services will also 
require additional staff to provide the corresponding product and services. Training 
courses developed by the EBCGA and targeting analysts in the NCCs will need to be 
implemented.  

  Communication and maintenance: Decision support applications will need to be 
developed  and  maintained  to  provide  strategic  air  border  surveillance  using 
advanced technology. 

Overall,  the  total  estimated  cost  of  Option  3  is  €  947  million66.  The  estimated 
additional cost (costs above the costs incurred in Option 2) is €121 million. Table 
10 breaks down the total cost for Option 3. 

  Total and additional cost of Option 3 (EUR million)  

Total cost Option 3 
(million EUR)  

Additional cost compared 
to Option 2 (million EUR) 

0.2 

42 

65 

198 

305 

0 

20 

5 

54 

79 

Total cost Option 3 
(million EUR)  

Additional cost compared 
to Option 2 (million EUR) 

EBCGA 

Infrastructure 

Operating and IT equipment 

Staff cost 

Communication & maintenance 

Total EBCGA 

Member States 

Infrastructure 

Operating and IT equipment 

Staff cost 

Communication & maintenance 

131 

32 

273 

205 

Total Member States 

642 

1 

2 

9 

30 

42 

63 There is a need to tackle new criminal trends which are carried out across air borders. This includes illegal activity 
such as smuggling carried out using small airplanes and helicopters, as well as the threat of RPAS. 
64 Currently, the surveillance of air borders is provided by Member States on a voluntary basis. 
65 Also referred to as unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs).  
66 If an EU confidential communication network is considered these costs will rise to €979 million.  

September, 2019 

37 

 
 
 
 
                                           
Study to assess the impacts related to possible evolutions of EUROSUR - Final Report 

EBCGA 

Total cost Option 3 
(million EUR)  

Additional cost compared 
to Option 2 (million EUR) 

Overall Total Costs of Option 3  947 

121 

Overall Total Costs of Option 
3.1 (including an EU 
confidential communication 
network)  

979 

Under  Option  3  the  average  annual  total  number  of  staff  related  to  EUROSUR  at 
Member  State  level  is  1,217.  The  staff  related  to  EUROSUR  oversight,  management 
and development in EBCGA is expected to increase to 77 (from 71 in Option 2). If an EU-
Confidential network is considered, the FTE figures would be 1,217 and 93 at a Member 
State level and in EBCGA respectively. 

Table 11 summarises the benefits brought by Option 3 compared to the baseline situation.  
Compared to Option 2, Option 3 will lead to an enhanced situational awareness. It should 
allow  Member  States  and  EBCGA  to  build  a  comprehensive  understanding  of  the  trends 
and modus operandi in the use of aircraft and or RPAS being for illegal activities related to 
irregular migration and or cross border crime. The operational benefits from this option will 
have the potential to improve risk analysis, enhance planning and operational coordination. 
A more complete situational picture  will hence lead to better reaction capabilities, which 
will  allow  border  guards  to  close  existing  migration  routes  in  a  timelier  manner  and 
anticipate future migration routes. More specifically these benefits include:   

  an  increase  in  the  volume  of  the  data  reported  (events)  and  in  the  number  of 
analytical reports generated via the collection of data on air border surveillance from 
aircraft and or RPAS being used for illegal activities related to irregular migration 
and or cross border crime.  

  Inter-agency agreements at EU level on the exchange of data and services related 
to air border surveillance will influence the volume of the data reported but also the 
cooperation between the different bodies.  

  An  improved  interagency  cooperation  between  Member  States  as  well  as  within 
Member States via the exchange of analytical reports and the number of authorities 
involved in border control exchanging data;  

  An improved situational awareness via the coverage of all border sections (sea, land 
and air), the coverage of the external air border, and the coverage of one additional 
irregular migration phenomena i.e. the suspected irregular crossing via aircraft or 
RPAS of EU external borders"67.  

Compared to Option 3, the benefits of an EU-Confidential network brought by Option 3.1 
are a potential increase in the number of events reported and analytical reports generated, 
a potential increase in the number of assets reported in the operational layer and a higher 
frequency  of  the  exchange  of  sensitive  information  between  neighbouring  NCCs  and 
between Member States' own authorities. In turn, this has the potential to lead to a better 
situational analysis and improved reaction capability.   

67 This will also be achieved due to better quality control of data, the complete provision of BCP data and systematic 
reporting of events.  

September, 2019 

38 

 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Study to assess the impacts related to possible evolutions of EUROSUR - Final Report 

Figure 6 illustrates the key operational benefits delivered through Option 3 

Figure 6.  Illustration of the key operational benefits delivered through Option 3 

Table 11 summarises the benefits brought by Option 368.  

  Operational benefits delivered by Option 3 compared to the baseline situation 

Type of operational benefit  

Baseline 
values 

Option 3 
indicator 
values 

Improvement in data quality, flow and speed of reporting 

Data quality (re-entry rate) 

Volume of data – events 

Greater than 
135% 

Less than 
100% 

28,000 

66,000 

Volume of data - assets participating in joint operations 

0% 

Limited 
benefits 

Volume of data - analytical reports 

500 

1,200 

Latency of data (events)  

50% reported 
within 24 
hours 

All events 
are reported 
within 24 
hours  

Improved interagency cooperation through exchange of data 
across geographies and sectors (EU LEVEL) 

Number of cooperation agreement by sector  

Number of data or functional services covered by EU 
level inter-agency agreements  

9 

13 

10  

16 

Number of analytical services exchanged at EU level 
falling within the scope of the agreements 

A minimum of 
300 per year 

A minimum of 
300 per year 

68 Refer to Annex 3 for detailed benefit calculations and assumptions.  

September, 2019 

39 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Study to assess the impacts related to possible evolutions of EUROSUR - Final Report 

Type of operational benefit  

Baseline 
values 

Option 3 
indicator 
values 

Improved interagency cooperation through exchange of data 
across geographies and sectors (Member State level) 

Proportion of NCCs exchanging data related to events 
with neighbouring NCCs on a regular basis  

77% 

80% 

Proportion of NCCs exchanging data related to 
operational assets with neighbouring NCCs on a regular 
basis  

0% 

Limited 
benefits  

Proportion of NCCs exchanging data related to analytical 
reports with neighbouring NCCs on a regular basis 

7% 

31% 

Proportion of national authorities involved in border 
control exchanging data with NCCs on a regular basis by 
governance level (Local, Regional, National level) 

33% 

Greater than 
36% 

Improved interagency cooperation through exchange of data 
across geographies and sectors (Regional Networks and Third 
Countries) 

Working arrangements between EBCGA and third 
countries 

19 

Number of data or analytical services covered by EBCGA 
working arrangements with 3rd countries  

0 

19 

0 

Bilateral agreements between Member States and third 
countries (or third countries part of the regional 
networks)  

26 

26 

Improved situational awareness at Member States’ NCCs and 
across Europe 

Coverage of border sections (by Land / Sea / Air border) 
(%) 

50% 

100% 

Coverage of border crossing points (%)  

Max 66% 

100% 

Coverage of external air border (%)  

Coverage of irregular migration phenomena  

Coverage of border control assets included in the 
operational layer (%) 

0% 

3 

High 
benefits 

A minimum 
of 4 

30% 

30% 

Enhanced planning and operational coordination between NCCs 
in different Member States 

September, 2019 

40 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to assess the impacts related to possible evolutions of EUROSUR - Final Report 

Type of operational benefit  

Baseline 
values 

Extent to which NCC’s operational plans are shared with 
neighbouring NCCs (including third countries) & EBCGA 
on a regular basis (outside Joint Operations) 

Extent to which local and regional operational plans are 
shared with NCC’s operational management level 
(excluding joint operations) 

Extent of coordination of daily surveillance activities at 
bilateral level (excluding joint operations) by type of 
border section  

Extent of coordination of daily surveillance activities at 
multilateral level (outside joint operations) by type of 
border section  

0% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

Option 3 
indicator 
values 

Only 
deployment 
plans are 
shared in 
cases of 
joint 
operations, 
pilot 
projects and 
rapid 
intervention
s as per Art. 
10.5(a) 
Regulation 
2013/1052 

Only 
deployment 
plans are 
shared in 
cases of 
joint 
operations, 
pilot 
projects and 
rapid 
intervention
s. as per Art. 
10.5(a) of 
Regulation 
2013/1052 

No effect  

No effect 

Improved reaction capabilities from Border Guard Agencies and 
EBCGA69 

Number of multipurpose aerial surveillance coordinated 
at multilateral level / Number of overall patrolling hours   1934 hours 

at least 
2000 hours 

Size of the area covered by joint patrols (Km2) in high 
risk areas  

784,870 km2 

at least 
800,000 km2 

Number of interceptions made following EFS detections 

127 

at least 250 

Key:  indicators  marked  in  green  denote  an  improvement  compared  to  the  baseline  situation.  Indicators 
marked in amber denote a potential for improvement compared to the baseline situation. Indicators left in 
black do not signal any change.   

69 Adding a confidential network is likely to result in improved reaction capabilities going beyond the effects brought 
by Option 3. See also Table A3.7 in Annex 2.  

September, 2019 

41 

 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Study to assess the impacts related to possible evolutions of EUROSUR - Final Report 

3.6  Option  4:  Inclusion  of  other  Integrated  Border  Management 

components  

Option 4 corresponds to a range of additional sub-options and builds on Option 3 to cover 
the  components  of  Integrated  Border  Management  as  defined  in  Article  4  of  the  EBCG 
Regulation,  some  of  which  are  still  to  be  further  detailed  in  the  framework  of  on-going 
discussion with experts from Member States and the EBCGA.  

3.6.1  Option 4.1: Improved information exchange with third countries  

Option  4.1  aims,  within  the  framework  of  the  EUROSUR  Regulation,  to  exchange 
information with neighbouring third countries that have already established a cooperation 
agreement relating to information exchange on border surveillance either through bilateral 
relationships  with  a  Member  State  (proxy)  via  a  regional  network  (such  as  Seahorse 
Networks), or directly with the EBCGA via a working arrangement70. The nature and extent 
of the data exchanged, as well as the access of third countries to EUROSUR products and 
services71,  will  be  governed  by  the  bilateral  agreements  or  multilateral  agreements 
establishing regional networks. Hence, the nature and extent of the data exchanged may 
vary from one third country to another. A dedicated data model and/or data governance 
arrangements would need to be defined on a third country basis. Some EUROSUR Fusion 
Services will be available to third countries and events from third countries will be fed into 
the EUROSUR European situational picture after having been validated. This option can be 
introduced  right before  the start  of the next multi-annual financial period (i.e. 2020).  It 
builds on the following assumptions on cost implications72:  

  Infrastructure-related  costs:  The  structure  and  composition  of  third  country 
NCCs may need establishing or upgrading (i.e. security costs of the facilities). It is 
assumed  that  19  third  countries  (out  of  a  total  of  30  third  countries)  in  the 
neighbourhood  of  the  EU  and  with  whom  some  form  of  cooperation  has  been 
established  in  the  context  of  the  mandate  of  the  EBCGA  or  implementation  of 
EUROSUR will need to set-up or significantly upgrade their current NCC in order to 
respond to more elaborate requirements as featuring in all Options from Option 1 
to Option 4.173.  

  Operating  and  IT  equipment  costs:  The  NCCs  would  need  to:  establish  a  link 
between  themselves  and  the  EUROSUR  network  via  specific  situational  pictures; 
upgrade their communication infrastructure; or implement new applications in third 
countries’  NCCs.  New  applications  for  EUROSUR  Fusion  Services  are  required 
specially to manage data models on a third country by third country basis.  

  Staff-related costs. A similar number of staff will be required in third country NCCs 
as  are  needed  in  Member  State  NCCs.  EBCGA  staff  working  for  EUROSUR  Fusion 
Services will be needed to analyse data coming from third countries. EBCGA training 
will be developed and made available to third country NCC staff.  

70 All third countries currently cooperating with EU Member States via the Seahorse networks, CoastNet and the 
Black  Sea  Border  Coordination  and  Information  Centre  and  those  countries  with  which  EBCGA  has  a  working 
arrangement will be linked to EUROSUR. In addition, a Western Balkan regional network for border surveillance 
will  be  established  and  linked  to  EUROSUR.    Lastly,  another  regional  network  for  border  surveillance  and  its 
integration to EUROSUR with Moldova and Ukraine with following Member States Poland, Slovakia, Hungary and 
Romania will be established.  
71 For instance, the EBCGA or Member States authorities may establish and maintain specific situational pictures 
to support specific operational activities at the external borders or to share information with third countries. These 
specific situational pictures will be composed of a sub-set of information of the national and European situational 
pictures and contain or display information in line with (bilateral or multilateral) cooperation agreements between 
EBCGA, Member States / Schengen Associated States and third countries.  
72 The costs of bringing third countries to EUROSUR will come directly from the earmarked EUROSUR budget as 
opposed  to  funding  available  from  Cooperation  Instruments  as  it  is  currently  the  case  with  external  funding 
instruments such as those under the management of DG NEAR and or DEVCO.  
73 The operational set-up of third countries for border surveillance activities vary on a third county 
basis. Some Third Countries have received funding from DG NEAR or DG DEVCO instrument to set-
up basic operation control rooms whilst others have a more elaborate set-up. 

September, 2019 

42 

 
 
 
                                           
Study to assess the impacts related to possible evolutions of EUROSUR - Final Report 

  Communication and maintenance costs: Additional support applications will be 
required so that EUROSUR Fusion Services can provide the information needed to 
support NCCs and decision making. Maintenance costs will also be incurred.  

Overall, the total estimated cost of Option 4.1 is €1.1 billion74 for EBCGA, Member 
States and third countries. The estimated additional cost of Option 4.1 (above the costs 
in Option 3) is €159 million. Table 12 breaks down the total cost for Option 4.1. 

  Total and additional cost of Option 4.1 (EUR million)  

Total cost Option 4.1 
(million EUR)  

Additional cost compared 
to Option 3 (million EUR) 

EBCGA 

Infrastructure 

Operating and IT equipment 

Staff cost 

Communication & maintenance  206 

Total EBCGA 

Member States 

0.2 

53 

74 

333 

0 

11 

8 

8 

27 

Total cost Option 4.1 
(million EUR)  

Additional cost compared 
to Option 3 (million EUR) 

Infrastructure 

131 

Operating and IT equipment 

32 

Staff cost 

273 

Communication & maintenance  209 

Total Member States 

645 

0 

0 

0 

4 

4 

Third countries  

Total cost Option 4.1 
(million EUR)  

Additional cost compared 
to Option 3 (million EUR) 

Infrastructure 

Operating and IT equipment 

Staff cost 

11 

2 

47 

Communication & maintenance  69 

Total Third countries  

Overall Total Costs of Option 
4.1 

128 

1106 

Total excluding third countries 

978 

Overall Total Costs of Option 
4.1 (including an EU 
confidential communication 
network and including third 
country costs)  

1138 

11 

2 

47 

69 

128 

159 

31 

Under Option 4.1, the estimated annual total number of staff related to EUROSUR 
at Member State level is 1,217. The staff related to EUROSUR oversight, management 
and development in EBCGA is expected to increase to 87.  If an EU-Confidential network 
is considered, the FTE figures would be 1,217 and 103 at a Member State level and in the 
EBCGA respectively.  A further 665 FTE staff will be required in third countries. 

74 If an EU confidential communication network is considered these costs will rise to €1.14 billion.  

September, 2019 

43 

 
 
 
 
                                           
Study to assess the impacts related to possible evolutions of EUROSUR - Final Report 

Table  13  summarises  the  benefits  brought  by  Option  4.1  compared  to  Option  375. 
Compared to Option 3, Option 4.1 will lead to: 

Option  4.1  will  further  improve  the  situational  awareness  of  Member  States,  SACs,  and 
EBCGA.  The  data  provided  by  third  countries  will  EUROSUR  will  specifically improve  the 
pre-frontier area situational awareness, which in turn could lead to improved risk analysis 
and  forecasting,  improved  operational  planning  and  more  efficient  use  of  operational 
assets.  The  exchange  of  information  with  third  countries  for  the  purposes  of  specific 
situational  pictures  will  facilitate  operational  cooperation,  improving  the  efficiency  and 
effectiveness of border surveillance or border checks. More specifically this will option will 
result in:         

  A potential relative decrease in the speed of reporting for part of the data entered 
into EUROSUR due to the involvement of third country reporting and the expected 
increase in the volume of events reported.  

  An increase in the volume of the data reported (i.e. events) and in the number of 

analytical reports generated;  

  An  improved  interagency  cooperation  between  Member  States  as  well  as  within 
Member States via the exchange of analytical reports and the number of authorities 
involved in border control exchanging data;  

  An improved interagency cooperation through exchange of data across geographies 

and sectors (Regional Networks and Third Countries) 

  Improved  support  to  specific  operational  activities  at  the  external  borders  or 
improved cooperation with due to sharing of specific operational pictures with third 
countries.  

  An  improved  situational  awareness  via  reporting  of  pre-frontier  data  and  risk 
analysis  (from  a  minimum  of  1976  to  a  maximum  of  30  third  countries  in  the 
neighbourhood of the EU) 

In turn, the above benefits are also expected to provide better intelligence and forecasting, 
thus contributing to a more efficient planning and coordination of Member State authorities 
and ultimately reaction capabilities.  

Compared  to  Option  4.1,  the  benefits  of  an  EU-Confidential  network  brought  by  Option 
4.11 are the potential for a higher volume of events recorded and analysis generated and 
a higher frequency exchange of sensitive information between neighbouring NCCs. In turn, 
this  has  the  potential  to  lead  to  a  better  situational  analysis  and  improved  reaction 
capability.   

Figure 7 illustrates the key operational benefits delivered through Option 4.1. 

75 Refer to  Annex 3 for detailed benefit calculations and assumptions.  
76 Nineteen third countries have signed bilateral agreements or multilateral agreements with either EBCGA and or 
in the context of Regional Networks.  

September, 2019 

44 

 
 
 
                                           
Study to assess the impacts related to possible evolutions of EUROSUR - Final Report 

Figure 7.  Illustration of the key operational benefits delivered through Option 4.1 

Table 13 summarises the benefits brought by Option 4.177.  

  Operational benefits delivered by Option 4.1 compared to Option 3 

Type of operational benefit  

Option 3 
indicator 
values 

Option 4.1 
indicator 
values 

Improvement in data quality, flow and speed of reporting 

Data quality (re-entry rate) 

Less than 100%  Less than 100% 

Volume of data – events 

66,000 

84,000 

Volume of data - assets participating in joint 
operations 

Limited benefits  Limited benefits  

Volume of data - analytical reports 

1,200 

1,500 

Latency of data (events)  

All events are 
reported within 
24 hours  

Most of the 
event reported 
within 24 
hours  

Improved interagency cooperation through exchange of data 
across geographies and sectors (EU LEVEL) 

Number of cooperation agreement by sector  

10  

Number of data or functional services covered by EU 
level inter-agency agreements  

16 

12 

16 

Number of analytical services exchanged at EU level 
falling within the scope of the agreements 

A minimum of 
300 per year 

A minimum of 
300 per year 

Improved interagency cooperation through exchange of data 
across geographies and sectors (Member State level) 

77 Refer to Annex 3 for detailed benefit calculations and assumptions.  

September, 2019 

45 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Study to assess the impacts related to possible evolutions of EUROSUR - Final Report 

Type of operational benefit  

Option 3 
indicator 
values 

Option 4.1 
indicator 
values 

Proportion of NCCs exchanging data related to 
events with neighbouring NCCs on a regular basis  

Proportion of NCCs exchanging data related to 
operational assets with neighbouring NCCs on a 
regular basis  

80% 

80% 

Limited benefits 

Limited benefits 

Proportion of NCCs exchanging data related to 
analytical reports with neighbouring NCCs on a 
regular basis 

31% 

62% 

Proportion of national authorities involved in border 
control exchanging data with NCCs on a regular 
basis by governance level (Local, Regional, National 
level) 

Greater than 
36% 

Greater than 
50% 

Improved interagency cooperation through exchange of data 
across geographies and sectors (Regional Networks and Third 
Countries) 

Working arrangements between EBCGA and third 
countries 

Number of data or analytical services covered by 
EBCGA working arrangements with 3rd countries  

Bilateral agreements between Member States and 
third countries (or third countries part of the 
regional networks)  

19 

0 

26 

25 

17 

26 at the 
minimum 

Improved situational awareness at Member States’ NCCs and 
across Europe 

Coverage of border sections (by Land / Sea / Air 
border) (%) 

Coverage of border crossing points (%)  

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

Coverage of external air border (%)  

High benefits  

High benefits  

Coverage of irregular migration phenomena  

A minimum of 4  A minimum of 4 

Coverage of border control assets included in the 
operational layer (%) 

30% 

30% 

Enhanced planning and operational coordination between 
NCCs in different Member States 

Extent to which NCC’s operational plans are shared 
with neighbouring NCCs (including third countries) & 
EBCGA on a regular basis (outside Joint Operations) 

Left at the 
discretion of 
Member States 
(<0% and >to 
100%) 

Potential for 
operational 
plans for 
operations on 
territory of 
third countries 

September, 2019 

46 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to assess the impacts related to possible evolutions of EUROSUR - Final Report 

Type of operational benefit  

Option 3 
indicator 
values 

Extent to which local and regional operational plans 
are shared with NCC’s operational management 
level (excluding joint operations) 

Left at the 
discretion of 
Member States 
(<0% and >to 
100%) 

Extent of coordination of daily surveillance activities 
at bilateral level (excluding joint operations) by type 
of border section  

Left at the 
discretion of 
Member States 
(<0% and >to 
100%) 

Extent of coordination of daily surveillance activities 
at multilateral level (outside joint operations) by 
type of border section  

Left at the 
discretion of 
Member States 
(<0% and >to 
100%) 

Option 4.1 
indicator 
values 
to be agreed 
with 
neighbouring 
EU MS. (Art. 
75.3) of EBCG 
Proposal 
Regulation  

Potential for 
operational 
plans for 
operations on 
territory of 
third countries 
to be agreed 
with 
neighbouring 
EU MS. (Art. 
75.3) of EBCG 
Proposal 
Regulation  

Potential for 
improvement 
if a model 
third country 
agreement and 
implementing 
act details the 
information 
layers in 
specific 
situational 
picture (Art. 
25.4 of EBCG 
Proposal 
Regulation  

Potential for 
improvement 
if a model 
third country 
agreement and 
implementing 
act details the 
information 
layers in 
specific 
situational 
picture (Art. 
25.4 of EBCG 
Proposal 
Regulation  

September, 2019 

47 

 
 
 
Study to assess the impacts related to possible evolutions of EUROSUR - Final Report 

Type of operational benefit  

Option 3 
indicator 
values 

Option 4.1 
indicator 
values 

Improved reaction capabilities from Border Guard Agencies 
and EBCGA78 

Number of multipurpose aerial surveillance 
coordinated at multilateral level / Number of overall 
patrolling hours  

at least 2000 
hours 

at least 2000 
hours 

Size of the area covered by joint patrols (Km2) in 
high risk areas  

at least 800,000 
km2 

at least 800,000 
km2 

Number of interceptions made following EFS 
detections 

at least 250 

at least 500 

Key: indicators marked in green denote an improvement compared to Option 3. Indicators marked in amber 
denote a potential for improvement compared to Option 3. Indicator marked in  red demote a decrease in 
performance compared to option 3.  Indicators left in black do not signal any change.   

3.6.2  Option 4.2: Inclusion of secondary movements  

Option  4.2  aims  to  include  reporting  on  the  secondary  movements  of  migrants  in 
EUROSUR79 and hence in the NSP and ESP80. This policy option will support Member States 
to serve their policy, strategic and tactical needs, but most importantly to plan their border 
and  police  operations.  Reporting  on  secondary  movements  can  benefit  existing 
mechanisms  such  as  the  Frontex  Risk  Analysis  Network  (FRAN)  and  the  Common 
Integrated  Risk  Analysis  Model  (CIRAM)  in  the  framework  of  EUROSUR.  It  will  connect 
irregular  migration  data  across  the  EU  external  borders  with  intra-EU/SAC  secondary 
movements and use the intra-Schengen picture to reach  conclusions on the situation at 
the EU external borders81. This option can be introduced right before the start of the next 
multi-annual  financial  period  (i.e.  2020).  It  builds  on  the  following  assumptions  on  cost 
implications:  

  Staff costs: Some NCCs may need to recruit experts in the analysis of secondary 
movement  to  interpret  data  feeds  coming  to  the  NCCs.  Likewise,  this  new  data 
stream  will  require  the  recruitment  of  additional  analysts  to  provide  the  related 
EUROSUR Fusion Services and products.  

  Communication  and  maintenance:  this  option  will  require  additional  support 
applications so that EUROSUR Fusion Services can provide the information needed 
to support NCCs and decision making. Corresponding maintenance costs will also be 
incurred.  

Overall,  the  total  estimated  cost  of  Option  4.2  is  €970  million82.  The  estimated 
additional cost (compared to Option 3) is €23 million.  

78 Adding a confidential network is likely to result in improved reaction capabilities going beyond the effects brought 
by Option 4.1. See also Table A3.7 in Annex 2.  
79 Member States will report secondary movements into EUROSUR at the same time (or before) they report it in 
EURODAC.  
80 Secondary movements occur when refugees or asylum-seekers move from the country in which they first arrived 
to 
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/ 
resettlement 
thinktank/en/document.html?reference=EPRS_BRI(2017)608728 
81  The  reporting  of  secondary  movements  in  EUROSUR  will  be  systematic  and  compulsory  to  ensure 
exhaustiveness of reporting in the EU.  
82 If an EU confidential communication network is considered these costs will rise to €1 billion.  

permanent 

elsewhere 

protection 

seek 

for 

or 

September, 2019 

48 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Study to assess the impacts related to possible evolutions of EUROSUR - Final Report 

Table 14 breaks down the total cost for Option 4.2. 

  Total and additional cost of Option 4.2 (EUR million)  

EBCGA 

Infrastructure 

Operating and IT equipment 

Staff cost 

Communication & maintenance 

Total EBCGA 

Member States 

Infrastructure 

Operating and IT equipment 

Staff cost 

Communication & maintenance 

Total Member States 

Total cost Option 
4.2 (million EUR)  

Additional cost compared 
to Option 3 (million EUR) 

0.2 

42 

67 

204 

313 

0 

0 

2 

6 

8 

Total cost Option 
4.2 (million EUR)  

Additional cost compared 
to Option 3 (million EUR) 

132 

32 

282 

210 

656 

1 

0 

9 

4 

15 

23 

Overall Total Costs of Option 4.2  970 

Overall Total Costs of Option 4.2 
(including an EU confidential 
communication network)  

1003 

Under Option 4.2, the average annual total number of staff related to EUROSUR at 
Member State level is 1,247, as Member States introduce staff with skills and expertise 
in  secondary  movement  and  data  sources.  The  staff  related  to  EUROSUR  oversight, 
management and development in EBCGA is expected to increase to 79 (from 77 in Option 
3).  If an EU-Confidential network is considered, the FTE figures would be 1,247 and 103 
at Member State level and in EBCGA respectively. 

Table  15  summarises  the  benefits  brought  by  Option  4.2  compared  to  Option  383. 
Compared  to  Option  3,  Option  4.2  will  improve  the  situational  awareness  even  further. 
Data on secondary movements, are key to have a thorough understanding the situational 
picture.  As,  certain  share  of  irregular  migrants  crossing  the  external  border  remain 
undetected, the secondary movements data, along with data on migrants detected inland, 
becomes  complementary  and  helps  understand  the  true  number  of  irregular  entries,  as 
well  as  the  possible  further  movement  of  migrants  that  already  have  received  asylum 
status. More specifically, the operational benefits will include:  

  an increase in the volume of the data reported (i.e. events) and in the number of 

analytical reports generated;  

  an improved interagency cooperation at EU level via functional services covered by 
EU  level  inter-agency  agreements  (i.e.  monitoring  of  secondary  movement 
services)84; 

83 Refer to Annex 3 for detailed benefit calculations and assumptions.  
84  This  will  also  contribute  to a better alignment  of  EUROSUR  to  the  European  Integrated  Border  Management 
components envisaged in Article 4 of the European Border and Coast Guard Regulation (2016/1624). Article 4 (a) 
of  the  European  Border  and Coast  Guard  Regulation  (2016/1624)  mentions  measures  related  to  the  referral  of 
persons who need, or wish to apply for, international protection. 

September, 2019 

49 

 
 
 
                                           
Study to assess the impacts related to possible evolutions of EUROSUR - Final Report 

  an  improved  interagency  cooperation  between  and  within  Member  States  via  the 
exchange  of  analytical  reports  and  the  number  of  authorities  involved  in  border 
control exchanging data; and 

  an  improved  situational  awareness  via  the  coverage  of  one  additional  irregular 

migration phenomenon (i.e. secondary movements).  

Compared  to  Option  4.2,  the  benefits  of  an  EU-Confidential  network  brought  by  Option 
4.21 include the potential for  a higher  volume  of events reported and  analytical reports 
generated  and  a  higher  frequency  of  the  exchange  of  sensitive  information  between 
neighbouring NCCs. In turn, this has the potential to lead to a better situational analysis 
and improved reaction capability.   

Figure 8 illustrates the key operational benefits delivered through Option 4.2 

Figure 8.  Illustration of the key operational benefits delivered through Option 4.2 

Table 15 summarises the benefits brought by Option 4.285.  

  Operational benefits delivered by Option 4.2 compared to Option 3 

Type of operational benefit  

Option 3 
indicator 
values 

Option 4.2 
indicator 
values 

Improvement in data quality, flow and speed of reporting 

Data quality (re-entry rate) 

Less than 100%  Less than 100% 

Volume of data – events 

66,600 

84,000 

Volume of data - assets participating in joint 
operations 

Limited benefits  Limited benefits 

Volume of data - analytical reports 

1,200 

1,500 

Latency of data (events)  

All events are 
reported within 
24 hours  

All events are 
reported within 
24 hours  

85 Refer to Annex 3 for detailed benefit calculations and assumptions.  

September, 2019 

50 

 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Study to assess the impacts related to possible evolutions of EUROSUR - Final Report 

Type of operational benefit  

Option 3 
indicator 
values 

Option 4.2 
indicator 
values 

Improved interagency cooperation through exchange of data 
across geographies and sectors (EU LEVEL) 

Number of cooperation agreement by sector  

10  

Number of data or functional services covered by EU 
level inter-agency agreements  

16 

10 

17 

Number of analytical services exchanged at EU level 
falling within the scope of the agreements 

A minimum of 
300 per year 

A minimum of 
300 per year 

Improved interagency cooperation through exchange of data 
across geographies and sectors (Member State level) 

Proportion of NCCs exchanging data related to 
events with neighbouring NCCs on a regular basis  

80% 

80% 

Proportion of NCCs exchanging data related to 
operational assets with neighbouring NCCs on a 
regular basis  

Limited benefits  Limited benefits 

Proportion of NCCs exchanging data related to 
analytical reports with neighbouring NCCs on a 
regular basis 

31% 

62% 

Proportion of national authorities involved in border 
control exchanging data with NCCs on a regular 
basis by governance level (Local, Regional, National 
level) 

Greater than 
36% 

100% 

Improved interagency cooperation through exchange of data 
across geographies and sectors (Regional Networks and Third 
Countries) 

Working arrangements between EBCGA and third 
countries 

Number of data or analytical services covered by 
EBCGA working arrangements with 3rd countries  

Bilateral agreements between Member States and 
third countries (or third countries part of the 
regional networks)  

19 

0 

26 

19 

0 

26 

Improved situational awareness at Member States’ NCCs and 
across Europe 

Coverage of border sections (by Land / Sea / Air 
border) (%) 

Coverage of border crossing points (%)  

 100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

Coverage of external air border (%)  

High benefits  

High benefits  

Coverage of irregular migration phenomena  

A minimum of 4  A minimum of 

5 

September, 2019 

51 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to assess the impacts related to possible evolutions of EUROSUR - Final Report 

Type of operational benefit  

Option 3 
indicator 
values 

Option 4.2 
indicator 
values 

Coverage of border control assets included in the 
operational layer (%) 

30% 

30% 

Enhanced planning and operational coordination between 
NCCs in different Member States 

Extent to which NCC’s operational plans are shared 
with neighbouring NCCs (including third countries) & 
EBCGA on a regular basis (outside Joint Operations) 

Left at the 
discretion of 
Member States 
(<0% and >to 
100%) 

Extent to which local and regional operational plans 
are shared with NCC’s operational management 
level (excluding joint operations) 

Left at the 
discretion of 
Member States 
(<0% and >to 
100%) 

Extent of coordination of daily surveillance activities 
at bilateral level (excluding joint operations) by type 
of border section  

Extent of coordination of daily surveillance activities 
at multilateral level (outside joint operations) by 
type of border section  

Left at the 
discretion of 
Member States 
(<0% and >to 
100%) 

Left at the 
discretion of 
Member States 
(<0% and >to 
100%) 

Only 
deployment 
plans are 
shared in 
cases of joint 
operations, 
pilot projects 
and rapid 
interventions 
as per Art. 
10.5(a) 
Regulation 
2013/1052 

Only 
deployment 
plans are 
shared in 
cases of joint 
operations, 
pilot projects 
and rapid 
interventions. 
as per Art. 
10.5(a) of 
Regulation 
2013/1052 

No effect  

No effect 

Improved reaction capabilities from Border Guard Agencies 
and EBCGA86 

Number of multipurpose aerial surveillance 
coordinated at multilateral level / Number of overall 
patrolling hours  

at least 2000 
hours 

at least 2000 
hours 

86 Adding a confidential network is likely to result in improved reaction capabilities going beyond the effects brought 
by Option 4.2. See also Table A3.7 in Annex 2.  

September, 2019 

52 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Study to assess the impacts related to possible evolutions of EUROSUR - Final Report 

Type of operational benefit  

Option 3 
indicator 
values 

Option 4.2 
indicator 
values 

Size of the area covered by joint patrols (Km2) in 
high risk areas  

at least 800,000 
km2 

at least 800,000 
km2 

Number of interceptions made following EFS 
detections 

at least 250 

at least 500 

Key: indicators marked in green denote an improvement compared to Option 3. Indicators marked in amber 
denote a potential for improvement compared to Option 3. Indicators left in black do not signal any change.   

3.7  Option  4.3:  Enhanced  coordinated  planning  and  conduct  of  border 

control operations 

Option 4.3 aims to (better) use EUROSUR products and services for the purposes of the 
planning,  coordination  and  conduct  of  border  surveillance  operations.  The  EUROSUR 
Regulation  indicates  that  the  NCCs  shall  support  the  planning  and  implementation  of 
national  border  surveillance  activities  and  that  the  operational  layer  shall  contain 
information on assets including the deployment plan, including the area of operation and 
patrol schedules in the context of joint operations, pilot projects and rapid interventions. 
However,  there  is  currently  no  coordination  of  Member  State  operational  plans  and/or 
coordination of operations other than in the context of joint operations, pilot projects and 
rapid  interventions.  All  Member  States  will  be  affected  by  this  option.  It  builds  on  the 
following assumptions on cost implications:  

  Operating  and  IT  equipment:  although  Member  States  are  already  providing 
information  on  the  deployment  plans,  operational  areas,  asset  types  and  the  live 
location of assets into EUROSUR, applications will have to be developed by EBCGA 
for the use of EUROSUR Fusion Services.  

  Staff  costs:  Additional  staff  for  analysing  joint  operation  planning  and/or 
coordination of national operational plans will be required at the level of the NCC 
and or the Agency. EBCGA will have to recruit additional planning officers, IT experts 
as well as risk analysts.  

  Communication  and  maintenance:  Additional  decision  support  applications  at 
EUROSUR  Fusion  Services  will  need  to  be  developed  and  implemented  to  treat 
planning and operational data. Corresponding maintenance costs will be incurred.  

Overall, the total estimated cost of Option 4.3 is €1040 million87. The estimated 
additional cost (compared to Option 3) is €93 million. Table 16 breaks down the total 
cost for Option 4.3. 

87 If an EU confidential communication network is considered these costs will rise to €1072 million.  

September, 2019 

53 

 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Study to assess the impacts related to possible evolutions of EUROSUR - Final Report 

  Total and additional cost of Option 4.3 (EUR million)  

Total cost Option 4.3 
(million EUR)  

Additional cost compared 
to Option 3 (million EUR) 

EBCGA 

Infrastructure 

Operating and IT equipment 

Staff cost 

Communication & maintenance  208 

Total EBCGA 

Member States 

0.2 

47 

105 

360 

0 

5 

40 

10 

55 

Total cost Option 4.3 
(million EUR)  

Additional cost compared 
to Option 3 (million EUR) 

Infrastructure 

135 

Operating and IT equipment 

32 

Staff cost 

300 

Communication & maintenance  212 

Total Member States 

Overall Total Costs of Option 
4.3 

Overall Total Costs of Option 
4.3 (including an EU 
confidential communication 
network)  

679 

1040 

1072 

4 

0 

26 

6 

37 

93 

Under Option 4.3. the estimated annual total number of staff related to EUROSUR 
at Member State level is 1,307. The staff related to EUROSUR oversight, management 
and development in EBCGA is expected to increase to 121. If an EU confidential network 
is considered, the FTE figures would be 1,307 and 137 at Member State level and in EBCGA 
respectively.  

Table  17  summarises  the  benefits  brought  by  Option  4.3  compared  to  Option  388. 
Compared  to  Option  3,  Option  4.3  will  lead  to  significant  improvement  of  operational 
cooperation – the sharing of operational plans, especially for border sections with high and 
critical impact levels, with Member States and ECBG will lead to a substantial improvement 
in  operational  coordination.  It  will  make  operational  planning  a  much  more  transparent 
and  efficient  process,  where  Member  States  and  the  ECBG  will  be  facilitated  in  finding 
complementarity and synergies in planning the effective use of resources needed for the 
surveillance  activities  in  specific  border  sections  of  concern.  It  will  allow  for  a  truly 
integrated response, where both a neighbouring Member State and the ECBG can consider 
an integrated operational response, especially in the time of crises. More specifically, the 
implementation of the option will lead to: 

  an increase in the number of assets included in the operational layer;  

  an improved interagency cooperation between and within Member States via the 
exchange of events, operational assets and analytical reports and the number of 
border control authorities involved in exchanging data;  

  an improved situational awareness via an extensive coverage of relevant border 

control assets included in the operational layer; and 

88 Refer to Annex 3 for detailed benefit calculations and assumptions.  

September, 2019 

54 

 
 
 
                                           
Study to assess the impacts related to possible evolutions of EUROSUR - Final Report 

  enhanced planning and operational coordination between NCCs in different Member 
States  via  the  sharing  of  information  of  operational  assets  of  relevance  for 
undertaking border control and surveillance activities.  

In turn, the above is likely to improve reaction capabilities of Member States and of the 
EBCGA.  

Compared  to  Option  4.3,  the  benefits  of  an  EU-Confidential  network  brought  by  Option 
4.31 include the potential for the exchange of a higher volume of analytical reports and 
the higher frequency exchange of analytical reports between neighbouring NCCs. In turn, 
this  has  the  potential  to  lead  to  a  better  situational  analysis  and  improved  reaction 
capability.   

Figure 9 illustrates the key operational benefits delivered through Option 4.3 

Figure 9.  Illustration of the key operational benefits delivered through Option 4.3 

Table 17 summarises the benefits brought by Option 4.389.  

  Operational benefits delivered by Option 4.3 compared to Option 3 

Type of operational benefit  

Option 3 
indicator 
values 

Option 4.3 
indicator 
values 

Improvement in data quality, flow and speed of reporting 

Data quality (re-entry rate) 

Less than 100%  Less than 100% 

Volume of data – events 

66,000 

66,000 

Volume of data - assets participating in joint 
operations 

Limited benefits  High benefits  

Volume of data - analytical reports 

1,200 

1,200 

Latency of data (events)  

All events are 
reported within 
24 hours  

All events are 
reported within 
24 hours  

Improved interagency cooperation through exchange of data 
across geographies and sectors (EU LEVEL) 

89 Refer to Annex 3 for detailed benefit calculations and assumptions.  

September, 2019 

55 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Study to assess the impacts related to possible evolutions of EUROSUR - Final Report 

Type of operational benefit  

Option 3 
indicator 
values 

Option 4.3 
indicator 
values 

Number of cooperation agreement by sector  

10  

Number of data or functional services covered by EU 
level inter-agency agreements  

16 

10 

16 

Number of analytical services exchanged at EU level 
falling within the scope of the agreements 

A minimum of 
300 per year 

A minimum of 
300 per year 

Improved interagency cooperation through exchange of data 
across geographies and sectors (Member State level) 

Proportion of NCCs exchanging data related to 
events with neighbouring NCCs on a regular basis  

Proportion of NCCs exchanging data related to 
operational assets with neighbouring NCCs on a 
regular basis  

80% 

100% 

Limited benefits 

100% 

Proportion of NCCs exchanging data related to 
analytical reports with neighbouring NCCs on a 
regular basis 

31% 

75% 

Proportion of national authorities involved in border 
control exchanging data with NCCs on a regular 
basis by governance level (Local, Regional, National 
level) 

Greater than 
36% 

Greater than 
66% 

Improved interagency cooperation through exchange of data 
across geographies and sectors (Regional Networks and Third 
Countries) 

Working arrangements between EBCGA and third 
countries 

Number of data or analytical services covered by 
EBCGA working arrangements with 3rd countries  

Bilateral agreements between Member States and 
third countries (or third countries part of the 
regional networks)  

19 

0 

26 

19 

0 

26 

Improved situational awareness at Member States’ NCCs and 
across Europe 

Coverage of border sections (by Land / Sea / Air 
border) (%) 

Coverage of border crossing points (%)  

 100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

Coverage of external air border (%)  

High benefits  

High benefits  

Coverage of irregular migration phenomena  

A minimum of 4  A minimum of 4 

Coverage of border control assets included in the 
operational layer (%) 

30% 

Less than 
100% 

September, 2019 

56 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to assess the impacts related to possible evolutions of EUROSUR - Final Report 

Type of operational benefit  

Option 3 
indicator 
values 

Option 4.3 
indicator 
values 

Enhanced planning and operational coordination between 
NCCs in different Member States 

Extent to which NCC’s operational plans are shared 
with neighbouring NCCs (including third countries) & 
EBCGA on a regular basis (outside Joint Operations) 

Extent to which local and regional operational plans 
are shared with NCC’s operational management 
level (excluding joint operations) 

Extent of coordination of daily surveillance activities 
at bilateral level (excluding joint operations) by type 
of border section  

Extent of coordination of daily surveillance activities 
at multilateral level (outside joint operations) by 
type of border section  

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

Left at the 
discretion of 
Member States 
(<0% and >to 
100%) 

Left at the 
discretion of 
Member States 
(<0% and >to 
100%) 

Left at the 
discretion of 
Member States 
(<0% and >to 
100%) 

Left at the 
discretion of 
Member States 
(<0% and >to 
100%) 

Improved reaction capabilities from Border Guard Agencies 
and EBCGA90 

Number of multipurpose aerial surveillance 
coordinated at multilateral level / Number of overall 
patrolling hours  

at least 2000 
hours 

Greater than 
2000 hours 

Size of the area covered by joint patrols (Km2) in 
high risk areas  

at least 800,000 
km2 

Greater than 
800,000 km2 

Number of interceptions made following EFS 
detections 

at least 250 

at least 250 

Key: indicators marked in green denote an improvement compared to Option 3. Indicators marked in 
amber denote a potential for improvement compared to Option 3. Indicators left in black do not signal 
any change.  

4 

Conclusions  

Since  its  adoption,  the  EUROSUR  Regulation  provided  for  the  infrastructure  and  tools 
designed to “improve situational awareness and reaction capability at the external borders 
of the Member States of the Union” and, ultimately, “to detect, prevent and combat cross-
border crime and illegal immigration”91. It established or designated a network of National 
Coordination  Centres  (NCCs),  one  in  each  Member  State,  to  coordinate  and  exchange 
information among all the competent authorities in the field of border surveillance and the 
European  Border  and  Coast  Guard  Agency  (EBCGA).  It  allowed  for  a  near-real  time 
information  exchange  and  spurred  the  coordination  of  national  authorities  involved  in 

90 Adding a confidential network is likely to result in improved reaction capabilities going beyond the effects brought 
by Option 4.3. See also Table A3.7 in Annex 2.  
91 From the evaluation of EUROSUR (2017).  

September, 2019 

57 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Study to assess the impacts related to possible evolutions of EUROSUR - Final Report 

border management across Europe as well as the EBCGA. For instance, EUROSUR Fusion 
Services  facilitated  the  delivery  of  the  European  Situational  Picture,  the  Common  Pre-
Frontier Intelligence Picture and the Common Application of Surveillance Tools. Hence, the 
establishment  of  EUROSUR  has  reinforced  the  EBCGA’s  and  Member  States’  capacity  to 
respond to threats at the EU external borders. 

However, the evaluation of EUROSUR92 also identified shortcomings to the implementation 
of EUROSUR, which this Study has sought to help address by way of defining and assessing 
possible evolutions of EUROSUR (referred to as options). The Study also took place in the 
context of the drafting of the proposal for a new Regulation on the European Border and 
Coast  Guard,  which  calls  for  an  extension  of  the  scope  of  EUROSUR  and  incorporates 
EUROSUR  in  the  proposed  European  Border  and  Coast  Guard  Regulation  (amending 
Regulation (EU) 2016/ 1624) as a necessary element of the functioning of the European 
Border and Coast Guard. The proposal incorporated all the options foreseen by this Study.  

The results of the assessment show that all options for the possible evolution of EUROSUR 
have the potential to contribute to the general and specific objectives of the Regulation. 
Taken  altogether,  implementing  all  options  across  the  period  from  2019  to  2027  period 
have a cost of € 1.22 billion respectively € 396 million for EBCGA and € 698 million for the 
Member States as well as € 128 million for third countries. In turn, they are expected to 
deliver the following operational benefits: 

 

 

 

improved data quality, flow and speed of reporting of border control related data;  

improved  interagency  cooperation  through  exchange  of  data  across  geographies 
and sectors at EU and Member State level as well as with third countries;  

improved situational awareness at Member States’ NCCs and across Europe;  

  enhanced planning and operational coordination between NCCs in different Member 

States; and 

 

improved  reaction  capabilities  from  national  border  management  authorities  and 
EBCGA. 

More specifically, the costs and benefits associated with each option and sub-option are:  

  The  additional  cost  of  Option  1,  an  improved  EUROSUR  with  the  current  scope 
(“Baseline plus”) is estimated to have a cost of € 130 million over the period from 
2019 to 2027. It delivers a few new capabilities in addition to the obligations of the 
existing  EUROSUR  Regulation  such  as  the  merging  of  JORA  and  EUROSUR,  the 
implementation  of  reporting  standards  and  quality  assurance  mechanisms,  and 
automated  information  exchange  gateways.  The  expected  benefits  from  Option  1 
relate to improvements in data quality and the flow  and speed  of  reporting, thus 
resulting in an improved situational awareness at Member State NCCs across Europe 
and improvements in reaction capabilities.   

  The  additional  cost  of  Option  2  “Compulsory  inclusion  of  Border  Crossing  Points 
(BCPs)” is estimated to have a cost of € 179 million over the period from 2019 to 
2027, when compared to Option 1. It covers the reporting of incidents emanating 
from checks at all BCPs including along air BCPs. The expected benefits of Option 2 
relate  to  a  much-improved  situational  awareness  via  an  exhaustive  coverage  of 
BCPs thus also improving reaction capabilities across Europe. 

  The additional cost of Option 3 “Compulsory inclusion of Air Border Surveillance" is 
estimated to have a cost of € 121 million over the period from 2019 to 2027, when 
compared to Option 2. It will allow for the capture and analysis of information from 
Air  Border  Surveillance  systems.  The  expected  additional  benefits  from  Option  3 
relate to improved interagency cooperation across all levels of governance.  

92 Summarised from the evaluation of EUROSUR (2017).  

September, 2019 

58 

 
 
 
                                           
Study to assess the impacts related to possible evolutions of EUROSUR - Final Report 

The Study also considered sub-options contributing to the implementation of some of the 
integrated border management components:  

  Option  4.1  -  Improved  information  exchange  with  third  countries  -  will  allow  for 
information exchange on border surveillance matters, including specific situational 
pictures,  with  third  countries  directly  between  Member  States  or  EBCGA.  The 
additional cost compared to Option 3 is estimated to be have a cost of € 159 million 
across the period from 2019 to 2027.  The nature and extent of the data exchanged 
and services available will vary from third country to third country. The expected 
benefits  from  Option  4.1  are  the  much-improved  interagency  cooperation  with 
regional networks and third countries.    

  Option 4.2  -  Inclusion of secondary movements - will connect irregular migration 
data with intra-EU secondary movements data and use the intra-Schengen picture 
to reach conclusions on the situation at the EU external borders with an additional 
cost estimated to have a cost of € 23 million across the period from 2019 to 2027, 
compared to Option 3. Secondary movement data and related analyses will feature 
in  the  European  and  National  Situational  Pictures  (ESP  and  NSP).  The  expected 
benefits from Option 4.2 are a more complete situational awareness via the inclusion 
of  secondary  data  thus  improving  the  analytical  and  reaction  capabilities  across 
Europe.  

  Option  4.3  -  Enhanced  coordinated  planning  and  conduction  of  border  control 
operations - will coordinate Member State operational plans and operations other 
than in the context of joint operations, pilot projects and rapid interventions for an 
additional cost of € 93 million when compared to Option 3. The expected benefits of 
Option  4.3  are  the  enhancement  of  planning  and  operational  coordination 
capabilities of NCCs across Member States and thus in their reaction capabilities.  

The study also considered the deployment of an EU-Confidential communication network 
to support the  EUROSUR systems. The deployment of  such a communication network is 
expected to increase the cost of the options by € 33 million for Option 1; € 32 million for 
Option 2; € 32 million for Option 3; € 32 million for Option 4.1; € 33 million for Option 4.2; 
and € 32 million for Option 4.3.  

Taken altogether, implementing all the options for the possible evolution of EUROSUR will 
cost an additional € 738 million across the 2019 to 2027 period when compared to Option 
0 respectively € 245 million for EBCGA (or € 20 million a year excluding staff costs) and 
€365 million across the 2019 to 2027 period for the Member States (or €45 million a year) 
as well as € 113 million for third countries (€ 16 million a year).   

Figure 10 and Figure 11 provide a summary of the total cost of each of the policy options 
(with  and  without  an  EU-Confidential  communication  network  supporting  the  EUROSUR 
system),  whilst  Figure  12  and  Figure  13  provide  a  summary  of  the  additional  costs 
associated with moving from the baseline option to the most ambitious options (with and 
without an EU-Confidential communication network supporting the EUROSUR system).  

The operational benefits of the possible evolutions of EUROSUR vary according to the policy 
options under consideration. Overall, the benefits tend to be commensurate with the costs. 
Options  from  1  to  4.3  all  have  the  potential  to  contribute  to  the  general  and  specific 
objectives of the Regulation. 

September, 2019 

59 

 
 
 
Figure 10. Summary of the total cost of each of the policy options (not including an EU-Confidential communication network)  

Study to assess the impacts related to possible evolutions of EUROSUR - Final Report 

September, 2019 

60 

Total costOption 0Option 1Option 2Option 3Option 4.1Option 4.2Option 4.3All options up to Option 4.3 (inclusive of option 4.1 and 4.2)EBCGAInfrastructure200,000200,000200,000200,000200,000200,000200,000200,000Operating and IT equipment011,700,00021,850,00041,950,00053,185,00041,950,00046,950,00058,185,000Staff43,624,00051,614,40060,042,45065,100,90073,533,57966,785,700105,289,700115,407,179Communication and maintenance119,229,240129,528,280143,795,980197,887,929205,589,477204,345,549208,195,949222,355,117Total163,053,240193,042,680225,888,430305,138,829332,508,055313,281,249360,635,649396,147,295Member StatesInfrastructure1,800,00016,968,539129,121,925130,534,877130,534,877132,013,924134,972,018136,451,064Operating and IT equipment029,250,00030,690,00032,490,00032,490,00032,490,00032,490,00032,490,000Staff191,098,887241,270,000264,279,231273,304,462273,304,462282,136,462299,800,462308,632,462Communication and maintenance161,144,649166,466,010175,539,853205,437,727209,130,647209,855,292211,917,501220,027,986Total354,043,536453,954,549599,631,009641,767,066645,459,986656,495,677679,179,980697,601,512Third countriesInfrastructure000010,640,0000010,640,000Operating and IT equipment00001,710,000001,710,000Staff000047,057,5190047,057,519Communication and maintenance000068,868,7520068,868,752Total0000128,276,27100128,276,271Overall Total517,096,776646,997,229825,519,439946,905,8951,106,244,313969,776,9261,039,815,6291,222,025,079Total excluding third countries517,096,776646,997,229825,519,439946,905,895977,968,041969,776,9261,039,815,6291,093,748,8078888888Overall cost excluding Copernicus costs437,096,776566,997,229745,519,439866,905,8951,026,244,313889,776,926959,815,6291,142,025,079 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 11. Summary of the total cost of each of the policy options (including an EU-Confidential communication network)  

Study to assess the impacts related to possible evolutions of EUROSUR - Final Report 

September, 2019 

61 

Total costOption 0Option 1.1Option 2.1Option 3.1Option 4.11Option 4.21Option 4.31All options up to Option 4.31 (inclusive of option 4.11 and 4.21)EBCGAInfrastructure200,000200,000200,000200,000200,000200,000200,000200,000Operating and IT equipment011,700,00021,850,00041,950,00053,185,00041,950,00046,950,00058,185,000Staff43,624,00062,974,40071,402,45076,460,90084,893,57978,145,700116,649,700126,767,179Communication and maintenance119,229,240130,664,280144,085,365198,177,314205,878,862204,634,934208,485,334222,644,502Total163,053,240205,538,680237,537,815316,788,214344,157,440324,930,634372,285,034407,796,680Member StatesInfrastructure1,800,00025,134,641137,288,027138,700,979138,700,979141,659,072143,138,119146,096,213Operating and IT equipment033,210,00034,650,00036,450,00036,450,00036,450,00036,450,00036,450,000Staff191,098,887245,779,120268,788,351277,813,582277,813,582286,645,582304,309,582313,141,582Communication and maintenance161,144,649169,975,472179,049,315208,947,189212,640,109213,512,659215,426,963223,685,353Total354,043,536474,099,233619,775,693661,911,750665,604,670678,267,313699,324,664719,373,147Third countriesInfrastructure000010,640,0000010,640,000Operating and IT equipment00001,710,000001,710,000Staff000047,057,5190047,057,519Communication and maintenance000068,868,7520068,868,752Total0000128,276,27100128,276,271Overall Total517,096,776679,637,913857,313,508978,699,9641,138,038,3811,003,197,9471,071,609,6981,255,446,099Total excluding third countries517,096,776679,637,913857,313,508978,699,9641,009,762,1101,003,197,9471,071,609,6981,127,169,8288888888Overall cost excluding Copernicus costs437,096,776599,637,913777,313,508898,699,9641,058,038,381923,197,947991,609,6981,175,446,099 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 12. Additional costs moving from the baseline option to the most ambitious options (not including an EU-Confidential communication network)  

Study to assess the impacts related to possible evolutions of EUROSUR - Final Report 

September, 2019 

62 

From option 0 to:From option 1 to:From option 2 to:From option 3 to:From option 3 to:From option 3 to:From option 0 to:Additional costOption 1Option 2Option 3Option 4.1Option 4.2Option 4.3All Options inclusive of Option 4.3EBCGAInfrastructure000000Operating and IT equipment11,700,00010,150,00020,100,00011,235,00005,000,00058,185,000Staff7,990,4008,428,0505,058,4508,432,6791,684,80040,188,80071,783,179Communication and maintenance10,299,04014,267,70054,091,9497,701,5486,457,62010,308,020103,125,877Total29,989,44032,845,75079,250,39927,369,2268,142,42055,496,820233,094,055Member StatesInfrastructure15,168,539112,153,3861,412,95201,479,0474,437,141134,651,064Operating and IT equipment29,250,0001,440,0001,800,00000032,490,000Staff50,171,11323,009,2319,025,23108,832,00026,496,000117,533,574Communication and maintenance5,321,3619,073,84329,897,8743,692,9204,417,5656,479,77458,883,337Total99,911,013145,676,45942,136,0573,692,92014,728,61237,412,915343,557,976Third countriesInfrastructure00010,640,0000010,640,000Operating and IT equipment0001,710,000001,710,000Staff00047,057,5190047,057,519Communication and maintenance00068,868,7520068,868,752Total000128,276,27100128,276,271Total additional cost129,900,453178,522,209121,386,456159,338,41822,871,03292,909,735704,928,303Total excluding third countries129,900,453178,522,209121,386,45631,062,14622,871,03292,909,735576,652,031 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 13. Additional costs moving from the baseline option to the most ambitious options (including an EU-Confidential communication network)  

Study to assess the impacts related to possible evolutions of EUROSUR - Final Report 

September, 2019 

63 

From option 0 to:From option 1.1 to:From option 2.1 to:From option 3.1 to:From option 3.1 to:From option 3.1 to:From option 0 to:Additional costOption 1.1Option 2.1Option 3.1Option 4.11Option 4.21Option 4.31All Options inclusive of Option 4.31EBCGAInfrastructure0000000Operating and IT equipment11,700,00010,150,00020,100,00011,235,00005,000,00058,185,000Staff19,350,4008,428,0505,058,4508,432,6791,684,80040,188,80083,143,179Communication and maintenance11,435,04013,421,08554,091,9497,701,5486,457,62010,308,020103,415,262Total42,485,44031,999,13579,250,39927,369,2268,142,42055,496,820244,743,440Member StatesInfrastructure23,334,641112,153,3861,412,95202,958,0944,437,141144,296,213Operating and IT equipment33,210,0001,440,0001,800,00000036,450,000Staff54,680,23323,009,2319,025,23108,832,00026,496,000122,042,694Communication and maintenance8,830,8239,073,84329,897,8743,692,9204,565,4696,479,77462,540,704Total120,055,697145,676,45942,136,0573,692,92016,355,56337,412,915365,329,611Third countriesInfrastructure00010,640,0000010,640,000Operating and IT equipment0001,710,000001,710,000Staff00047,057,5190047,057,519Communication and maintenance00068,868,7520068,868,752Total000128,276,27100128,276,271Total additional cost162,541,137177,675,594121,386,456159,338,41824,497,98392,909,735738,349,323Total excluding third countries162,541,137177,675,594121,386,45631,062,14624,497,98392,909,735610,073,052 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to assess the impacts related to possible evolutions of EUROSUR - Final Report 

Figure 14 summarises the additional results that each Option delivers on top of the preceding Option and this on the seven categories of 
benefits, presented in the study.  

Figure 14. Summary of additional benefits delivered by each of the Options  

Benefit outputs 

Option 1  Option 

Option 2  Option 3  Option 

Improvement in data quality, flow and speed of 
reporting 

High 

1.1 

Low 

4.1 

Option 
4.2 

Option 
4.3 

High 

Low 

Medium 

Medium 

Low 

Improved interagency cooperation through exchange 
of data across geographies and sectors (EU LEVEL) 

Improved interagency cooperation through exchange 
of data across geographies and sectors (Member 
State level) 

Improved interagency cooperation through exchange 
of data across geographies and sectors (Regional 
Networks and Third Countries) 

Improved situational awareness at Member States’ 
NCCs and across Europe 

Enhanced planning and operational coordination 
between NCCs in different Member States 

Improved reaction capabilities from Border Guard 
Agencies and EBCGA 

No effect  No effect 

Low 

Low 

Low 

Low 

No effect 

Low  

Low 

Low 

Low 

Low 

Low 

Medium 

No effect  No effect  No effect  No effect  High 

No effect  No effect 

Low  

Low 

High 

Low 

Low 

Medium 

Low 

Low 

Low 

Low 

Low 

Low/ 

Low 

High 

Medium 

No effect  No effect 

Low 

Low 

Low 

Low 

Medium 

September, 2019 

64 

 
 
 
 
 
Study to assess the impacts related to possible evolutions of EUROSUR - Final Report 

Annex 1  Glossary of terms  

This annex contains a glossary and provides for definitions relating to the main concepts 
presented and analysed in the present study. Definitions for the entries in the glossary 
mainly come from a DG HOME Glossary93 and the European Migration Network (EMN) 
Glossary94, both of which refer primarily to specific EU legal instruments in the field of 
home affairs, as specified. When such definitions appear in EU legal instruments, ICF 
elaborated the definitions based in part on those instruments and/or on expertise.  

Border control  

The  activity  carried  out  at  a  border,  in  accordance  with  and  for  the  purposes  of 
Regulation  562/2006,  exclusively  in  response  to  an  intention  to  cross  or  the  act  of 
crossing that border, regardless of any other consideration, consisting of border checks 
and border surveillance. (Article 2 (9) of Regulation 562/2006.  

Assets  

Assets used by border management authorities to perform border control missions. This 
cover a wide range of aircraft, vessels and vehicles. (ICF elaboration).  

Border surveillance  

The  surveillance  of  borders  between  border  crossing  points  and  the  surveillance  of 
border  crossing  points  outs  ide  the  fixed  opening  hours,  to  prevent  persons  from 
circumventing border checks. (Article 2(11) of Regulation (EC) No 296/2008). 

Border crossing points  

Any  crossing  point  authorised  by  the  competent  authorities  for  crossing  external 
borders. (Article 2(8) of Regulation (EC) No 296/2008 

Border sections  

Each Member State divided its external land and sea borders into border sections, and 
notified them to the Agency (Article 14 of Regulation 1052/2013). The Agency, based 
on its risk analysis and in agreement with the Member State concerned, attributed to 
each identified border section an impact level (Article 15 of Regulation 1052/2013). The 
Member States are obliged to ensure that the surveillance activities carried out at the 
external  border  sections  correspond  to  the  attributed  impact  levels  (Article  16  of 
Regulation  1052/2013).  This  study  uses  the  concept  of  external  air  borders.  (ICF 
Elaboration based on Regulation 1052/2013). 

(Confidential) EUROSUR Communication Network  

A communication network which provides communication and analytical tools and allow 
for  the  exchange  of  non-classified  sensitive  and  classified  information  in  a  secure 
manner and in near-real-time with, and among, the national coordination centres. (ICF 
Elaboration based on Regulation 1052/2013). 

The European Border and Coast Guard comprises the European Border and Coast Guard 
Agency  (‘the  Agency’)  and  national  authorities  which  are  responsible  for  border 
management, including coast guards to the  extent that they carry  out border control 
tasks. As such it relies upon the common use of information, capabilities and systems 
at national level and the response of the Agency at Union level. (ICF elaboration on the 
basis of preamble 9 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1624).  

93 https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/e-library/glossary/q_en 
94 https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/what-we-do/networks/european_migration_network/glossary_en  

September, 2019 

65 

 
 
 
                                           
Study to assess the impacts related to possible evolutions of EUROSUR - Final Report 

EBCGA  

The European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External 
Borders of the Member States of the European Union, commonly referred to as Frontex, 
was  established  by  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  2007/2004  (3).  Since  taking  up  its 
responsibilities  on  1  May  2005,  it  assists  Member  States  with  implementing  the 
operational aspects of external border management through joint operations and rapid 
border interventions, risk analysis, information exchange, relations with third countries 
and the return of returnees. The EBCGA is tasked to provide the necessary assistance 
for the development and operation of the EUROSUR. (ICF elaboration on the basis of 
preamble 9 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1624).  

EUROSUR  

The  European  Border  Surveillance  System  establishes  a  common  framework  for  the 
exchange  of  information  and  for  the  cooperation  between  EU  States  and  EBCGA  to 
improve situational awareness and to increase reaction capability at the external borders 
for detecting, preventing and combating irregular immigration and cross-border crime 
and  contributing  to  ensuring  the  protection  and  saving  the  lives  of  migrants  (ICF 
elaboration on the basis of Regulation (EU) No 1052/2013). 

EUROSUR fusion services 

The EUROSUR Fusion Services are provided by EBCGA and supply the Member States 
and the Agency with surveillance services on the external borders and the pre-frontier 
area based on a combination of surveillance activities and information sources, such as 
satellite  imagery,  ship  reporting  services  and  weather  and  environmental  services 
(COM(2018) 632 final).  

European integrated border management 

Integrated border management (IBM) contributes to both migration and security policies 
of the Union and primarily aims to: 

  manage the crossing of the external borders efficiently; 
  address migratory challenges and potential future threats; 
  contribute to addressing serious crime with a cross-border dimension related to 

external borders; 

  ensure high level of internal security; 
  respect fundamental rights; and   
  provide safeguards the free movement of persons within the Union. 

The implementation of IBM is based on a four-tier access control model, that comprises 
measures in third countries (such as common visa policy), measures with neighbouring 
third  countries,  border  control  measures  at  the  external  borders,  risk  analysis  and 
measures  within  the  Schengen  area  and  return.  Three  layers  can  be  identified  in  the 
design  of  the  EU  IBM  Strategy:  policy  level  where  EU  institutions  are  developing  a 
European Integrated Border Management Strategy; operational level where EBCGA is 
developing a Technical and Operational IBM Strategy; and Member State level where 
Member States will define and adopt their National IBM Strategies.  (EUROSUR Industry 
day workshop – synopsis report - 2018).  

Information gateway  

A mechanism ensuring the quality of the information exchanged between the Member 
States  and  the  EBCGA  via  the  standardisation,  automation,  assurance  and  quality 
control of the data and information transmitted (ICF elaboration).  

Irregular migrant  

Non-EU national present on the territory of a Schengen State who does not fulfil, or no 
longer  fulfils,  the  conditions  of  entry  as  set  out  in  the  Schengen  Borders  Code 

September, 2019 

66 

 
 
 
Study to assess the impacts related to possible evolutions of EUROSUR - Final Report 

(Regulation 562/2006), or other conditions for entry, stay or residence in an EU State. 
(ICF elaboration on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 296/2008) 

Joint operations  

EBCGA  provides  technical  and  operational  assistance  to  Member  States  and  non-EU 
countries in support of operations that may arise during border surveillance operations. 
Joint operations take place at three types of border – sea, land and air. Each operation 
is  based  on  risk  analysis  and  uniquely  tailored  to  the  circumstances  identified  by  the 
Agency in one of its risk analysis products. (ICF elaboration). 

JORA  

Joint Operation Risk Analysis System. (EUROSUR Evaluation).  

Latency of data 

Time  elapsed  between  the  occurrence  of  the  new  information  and  the  entry  of  that 
information (by layer – event, operational and analysis) in the EUROSUR system. (ICF 
Elaboration) 

National coordination centres  

Article  5  of  the  Regulation  1052/2013  (the  "EUROSUR"  Regulation)  states  that  each 
Member  State  shall  designate,  operate  and  maintain  a  national  coordination  centre 
which  shall  coordinate,  and  exchange  information  among,  all  authorities  with  a 
responsibility for external border surveillance at national level, as well as with the other 
national coordination centres and the Agency.  

Reaction capabilities  

The ability to perform actions aimed at countering illegal cross-border activities at, along 
or in the proximity of, the external borders, including the means and timelines to react 
adequately. 2018/0330 (COD)  

Re-entry rate 

Indicator measured in terms of the proportion of  incorrect or incomplete data entries 
divided by the number of data entered into the EUROSUR system. Re-entry rate is taken 
as a proxy for measuring data quality in this Study. (ICF elaboration).  

Remotely Piloted Aviation Systems  

Remotely Piloted Aviation Systems (RPAS), are aircrafts that are automated and operate 
without  a  pilot  on  board.  The  aircraft  is  controlled  by  a  human  pilot  from  a  distant 
location. This means that there is always a pilot in charge – even if remotely. These are 
the only types of drones that can be authorised currently, and under the new framework, 
for  use  at  the  EU  external  air  border  (ICF  Elaboration  on  the  basis  of 
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-14-259_en.htm)  

Planning and conduct of border control operations  

Preparation activities involved in the operational planning of border control operations 
as well as the joint implementation by Member States and the Agency of the operational 
plans resulting from such activities. (ICF elaboration).  

Member States in the context of this study 

Member States covers EU Member States participating in EUROSUR: Belgium, Bulgaria, 
Cyprus,  Czech  Republic,  Denmark,  Germany,  Estonia,  Greece,  Spain,  France,  Italy, 
Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Hungary, Malta, Netherlands, Austria, Poland, Portugal, 
Romania,  Slovakia,  Slovenia,  Finland  and  Sweden.  Ireland,  and  the  United  Kingdom) 
are  not  part  of  EUROSUR.  Schengen  Associated  Countries  Iceland,  Liechtenstein, 
Norway and Switzerland are not EU States are part of EUROSUR (ICF Elaboration).  

September, 2019 

67 

 
 
 
 
Study to assess the impacts related to possible evolutions of EUROSUR - Final Report 

Secondary movements  

The movement of migrants, including refugees and asylum seekers, who for different 
reasons  move  from  the  country  in  which  they  first  arrived  to  seek  protection  or 
permanent resettlement elsewhere. (Derived by EMN from UNHCR Executive Committee 
(ExCom): Conclusion No 58 (1989).  

Situational awareness 

In the context of border surveillance, the ability to monitor, detect, identify, track and 
understand  irregular  cross-border  activities  to  find  reasoned  grounds  for  reaction 
measures on the basis of combining new information with existing knowledge, and to 
be better able to reduce the loss of lives of migrants at, along or in the proximity of, the 
external borders. (DG Article 3(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1052/2013). 

Situational picture  

A  graphical  interface  to  present  near-real-time  data  and  information  received  from 
different  authorities,  sensors,  platforms  and  other  sources,  which  is  shared  across 
communication  and  information  channels  with  other  authorities  in  order  to  achieve 
situational awareness and support the reaction capability along the external borders and 
the pre-frontier area. (Article 3(d) of Regulation (EU) No 1052/2013).  

Third country cooperation 

Article 18 of Regulation 1052/2013 sets out the principles of cooperation of the Agency 
with  third  parties,  other  Union  institutions,  bodies,  offices  and  agencies,  and 
international  organisations,  while  Article  20  of  Regulation  1052/2013  frames  the 
exchange  of  information  with  neighbouring  third  countries,  with  the  NCCs  being  the 
contact points for such cooperation (Article 18 of Regulation 1052/2013).   

September, 2019 

68 

 
 
 
 
Study to assess the impacts related to possible evolutions of EUROSUR - Final Report 

Annex 2  Detailed cost calculations  

This annex describes the calculations in the cost model, showing how they have been 
calculated and key assumptions used in the calculations.  

The costs included in each category are presented in the sections below, along with a 
description of how the costs were calculated.  The options build on one another  – the 
total  cost  for  option  2  includes  all  the  costs  association  with  option  1,  plus  the  extra 
costs  associated  with  option  2.    All  the  option  4  sub  options  (4.1,  4.2,  4.3)  build  on 
option 3 (the total costs of option 3 plus the additional costs in each of the sub-options 
separately). 

A2.1  Tables in Excel file cover sheet 

A2.1.1  Total financial cost table 

The total financial cost figures show the nominal value of each policy option over the 
period  2020  to  2027.    This  sums  the  financial  cost  in  each  year  to  provide  the  total 
financial costs over the period.  

A2.1.2  Average annual cost 

The average annual cost tables present the total cost over an eight-year period divided 
by  eight,  to  give  the  average  monetary  cost  of  each  option.  This  approach  has  been 
undertaken as not all costs are incurred every year, so the annual cost is different in 
different years.  

The level of total expenditure can be calculated from this table. This can be calculated 
by multiplying the monetary values in the table by the number of years covered by the 
analysis (i.e. eight).   

A2.1.3  Human resource cost 

The human resource cost presents the number of full-time equivalents (FTEs) required 
in  each  option,  and  the  annual  staffing  cost  for  each  option.  They  sum  the  cost 
calculations by option wherever staff costs are incurred. 

A2.2  Option 0 – Baseline 

A2.2.1  Infrastructure 

A2.2.1.1 

Replacement of building security equipment 

The  building  security  equipment  will  need  to  be  replaced  every  five  years.    This  is 
assumed to happen in 2020 and 2025. 

The total cost of replacing building security equipment at existing NCCs and at EBCGA 
is assumed to be (on the basis of the past technical and financial impact assessment of 
EUROSUR): 

  €30,000 per NCC; and 
  €100,000 for the ECBGA. 

The cost per NCC is multiplied by the total number of NCCs (30) to estimate the total 
cost of replacing NCC security systems in each year.  

September, 2019 

69 

 
 
 
Study to assess the impacts related to possible evolutions of EUROSUR - Final Report 

A2.2.2  Operating and IT equipment 

No operating and IT equipment costs were identified. 

A2.2.3  Staff costs 

A2.2.3.1 

Existing staff costs 

The cost of providing staff to implement EUROSUR in line with the existing legislation 
was  estimated  in  the  previous  impact  assessment  of  EUROSUR  and  information  from 
Eurostat  on  GDP  deflator95  to  update  the  labour  costs  as  reported  in  the  impact 
assessment.    The  staff  cost  is  incurred  every  year,  and  is  for  NCCs  and  the  EBCGA. 
Member State's staff cost have been derived from the last technical and financial impact 
assessment  of  EUROSUR  and  actualised.  EBCGA  staff  cost  have  been  derived  from 
EBCGA data on the basis of core staff profiles (e.g. analyst, planning officers, IT staff, 
etc.). The annual staff cost to provide these services was estimated to be: 

  an average of 35 staff are required at each NCCs to fully deliver EUROSUR.  

 

This has a cost of €824,000 per NCC per year; and 
the EBCGA has an annual staff cost of €3.9 million to deliver services in line 
with the current legislation. 

The cost per NCC is multiplied by the total number of NCCs (30) to estimate the total 
cost of staffing at an NCC in each year.  

An additional 15% has been added to the labour costs for NCC staff.  This is to cover 
the costs associated with providing a desk, IT systems and other  on-costs associated 
with the member of staff being able to undertake their job.  The 15% is based on the 
ratio between the labour cost and desk / IT costs for EBCGA staff.   

This  cost  has  been  multiplied  by  the  degree  to  which  each  Member  State 
complies  with  the  existing  legislation,  to  estimate  the  cost  of  labour  if 
EUROSUR  continued  to  be  delivered  as  it  is  currently.  A  compliance  score  was 
assigned to each Member State on the basis of the state of play of implementation of 
the  Regulation  2013/1052  across  Member  States  and  Schengen  Associated  States. 
Therefore, the cost per NCC varies as the level of compliance is different in each Member 
State, and the average cost (including the 15% mark-up) is €739,000 per NCC per year.  

There is also the existing staff cost relating to the provision of EUROSUR Fusion Services.  
It  is  estimated  that  providing  EUROSUR  Fusion  Services  under  the  current  legislation 
requires 10 FTE.  This assumption is based on information provided by the EBCGA. 

The staff cost of providing EUROSUR Fusion Services has been estimated by multiplying 
the number of staff by an average labour cost.  The average labour cost for EUROSUR 
Fusion services staff is assumed to be €105,300.  This is based on information provided 
by DG HOME. 

A2.2.3.2 

Existing staff to analyse BCP data 

Some  Member  States  already  collect  and  analyse  BCP  data  in  EUROSUR.    Where  a 
Member State NCC does this, it is estimated that some additional staff are in place to 
analyse the data.  However, these Member States do not always collect and analyse all 
BCP data for all border types (land, sea and air borders).  For the baseline, it has been 
assumed  that  these  Member  States  collect  data  from  land  and  sea  BCPs,  but  not 
airports.  This  assumption  was  made  in  the  absence  of  data  from  the  EUROSUR 
evaluation and or EBCGA feedback. The assumption is based on a reasoned argument 

95  See  https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database?node_code=teina110.  When  implied  to  2011  prices,  the 
inflation between 2011 and 2018 show a 10% increase. A 10% uplift has then been applied to 2011 estimates.  

September, 2019 

70 

 
 
 
                                           
Study to assess the impacts related to possible evolutions of EUROSUR - Final Report 

that BCP data across all border types and Member States collecting BCP data  may or 
may not be using it. To account for the diversity of practices and the non-mandatory 
collection of BCP data from air border from the EUROSUR Regulation, the assumption is 
that air border data is not collected in any Member State for Option 0, but sea and land 
border data is collected systematically in those Member States collecting BCP data. 

It is estimated that, on average, each NCC requires an additional 0.055 FTE per BCP 
to analyse the BCP data.  This is an assumption based on an analysis of the  existing 
number of staff at NCCs and whether the NCC analyses BCP data (see A2.2.3.1 for more 
details of the assumption).  The BCPs have been weighted, as different BCPs will produce 
different volumes of data to analyse. BCPs that are open 24/7 have a weight of 1; BCPs 
open  only  during  the  daytime  have  a  weight  of  0.75,  other  airports  and  ports  (on-
demand)  have  a  weight  of  0.5,  and  all  unspecified  BCPs  have  a  weight  of  0.1.  The 
number  of  staff  analysing  BCP  data  was  multiplied  by  the  labour  cost  for  an  analyst 
(€35,000) and a 15% mark-up.  This is to cover the costs associated with providing a 
desk,  IT  systems  and  other  costs  associated  with  the  member  of  staff  being  able  to 
undertake their job role.  The 15% is based on the ratio between the labour cost and 
desk / IT costs for EBCGA staff.   

A2.2.3.3 

Existing staff to analyse Air Border Surveillance data 

Some  Member  States  already  collect  and  analyse  Air  Border  Surveillance  data  in 
EUROSUR.  Where a Member State NCC does this, it is estimated that some additional 
staff are in place to analyse the data. 

It  is  estimated  that,  on  average,  each  NCC  requires  an  additional  0.00006  FTE  per 
inbound flight to the EU and 0.0002 FTE per km of external border to analyse 
the  Air  Border  Surveillance  data.    This  is  an  assumption  based  on  an  analysis  of  the 
existing number of staff at NCCs and whether the NCC analyses Air Border Surveillance 
data (see A2.2.3.1 for more details of the assumption).  The number of staff analysing 
Air Border Surveillance data was multiplied by the labour cost for an analyst (€35,000) 
and  a  15%  mark-up.    This is  to  cover  the  costs  associated  with  providing  a  desk,  IT 
systems and other costs associated with the member of staff being able to undertake 
their  job  role  (except  the  cost  of  occupying  premises  which  are  counted  in  the 
infrastructure costs).  The 15% is based on the ratio between the labour cost and desk 
/ IT costs for EBCGA staff.   

A2.2.3.4 

Training 

The EBCGA currently provides training to staff who work in EUROSUR in the NCCs.  This 
training is estimated to cost €0.5 million per year. This is a cost to the EBCGA, and is 
an annual cost. 

A2.2.4  Communication and maintenance 

A2.2.4.1 

Communications network 

To deliver EUROSUR in line with the legislation, both the EBCGA and Member State NCCs 
will incur a communications network cost.  This is the cost of providing internet access, 
telecommunications etc. so that information can be shared. The estimated cost of the 
communications network is: 

  €175,000 per NCC which currently provides an EU-restricted network; 
  €183,750  per  NCC  which  currently  provides  a  network  at  EU-Confidential  or 

above (105% of the cost of an EU-restricted network); and 

  €2 million for the ECBGA.  

September, 2019 

71 

 
 
 
Study to assess the impacts related to possible evolutions of EUROSUR - Final Report 

The cost per NCC is multiplied by the total number of NCCs (30) to estimate the total 
cost of the telecommunications network.  This is an annual cost, incurred each year. 

These  costs  are  based  on  values  taken  from  the  previous  Impact  Assessment  of 
EUROSUR, where Member States and the EBCGA provided estimates of the cost items 
required to run EUROSUR. 

A2.2.4.2 

Existing cost of decision support applications at the Member State 
NCC and EBCG 

The EBCGA currently uses decision support tools and applications to deliver EUROSUR 
in  line  with  the  current  legislation.    This  is  estimated  to  cost  €3.75  million  per  year 
overall for both EBCGA and Member States.  This is based on information provided by 
the EBCGA. It has been assumed that EBCGA directly supports 35% of these costs and 
that Member States support 65% of these costs.  

The  Member  State  NCCs  also  use  their  own  decision  support  applications  under  the 
existing legislation using EUROSUR data.  This is estimated to cost €200,000 per NCC 
(30).    This  is  based  on  the  estimated  value  from  the  previous  impact  assessment  of 
EUROSUR.  This value has been multiplied by the degree to which each Member State 
complies  with  the  existing  legislation,  to  estimate  the  cost  of  labour  if  EUROSUR 
continued to be delivered as it is currently. This is an annual cost, incurred every year 
from 2020 to 2027. 

A2.2.4.3 

Existing costs of EUROSUR Fusion services 

EUROSUR Fusion Services are provided via decision support applications as part of the 
operational support to the EBCGA and NCCs.  These are estimated to cost €10 million 
per  year  for  Copernicus  services,  and  €3.4  million  per  year  for  other  Fusion  Services 
delivered via EBCGA.  This is based on desk research of EBCGA spending.  This is an 
annual  cost,  incurred  each  year.  For  the  Fusion  Services  delivered  by  EBCGA,  it  has 
been assumed that 75% of this cost is borne by the EBCGA, and the remaining 25% of 
the cost is for the Member States (which utilise the information provided by EUROSUR 
Fusion Services via their decision support applications). 

A2.2.4.4 

Maintenance 

The maintenance cost is assumed to be 10% of total operational spend for the option.  
This  estimate  is  based  on  previous  impact  assessments  undertaken  by  ICF  which 
examined the cost of ICT systems. 

September, 2019 

72 

 
 
 
 
 
Study to assess the impacts related to possible evolutions of EUROSUR - Final Report 

A2.3  Option 1 - Baseline Plus 

A2.3.1  Infrastructure 

A2.3.1.1 

Accommodation for additional staff 

The  rise  in  the  number  of  staff  required  to  implement  Option  1  (see  section  A1.3.3) 
requires new office space to be purchased and/or leased. This is assumed to take place 
from 2020 onwards.  

The  total  cost  of  increasing  the  square  metres  of  the  NCC  premises  to  accommodate 
new staff is assumed to be:  

  Estimated replacement cost of NCC building (calculated by amortisation of a new 

NCC over 20 years) X percentage increase in staff.  

The  cost of an  NCC building is €5,000,000, the annual amortisation cost is €500,000 
(assumed to be depreciated over 20 years) and the percentage increase in staff from 
option 0 to option 1 is 25%. Hence the cost of accommodating new staff is €1.9 million 
per year.   

A2.3.1.2 

Replacement of building security equipment (same as Option 0) 

The building security equipment will also need to be replaced every five years.  This is 
assumed to happen in 2020 and 2025. 

The total cost of replacing building security equipment at existing NCCs and at EBCGA 
is assumed to be: 

  €30,000 per NCC; and 
  €100,000 for the ECBGA. 

The cost per NCC is multiplied by the total number of NCCs (30) to estimate the total 
cost of replacing NCC security systems in each year. Staff costs for the Member States 
were assumed to be in line with the last Technical and Financial Impact Assessment of 
EUROSUR and EBCGA staff cost by profiles were derived from EBCGA.  

A2.3.1.3 

Upgrading network to EU-Confidential level (option 1.1) 

To upgrade the EUROSUR system to EU-Confidential level, NCCs will have to upgrade 
their communication network to EU-Confidential level if they are not already operating 
at that level.   The cost of upgrading the  communication network in each  NCC to  EU-
Confidential  level  is  estimated  to  be  €100,000  (assumed  to  be  in  line  with  the  last 
Technical and Financial Impact Assessment of EUROSUR).  This has been multiplied by 
the number of Member States that need to upgrade their network to estimate the total 
cost.  The cost is assumed to be incurred in 2020, and is a cost for Member States. 

A2.3.1.4 

Upgrading  NCC  building  to  support  EU-Confidential  network 
(option 1.1) 

To  support  an  EU-Confidential  network,  the  security  at  each  NCC  will  need  to  be 
improved.    This  has  been  estimated  to  cost  €272,000  per  NCC.    This  is  based  on  an 
estimate that it would cost €50 per square metre of office space to improve the security 
of the building, and that each NCC is approximately 4,000 square metres.  The cost is 
assumed to be incurred in 2020, and is a cost for Member States. 

September, 2019 

73 

 
 
 
 
Study to assess the impacts related to possible evolutions of EUROSUR - Final Report 

A2.3.2  Operating and IT equipment 

A2.3.2.1 

EUROSUR developing information exchange gateways 

The  EBCGA  may  need  to  develop  a  technical  solution  to  develop  the  information 
exchange gateways, which will allow the control and enforcement of the quality of the 
information exchanged within EUROSUR.  This cost is estimated to be € 11.7 million and 
applies only to the EBCGA. It represents about 40% of the cost that Member States will 
have to invest to develop their own solutions.  The cost is assumed to be incurred in 
2020.  The estimated cost is based on information provided by the EBCGA. 

A2.3.2.2 

Member  States'  NCCs  complying  with  data  standards, 
harmonisation of reporting procedures as well as investing in the 
definition  and  automation  of  data  exchange  via  the  set-up  of 
technical interfaces to foster machine-to-machine interactions  

To  comply  with  data  standards,  reporting  procedures  and  technical  interfaces  for 
automated  data  exchange,  the  Member  State  NCC's  will  have  to  develop  technical 
solutions scalable to enable national authorities with responsibility for border control to 
exchange data with the NCC close to real time whilst minimising the need for human 
interactions.  

This cost is expected to vary across Member States according to the number of national 
authorities  exchanging  data  with  their  national  NCC,  the  type  of  data  shared,  their 
alignment with data standards and reporting procedures promoted by EBCGA and their 
degree of automation as well as their governance arrangements (e.g. ownership of the 
data  collected,  reporting  timeframe,  delivery  of  information  services).  This  cost  is 
assumed to be around €975,000 per Member State. This cost is assumed to be incurred 
in  2020.  These  costs  are  borne  by  Member  States  only  and  are  assumed  to  be  a 
maximum.  

A2.3.2.3 

New IT equipment for EU-Confidential network (option 1.1) 

In addition to the additional communication infrastructure and network costs detailed 
under section A2.3.1.3, upgrading the EUROSUR system to EU-Confidential will involve 
replacing IT hardware for staff with new equipment that supports EU-Confidentiality. It 
is assumed that all staff will require new IT hardware.  The cost of new IT hardware is 
estimated to be €5,000 per person.  This cost is based on information taken from the 
previous impact assessment of EUROSUR.  This has been multiplied by the number of 
staff in NCCs that do not already support an EU-Confidential or higher network.   The 
cost is assumed to be incurred in 2020, and is a cost for Member States. 

A2.3.3  Staff costs 

A2.3.3.1 

Existing staff costs  

The cost of providing staff to implement EUROSUR in line with the existing legislation 
was  estimated  in  the  previous  impact  assessment  of  EUROSUR  and  information  was 
sourced from Eurostat to update the labour costs.  The staff cost is incurred every year 
and is for NCCs and the EBCGA.  The annual staff cost to provide these services was 
estimated as follows: 

  an average of 35 staff are required at each NCC to fully deliver EUROSUR.  This 

 

has a cost of €824,000 per NCC per year; and 
the EBCGA has an annual staff cost of €3.9 million to deliver services in line with 
the current legislation. 

September, 2019 

74 

 
 
 
Study to assess the impacts related to possible evolutions of EUROSUR - Final Report 

Staff costs for the Member States were assumed to be in line with the last Technical and 
Financial Impact Assessment of EUROSUR and EBCGA staff cost by profiles were derived 
from EBCGA's input.  

The cost per NCC is multiplied by the total number of NCCs (30) to estimate the total 
cost of staffing at an NCC in each year.  

An additional 15% has been added to the labour costs for NCC staff.  This is to cover 
the costs associated with providing a desk, IT systems and other costs associated with 
the member of staff being able to undertake their job.  The 15% is based on the ratio 
of labour costs to desk / IT costs for EBCGA staff.   

There is also the existing staff cost relating to the provision of EUROSUR Fusion Services.  
It  is  estimated  that  providing  EUROSUR  Fusion  Services  under  the  current  legislation 
requires 10 FTE.  This assumption is based on information provided by the EBCGA. 

The staff cost of providing EUROSUR Fusion Services has been estimated by multiplying 
the number of staff by an average labour cost.  The average labour cost for EUROSUR 
Fusion  services  staff  is  assumed  to  be  €1,005,300.    This  is  based  on  information 
provided by DG HOME. 

A2.3.3.2 

Additional staff for information exchange gateways 

Option 1 also requires additional staff to operate the information exchange gateways, 
introduced  at  the  EBCGA.    It  is  estimated  that  4  FTEs  will  be  required  to  run  the 
information  exchange  gateways.    It  is  assumed  that  the  labour  cost  for  each  FTE  is 
€105,300.    This  labour  cost  is  based  on  information  from  the  previous  impact 
assessment of EUROSUR and information from Eurostat; the information for the number 
of gateway staff comes from information provided by the EBCGA.  

The staff cost for the information exchange gateways is calculated by multiplying the 
additional  number  of  staff  (4)  by  the  average  labour  cost.    This  is  an  annual  cost, 
assumed to be incurred every year from 2020 to 2027.  The cost is to the EBCGA. 

Note  that  the  corresponding  costs  at  national  level  for  ensuring  the  compliance  with 
data standards, ensuring automated data and information exchange is assumed to be 
cost neutral with regard to Member State staff. The additional staff costs are likely to 
be offset by NCC staff at national level having to re-enter data, eliminate duplicates and 
or cleaning datasets prior to the analysis.  

A2.3.3.3 

Additional security staff (option 1.1) 

Upgrading the EUROSUR system to EU Confidential will involve additional security staff 
to  support  EU-Confidentiality.    It  has  been  estimated  that  each  NCC  which  does  not 
already  support  an  EU  Confidential  network  will  require  1  additional  security  staff 
member.  The average cost of a security staff member is estimated to be €21,120.  This 
has been multiplied by the additional number of staff to estimate the total cost of the 
extra security staff.   This is an annual cost,  assumed to be incurred  every  year  from 
2020 to 2027.  The cost is to the Member States. 

An  additional  15%  has  been  added  to  the  labour  costs.    This  is  to  cover  the  costs 
associated  with  providing  a  desk,  IT  systems  and  other  costs  associated  with  the 
member of staff being able to undertake their job role.  The 15% is based on the ratio 
between the labour cost and desk / IT costs for EBCGA staff. 

A2.3.3.4 

Existing staff to analyse BCP data (same as Option 0) 

Some  Member  States  already  collect  and  analyse  BCP  data  in  EUROSUR.    Where  a 
Member State NCC does this, it is estimated that some additional staff are in place to 
analyse the data.  However, these Member States do not always collect and analyse all 

September, 2019 

75 

 
 
 
Study to assess the impacts related to possible evolutions of EUROSUR - Final Report 

BCP data.  For the baseline, it has been assumed that these Member States collect data 
from land and sea BCPs, but not airports. 

It is estimated that on average, each NCC requires an additional 0.055 FTE per BCP 
to analyse the BCP data.  This is an assumption based on an analysis of the  existing 
number  of  staff  at  NCCs  and  whether  the  NCC  analyses  BCP  data  (see  A2.3.3.1)  for 
more details of the assumption).  The BCPs have been weighted, as different BCPs will 
produce different volumes of data to analyse. BCPs that are open 24/7 have a weight of 
1;  BCPs  open  only  in  daytime  have  a  weight  of  0.75;  other  airports  and  ports  (on-
demand) have a weight of 0.5, and all unspecified BCPs have a weight of 0.1. 

A2.3.3.5 

Existing  staff  to  analyse  Air  Border  Surveillance  data  (same  as 
Option 0) 

Some  Member  States  already  collect  and  analyse  Air  Border  Surveillance  data  in 
EUROSUR.  Where a Member State NCC does this, it is estimated that some additional 
staff are in place to analyse the data. 

It  is  estimated  that  on  average,  each  NCC  requires  an  additional  0.00006  FTE  per 
inbound flight to the EU and 0.0002 FTE per km of external border to analyse the 
air border surveillance data.  This is an assumption based on an analysis of the existing 
number of staff at NCCs and whether the NCC analyses air border surveillance data (see 
A2.3.3.1  and  A2.3.3.4  for  more  details  of  the  assumption).    The  number  of  staff 
analysing air border surveillance data was multiplied by the labour cost for an analyst 
(€35,000) and a 15% mark-up.  This is to cover the costs associated with providing a 
desk,  IT  systems  and  other  costs  associated  with  the  member  of  staff  being  able  to 
undertake their job role.  The 15% is based on the ratio between the labour cost and 
desk / IT costs for EBCGA staff.   

A2.3.3.6 

Additional staff costs for EBCGA for secure network (option 1.1) 

Option  1,  with  an  EU-Confidential  network,  will  also  require  additional  staffing  in  the 
EBCGA.  These staff are: 

  Staff  to  ensure  a  consistent  data  flow  and  assure  data  quality  within  the 
EUROSUR  system  (8  staff  members,  cost  estimated  to  €72,200  per  staff 
member); 

  Staff members to ensure cyber security (8 staff members, cost estimated to be 

€80,100 per staff member); and 

  System  security  managers  /  encryption  managers  (8  staff  members,  cost 

estimated to be €105,300 per staff member). 

The estimated staff cost for the additional staff is calculated by multiplying the labour 
cost by the number of additional FTEs.  This is an annual cost, assumed to be incurred 
every year from 2020 to 2027.  The cost is to the EBCGA. 

A2.3.3.7 

 Training (same as option 0) 

The EBCGA currently provides training to staff who work in EUROSUR in the NCCs.  This 
training is estimated to cost €0.5 million per year.  This is a cost to the EBCGA, and is 
an annual cost. 

A2.3.4  Communication and maintenance 

A2.3.4.1 

Communications network 

To deliver EUROSUR in line with the legislation, both the EBCGA and Member State NCCs 
will incur a communications network cost.  This is the cost of providing internet access, 

September, 2019 

76 

 
 
 
Study to assess the impacts related to possible evolutions of EUROSUR - Final Report 

telecommunications etc. so that information can be shared. The estimated cost of the 
communications network is: 

  €175,000 per NCC; and 
  €2 million for the ECBGA.  

The cost per NCC is multiplied by the total number of NCCs (30) to estimate the total 
cost  of  the  telecommunications  network.    This  is  an  annual  cost,  incurred  each  year. 
The calculation assumes that Member States implement the EUROSUR Regulation fully.  

These  costs  are  based  on  values  taken  from  the  previous  Impact  Assessment  of 
EUROSUR, where MS and the EBCGA provided estimates of the cost items required to 
run EUROSUR. 

A2.3.4.2 

Additional  communication  network  costs  for  EU-Confidential 
network 

To upgrade the EUROSUR system to EU-Confidential level, NCCs will have to upgrade 
their communication network to EU-Confidential level, if they are not already operating 
at that level.  The cost of operating the upgraded communication network in each NCC 
at  EU-Confidential  level  is  estimated  to  be  an  additional  5%  of  the  cost  of  the 
communications  network.    This  estimate  is  based  on  information  from  the  previous 
impact assessment of EUROSUR.  This is an annual cost, assumed to be incurred every 
year from 2020 to 2027.  The cost is to the Member States.    

A2.3.4.3 

Existing cost of decision support applications at the Member State 
NCC and EBCGA 

The EBCGA currently uses some support applications to deliver  EUROSUR in line with 
the current legislation.  This is estimated to cost €2.4 million per year.  This is based on 
information provided by the EBCGA. It has been assumed that EBCGA directly supports 
65% of these costs and that Member States support 35% of these costs. This allocation 
reflects the fact that decision support application will need tailoring to the set-up and 
circumstances to each of the Member State; the 65% covered by EBCGA representing 
the common requirements for using these applications under the EUROSUR framework.  

The  Member  State  NCCs  also  use  decision  support  applications  under  the  existing 
legislation.    This  is  estimated  to  cost  €200,000  per  NCC  (30).    This  is  based  on  the 
estimated  value  from  the  previous  impact  assessment  of  EUROSUR.  The  calculation 
assumes that Member States implement the EUROSUR Regulation fully.  

These are an annual cost, incurred every year from 2020 to 2027. 

A2.3.4.4 

Existing cost of EUROSUR Fusion operational applications 

EUROSUR  Fusion  services  also  use  decision  support  applications  as  part  of  their 
operational support to the EBCGA and NCCs.  These are estimated to cost €10 million 
per  year  for  Copernicus  services,  and  €3.4  million  for  other  Fusion  services.    This  is 
based on desk research of EBCGA spending.  This is an annual cost, incurred each year.  
It has been assumed that 65% of this cost is borne by the EBCGA, and the remaining 
35% of the cost is for the Member States (which utilise information from the decision 
support applications). 

A2.3.4.5 

Maintenance  

The maintenance cost is assumed to be 10% of total operational spend for the option.  
This  estimate  is  based  on  previous  impact  assessments  undertaken  by  ICF  which 
examined the cost of ICT systems. 

September, 2019 

77 

 
 
 
Study to assess the impacts related to possible evolutions of EUROSUR - Final Report 

A2.4  Option 2 - Compulsory Inclusion of Border Crossing Points 

All costs described in option 1, plus: 

A2.4.1  Infrastructure 

A2.4.1.1 

New NCC offices 

Under option 2, some Member States may move the location of their NCC. The rationale 
is that by including other types of BCPs, the NCC could be required to move from one 
national authority to another, thereby changing the balance of powers between national 
authorities. This is likely to increase the number of staff they would have to employ and 
due to the inclusion of all border crossing points (including air BCPs) in the NCC data 
collection and analyses). 

It is assumed that five Member States will change the location of their NCC under this 
option.  The estimated cost of setting up a new NCC is estimated to be €5 million.  This 
includes  all  security  and  network  connection  costs.   The  cost  is  based  on  research 
undertaken for the previous impact assessment of EUROSUR. The cost is assumed to be 
a one-off cost and occurs in 2020, so that the NCC can be fully functional for the period 
2020 to 2027.  The cost is incurred by the Member States. 

Those  Member  State  not  necessitating  a  change  in  location  would  still  need  to  find 
accommodate new staff into their premises.  The rise in the number of staff required to 
implement Option 2 requires new  office  space to be purchased and  or  leased. This is 
assumed  to  take  place  from  2020  onwards.  The  total  cost  of  increasing  the  square 
meters of the NCC premises to accommodate for new staff is assumed to be Estimated 
replacement  cost  of  NCC  building  (calculated  by  amortisation  of  a  new  NCC  over  20 
years) X proportion of increase in staff.   

A2.4.2  Operating and IT equipment 

A2.4.2.1 

Technical solution to transmit BCP data into NCC 

The EBCGA may need to develop a technical solution to allow NCCs to access BCP data 
as  part  of  EUROSUR.  This  cost  is  estimated  to  be  €100,000,  and  applies  only  to  the 
EBCGA.  The cost is assumed to be incurred in 2020.  The estimated cost is based on 
information provided by the EBCGA. 

A2.4.2.2 

Implementation of new software at NCCs 

The new technical solution to allow NCCs to access BCP data in the NCC will need to be 
installed in each NCC. It is assumed that the installation cost of the new software will 
cost €90,000 per NCC, which includes testing, implementing the software and ensuring 
staff can use the software. The cost is assumed to be incurred in 2020. The total cost is 
the estimated cost per NCC multiplied by the number of NCCs that do not already collect 
and  analyse  BCP  data  (16).    The  estimated  cost  is  based  on  information  from  the 
previous impact assessment of EUROSUR and further Impact Assessments undertaken 
by ICF examining IT systems. 

A2.4.2.3 

Additional CAPEX for new EUROSUR Fusion Services 

The specification of option 2 also requires an improvement of EUROSUR Fusion Services.  
For option 2, these upgrades will require an additional spending of €10 million. This cost 
is  assumed  to  be  incurred  in  2020,  so  that  EUROSUR  Fusion  Services  can  be  fully 
implemented over the period 2020-2027. The cost only applies to the EBCGA.  This unit 
cost is based on information provided by the EBCGA. 

September, 2019 

78 

 
 
 
Study to assess the impacts related to possible evolutions of EUROSUR - Final Report 

A2.4.2.4 

Cost  to  install  communication  network  with  all  BCP  for  physical 
response units 

Under option 2, Member States need to have physical response units at BCPs.  For the 
physical response unit to function successfully, the stations need to be connected to the 
EUROSUR  system  by  a  secure  communications  network.    This  is  estimated  to  cost 
€45,000 per BCP.  This is a one-off cost, estimated to be incurred in 2020. 

The  calculation  of  the  cost  of  the  communication  networks  is  the  cost  of  installation 
(€45,000) multiplied by the number of BCPs in each Member State.  The cost is incurred 
by the Member States.  This assumption is based on information provided by the EBCGA. 

A2.4.2.5 

Developing data agreement with eu-LISA 

To  access  some  data  which  will  support  the  analysis  in  option  2,  a  data  sharing 
agreement and data sharing processes need to be set up between the EBCGA and EU-
LISA.  This is estimated to cost €50,000. 

This cost is a one-off cost, assumed to be incurred in 2020 incurred by the EBCGA, so 
that EUROSUR can be fully operational from 2020 to 2027. 

A2.4.3  Staff costs 

A2.4.3.1 

Additional staff costs for analysing BCP data 

The specification of option 2 requires additional staff to those required to provide the 
existing EUROSUR services.  For NCCs, there is an extra need for staff to analyse BCP 
data under this option.  It is estimated that on average, each NCC requires an additional 
0.055  FTE  per  BCP  to  analyse  the  BCP  data.    This  is  an  assumption  based  on  an 
analysis of the existing number of staff at NCCs and whether the NCC analyses BCP data 
(information taken from country reports).  The number of staff in four NCCs where BCP 
data  is  currently  analysed  (BG,  HU,  NL,  RO)  was  compared  to  a  selection  of  similar 
countries, based on risk factors (BE, EE, NO, SI) where BCP data and Air Border data is 
not  currently  collected.    The  number  of  staff  (adjusted  for  compliance  with  the 
legislation) at each NCC was divided by the number of BCPs, to calculate an average 
number of staff in NCCs which collected and analysed BCP data and those that did not.  
The  difference  between  these  two  figures  informed  the  assumption  of  the  number  of 
additional staff required to analyse BCP data.    

The  total  number  of  international  BCPs  is  estimated  to  be  1,800,  including  maritime, 
land and air BCPs, based on information provided by the EBCGA.  The BCPs have been 
weighted, as different BCPs will produce different volumes of data to analyse. BCPs that 
are open 24/7 have a weight of 1; BCPs open only in daytime have a weight of 0.75; 
other airports and ports (on-demand) have a  weight of 0.5, and all unspecified BCPs 
have a weight of 0.1. 

The  cost  of  the  additional  staff  member  (liaison  officer)  is  an  ongoing  cost,  incurred 
every  year  from  2020  to  2027.    The  additional  member  of  staff  is  assumed  to  be  an 
analyst, and the annual labour cost for an analyst at an NCC is estimated to be €35,000 
(based on information from the previous EUROSUR impact assessment and data from 
Eurostat).  An additional 15% has been added to the labour costs.  This is to cover the 
costs associated with providing a desk, IT systems and other costs associated with the 
member of staff being able to undertake their job role.  The 15% is based on the ratio 
between the labour cost and desk / IT costs for EBCGA staff. 

The cost to NCCs each year is the number of additional staff (0.055 per BCP) multiplied 
by the labour cost for an analyst and the costs associated with the worker undertaking 
their job role. 

September, 2019 

79 

 
 
 
Study to assess the impacts related to possible evolutions of EUROSUR - Final Report 

A2.4.3.2 

Additional staff costs for EUROSUR Fusion services 

The  specification  of  option  2  also  requires  additional  EUROSUR  Fusion  services.    It  is 
estimated that an additional 10 FTEs are required to deliver EUROSUR Fusion services 
under option 2.  It is assumed that the labour cost for each EUROSUR Fusion services 
FTE is €105,300.  This is based on information from the previous impact assessment of 
EUROSUR and information from Eurostat. 

The estimated staff cost for the additional  EUROSUR Fusion service staff is calculated 
by multiplying the labour cost by the number of additional FTEs (10).  This is an annual 
cost, assumed to be incurred every year from 2020 to 2027.  The cost is to the EBCGA. 

A2.4.3.3 

Training costs 

Under option 2, some staff will require additional training (above and beyond the usual 
Continuing Professional Development training) so that they can successfully analyse the 
BCP data and provider useful information to the situational pictures. 

This training would be developed centrally, by the EBCGA, and then shared with NCCs 
who can then undertake their own training.  The cost of developing the training materials 
is estimated to be 70 hours of  EBCGA staff time (with a labour cost  of €105,300 per 
year).  The ECBGA staff member is assumed to work 35 hours per week. 

The  calculation  of  the  cost  of  developing  the  training  is  the  number  of  hours  spent 
developing  the  training,  multiplied  by  the  labour  cost  divided  by  the  number  of  paid 
hours per year (35 * 52). 

This  is  assumed  to  be  a  one-off  cost,  incurred  in  2020,  so  that  the  BCP  data  can  be 
analysed over the period 2020 to 2027.  The cost is incurred by the EBCGA. 

The cost of attending the training has been estimated in a similar way.  The training is 
estimated to have a duration of two hours, and an average of four analysts per NCC 
requiring training. 

The calculation of the cost of attending training is the number of attendees (4) multiplied 
by the duration (2 hours) multiplied by the labour cost (€35,000) divided by the number 
of paid hours per year (35 * 52).  This is then multiplied by the number of NCCs (30).  

It is assumed that the training will have to be run in 2020, and then rerun in 2026 so 
that the BCP data can be analysed over the period 2020 to 2027.  The cost is incurred 
by the Member States. 

A2.4.4  Communication and maintenance 

A2.4.4.1 

Additional cost of decision support applications at Member State 
NCC and EBCGA 

Option 2 requires additional support applications so that EUROSUR Fusion services can 
provides the information needed to support NCCs and decision making.  In this option, 
these additional applications are estimated to cost €2.2 million per year.  This is due to 
connectivity  with  other  EU  system  (SIS  2,  VIS,  Eurodac)  and  presenting  information 
from these systems. It has been assumed that 65% of this cost is borne by the EBCGA, 
and the remaining 35% of the cost is for the Member States (which utilise information 
from the decision support applications).  The cost estimates are based on information 
provided by the EBCGA. 

September, 2019 

80 

 
 
 
Study to assess the impacts related to possible evolutions of EUROSUR - Final Report 

A2.4.4.2 

Maintenance 

The maintenance cost is assumed to be 10% of operational spend for the option.  This 
estimate is based on previous impact assessments undertaken by ICF which examined 
the cost of ICT systems. 

A2.5  Option 3 - Compulsory inclusion of Air Border Surveillance 

All costs described in option 2, plus: 

A2.5.1  Infrastructure 

A2.5.1.1 

Accommodation for additional staff  

The rise in the number of staff required to implement Option 3 requires new office space 
to be purchased and or leased. This is assumed to take place from 2020 onwards. The 
total cost of increasing the square meters of the NCC premises to accommodate for new 
staff  is  assumed  to  be  estimated  replacement  cost  of  NCC  building  (calculated  by 
amortisation of a new NCC over 20 years) X proportion of increase in staff. Hence the 
cost of accommodating new staff is €0.18 million per year.   

A2.5.2  Operating and IT equipment 

A2.5.2.1 

Technical solution to allow Air border surveillance data into NCC 

The EBCGA may need to develop a technical solution to allow NCCs to access air border 
surveillance  data  as  part  of  EUROSUR.    This  cost  is  estimated  to  be  €100,000,  and 
applies only to the EBCGA.  The cost is assumed to be incurred in 2020.  The estimated 
cost is based on information provided by the EBCGA. 

A2.5.2.2 

Implementation of new software at NCCs 

The new technical solution to allow NCCs to access air border surveillance data in the 
NCC will need to be installed in each NCC. It is assumed that the installation cost of the 
new  software  will  cost  €90,000  per  NCC,  which  includes  testing,  implementing  the 
software and ensuring staff can use the software. The cost is assumed to be incurred in 
2020. The total cost is the estimated cost per NCC multiplied by the number of NCCs 
that  do  not  already  collect  and  analyse  Air  Border  data  (20).    The  estimated  cost  is 
based  on  information  from  the  previous  impact  assessment  of  EUROSUR  and  further 
Impact Assessments undertaken by ICF examining IT systems. 

A2.5.2.3 

Additional CAPEX for new EUROSUR Fusion Services 

The specification of option 3 also requires an improvement of EUROSUR Fusion Services.  
For option 3, these upgrades will require an additional spend of €20 million. This cost is 
assumed  to  be  incurred  in  2020,  so  that  EUROSUR  Fusion  Services  can  be  fully 
implemented over the period 2020-2027. The cost only applies to the EBCGA.  This unit 
cost is based on information provided by the EBCGA. 

A2.5.3  Staff costs 

A2.5.3.1 

Additional staff costs for analysing Air border data 

The specification of option 3 requires additional staff to those required to provide the 
existing  EUROSUR  services.    For  NCCs,  this  is  extra  staff  to  analyse  air  border 

September, 2019 

81 

 
 
 
Study to assess the impacts related to possible evolutions of EUROSUR - Final Report 

surveillance  data.    To  estimate  the  number  of  additional  staff  required  to  analyse  air 
border surveillance data, the number of staff in five (AT, ES, FI, LV and SE) NCCs where 
air border surveillance data is already analysed was compared to the number of staff in 
NCCs which do not analyse air border surveillance data (DK, IT, CY, HR, BE), which were 
similar  in  the  number  of  flights  from  non-EU  Member  States  and  border  risk.    The 
number of staff was adjusted for whether the NCC also analysed BCP data and the level 
of compliance with the current EUROSUR legislation. 

The  number  of  staff  in  each  group  was  divided  by  the  number  of  flights  to  and  from 
non-EU countries.  This data was taken from Eurostat.  It was not possible to access 
information  on  the  number  of  flights  to  and  from  non-Schengen  countries,  therefore 
non-EU countries has been used as a proxy measure for this, as it was assessed to be 
a  reasonable  measure  in  the  absence  of  perfect  data.    The  difference  between  the 
number of staff per inbound flight to the EU in each group was calculated, and used to 
inform the assumption on the number of additional staff required to analyse Air border 
surveillance data. 

An additional calculation to account for economies of scale was introduced – a minimum 
of 1 FTE is required in each Member State; if the calculation above estimated that under 
10 staff were required, this figure was divided by 3; if more than 10 staff were required, 
this figure was divided by 4. 

It  is  estimated  that  on  average,  each  NCC  requires  an  additional  0.00006  FTE  per 
inbound flight to the EU and 0.0002 FTE per km of border to analyse the air border 
surveillance data.  This is an assumption based on an analysis of the existing number 
of staff at NCCs and whether the NCC analyses air border surveillance data, the length 
of  a  countries  border,  the  risk  factor  at  the  border  (information  taken  from  country 
reports)  and  the  number  of  external-EU  flights  to  and  from  each  country  (from 
Eurostat).   

The cost  of the additional staff member is an ongoing cost, incurred  every year  from 
2020 to 2027.   The additional member of  staff is assumed to be an  analyst, and the 
annual  labour  cost  for  an  analyst  at  an  NCC  is  estimated  to  be  €35,000  (based  on 
information from the previous EUROSUR impact assessment and data from Eurostat).  
An  additional  15%  has  been  added  to  the  labour  costs.    This  is  to  cover  the  costs 
associated  with  providing  a  desk,  IT  systems  and  other  costs  associated  with  the 
member of staff being able to undertake their job role.  The 15% is based on the ratio 
between the labour cost and desk / IT costs for EBCGA staff. 

The cost to NCCs each year is the number of additional staff (0.0002 per km of border 
plus 0.00006 per external-EU flight, adjusted for economies of scale) multiplied by the 
labour cost for an analyst and the costs associated with the worker undertaking their 
job role.  

A2.5.3.2 

Additional staff costs for EUROSUR Fusion services 

The  specification  of  option  3  also  requires  additional  EUROSUR  Fusion  services.    It  is 
estimated that an additional  6 FTEs are  required to deliver  EUROSUR Fusion services 
under  option  3.    It  is  assumed  that  the  labour  cost  for  each  EUROSUR  Fusion  FTE  is 
€105,300.    This  labour  cost  is  based  on  information  from  the  previous  impact 
assessment of EUROSUR and information from Eurostat. 

The estimated staff cost for the additional  EUROSUR Fusion service staff is calculated 
by multiplying the labour cost by the number of additional FTEs (6).  This is an annual 
cost, assumed to be incurred every year from 2020 to 2027.  The cost is to the EBCGA. 

September, 2019 

82 

 
 
 
Study to assess the impacts related to possible evolutions of EUROSUR - Final Report 

A2.5.3.3 

Training costs 

Under option 3, some staff will require additional training (above the usual Continuing 
Professional Development training) in order that they can successfully analyse the air 
border surveillance data and provider useful information to the situational pictures. 

It is assumed that this training would be developed centrally, by the EBCGA, and then 
shared with NCCs who can then undertake their own training.  The cost of developing 
the training materials is estimated to be 70 hours of EBCGA staff time (with a labour 
cost of €105,300 per year).  The ECBGA staff member is assumed to work 35 hours per 
week. 

The  calculation  of  the  cost  of  developing  the  training  is  the  number  of  hours  spent 
developing  the  training,  multiplied  by  the  labour  cost  divided  by  the  number  of  paid 
hours per year (35 * 52). 

This is assumed to be a one-off cost, incurred in 2020, so that the air border surveillance 
data can be analysed over the period 2020 to 2027.  The cost is incurred by the EBCGA. 

The cost of attending the training has been estimated in a similar way.  The training is 
estimated to have a duration of two hours, and an average of four analysts per NCC 
require training. 

The calculation of the cost of attending training is the number of attendees (4) multiplied 
by the duration (2 hours) multiplied by the labour cost (€35,000) divided by the number 
of paid hours per year (35 * 52).  This is then multiplied by the number of NCCs (30).  

It is assumed that the training will have to be run in 2020, and then rerun in 2026, so 
that the air border surveillance data can be analysed over the period 2020 to 2027.  The 
cost is incurred by the Member States. 

A2.5.4  Communication and maintenance 

A2.5.4.1  Additional  decision  support  applications  at  EUROSUR  Fusion 

Services 

Option 3 requires additional support applications so that EUROSUR Fusion services can 
provides the information needed to support NCCs and decision making.  In this option, 
these  additional  applications  are  estimated  to  cost  €9.4  million  per  year,  to  provide 
strategic air border surveillance using advanced technology, such as HAPS, aerostats, 
RPAS.  It  has  been  assumed  that  65%  of  this  cost  is  borne  by  the  EBCGA,  and  the 
remaining 35% of the cost is for the Member States (which utilise information from the 
decision support applications). The cost estimates are based on information provided by 
the EBCGA. 

A2.5.4.2 

Maintenance 

The maintenance cost is assumed to be 10% of operational spend for the option.  This 
estimate is based on previous impact assessments undertaken by ICF which examined 
the cost of ICT systems. 

September, 2019 

83 

 
 
 
 
 
Study to assess the impacts related to possible evolutions of EUROSUR - Final Report 

A2.6  Option  4.1  -  Improved 

information  exchange  with  third 

Countries 

All costs described in option 3, plus: 

A2.6.1  Infrastructure 

There is no additional infrastructure related cost for the EBCGA or the Member States 
under Option 4.1. 

A2.6.1.1 

New NCC offices in third countries 

It is assumed that there are 19 third countries where NCCs will be needed under this 
option.    The  capital  cost  of  a  new  NCC  office  in  a  third  country  is  assumed  to  be 
€500,000.  This is based on information provided by DG HOME.  Although some of the 
third countries will have an existing NCC, it is assumed that these will have to move due 
to the expanded requirements under option 4.1. 

The total cost of new NCC offices is the value of a new office multiplied by the number 
of  third  countries  (19).    This  cost  is  assumed  to  be  incurred  by  the  third  countries 
(Member States category in the spreadsheet).  The cost is assumed to be incurred in 
2020, so that the third country NCCs are fully operational from 2020 to 2027.  

A2.6.1.2 

Security infrastructure costs at NCCs in third countries 

The  NCCs  in  third  countries  will  require  building  security  equipment  (cost  incurred  in 
2020), which will also need to be replaced every five years (in 2026).  The estimated 
cost of building security at the third country NCCs is estimated to be €30,000, based on 
the cost in Member States. 

The cost per NCC is multiplied by the total number of third country NCCs (19) to estimate 
the total cost of building security equipment.  

A2.6.2  Operating and IT equipment 

There is no additional operating and IT equipment related cost for the Member States 
under Option 4.1. 

A2.6.2.1 

Technical  solution  to  allow  third  countries  to  provide  data  to 
EUROSUR and access a subset of the data in EUROSUR and related 
services (EBCGA) 

The  EBCGA  may  need  to  develop  a  technical  solution  to  allow  third  country  NCCs  to 
provide data to EUROSUR and to access situational pictures.  This cost is estimated to 
be €1.2 million, and applies only to the EBCGA.  The cost is assumed to be incurred in 
2020.  The estimated cost is based on information provided by the EBCGA. 

A2.6.2.2 

Implementation of new software at third country NCCs 

The software required in third country NCCs will need to be installed in each NCC. It is 
assumed  that  the  installation  cost  of  the  software  will  cost  €90,000  per  NCC,  which 
includes  testing,  implementing  the  software  and  ensuring  staff  can  use  the  software.  
The cost is assumed to be incurred in 2020.  The total cost is the estimated cost per 
NCC multiplied by the number of NCCs (19).  The estimated cost is based on information 
from  the  previous  impact  assessment  of  EUROSUR  and  further  Impact  Assessments 
undertaken by ICF examining IT systems. 

September, 2019 

84 

 
 
 
Study to assess the impacts related to possible evolutions of EUROSUR - Final Report 

A2.6.2.3 

Additional CAPEX for new EUROSUR Fusion Services (EBCGA) 

The  specification  of  option  4.1  also  requires  an  improvement  of  EUROSUR  Fusion 
Services.  For option 4.1, these upgrades will require an additional spend of €10 million.  
This cost is assumed to be incurred in 2020, so that EUROSUR Fusion Services can be 
fully implemented over the period 2020-2027.  The cost only applies to the EBCGA.  This 
unit cost is based on information provided by the EBCGA. 

A2.6.3  Staff costs 

There is no additional staff cost for the Member States under Option 4.1. 

A2.6.3.1 

Staff costs in third country NCCs 

A similar number of staff will be required in third country NCCs as are needed in Member 
State NCCs.  However, it is also assumed that labour is less costly in the third countries 
than the average cost in the EU.  Therefore, the total labour cost for an NCC in a Member 
State (€824,000) has been multiplied by the ratio of earnings in the third countries to 
earnings in the EU, which is approximately 0.25. Therefore, the total annual staff cost 
in third country NCCs is estimated to be €206,000.   

The  total  staff  cost  of  third  country  NCCs  is  calculated  by  multiplying the  number  on 
third country NCCs (19) by the average staff cost.  This is an annual cost, incurred every 
year  between  2020  and  2027.    The  cost  is  incurred  by  the  third  countries  (Member 
States in the spreadsheet).  An additional 50% has been added to the labour costs. This 
is  to  cover  the  costs  associated  with  providing  a  desk,  IT  systems  and  other  costs 
associated with the member of staff being able to undertake their job role.  The 50% is 
based on the ratio between the labour cost and desk / IT costs for EBCGA staff, and is 
higher than for Member State NCCs due to the lower average earnings in third countries. 

A2.6.3.2 

Additional staff costs for EUROSUR Fusion services 

The specification of option 4.1 also requires additional EUROSUR Fusion services. It is 
estimated that an additional 10 FTEs are required to deliver EUROSUR Fusion services 
under option 4.1. It is assumed that the labour cost for each  EUROSUR Fusion FTE is 
€105,300.  This  is  based  on  information  from  the  previous  impact  assessment  of 
EUROSUR and information from Eurostat. 

The estimated staff cost for the additional EUROSUR Fusion service staff is calculated 
by multiplying the labour cost by the number of additional FTEs (10). This is an annual 
cost, assumed to be incurred every year from 2020 to 2027.  The cost is to the EBCGA. 

A2.6.3.3 

Training costs 

Under option 4.1, the staff at third country NCCs will require training in order that they 
can successfully analyse data and provider useful information to the situational pictures. 

It is assumed that this training would be developed centrally, by the EBCGA, and then 
shared  with  the  third  country  NCCs  who  can  then  undertake  their  own  training.    The 
cost of developing the training materials is estimated to be 150 hours of EBCGA staff 
time (with a labour cost of €105,300 per year). The ECBGA staff member is assumed to 
work 35 hours per week. 

The  calculation  of  the  cost  of  developing  the  training  is  the  number  of  hours  spent 
developing  the  training,  multiplied  by  the  labour  cost  divided  by  the  number  of  paid 
hours per year (35 * 52). 

This is assumed to be a one-off cost, incurred in 2020, so that the third country NCCs 
can be fully operational over the period 2020 to 2027. The cost is incurred by the EBCGA. 

September, 2019 

85 

 
 
 
Study to assess the impacts related to possible evolutions of EUROSUR - Final Report 

The cost of attending the training has been estimated in a similar way.  The training is 
estimated  to  have  a  duration  of  one  week  (35  hours),  and  an  average  of  14  staff 
members per NCC require training. 

The  calculation  of  the  cost  of  attending  training  is  the  number  of  attendees  (14) 
multiplied by the duration (35 hours) multiplied by the labour cost (€8,750) divided by 
the number of paid hours per year (35 * 52).  This is then multiplied by the number of 
NCCs (19).  

It is assumed that the training will have to be run in 2020, and then rerun in 2026, so 
that the third country NCCs can be fully operational over the period 2020 to 2027.  The 
cost is incurred by the Member States. 

A2.6.4  Communication and maintenance 

A2.6.4.1  Additional  decision  support  applications  at  EUROSUR  Fusion 

Services (EBCGA and Member States) 

Option  4.1  requires  additional  support  applications  so  that  EUROSUR  Fusion  services 
can  provides  the  information  needed  to  support  NCCs  and  decision  making.    In  this 
option, these additional applications are estimated to cost €1.2 million per year.  It has 
been assumed that 65% of this cost is borne by the EBCGA, and the remaining 35% of 
the cost is for the Member States (which utilise information from the decision support 
application.  The cost estimates are based on information provided by the EBCGA. 

A2.6.4.2 

Maintenance 

The maintenance cost is assumed to be 10% of operational spend for the option.  This 
estimate is based on previous impact assessments undertaken by ICF which examined 
the cost of ICT systems. 

A2.7  Option 4.2 - Inclusion of secondary movements  

All costs described in option 3, plus: 

A2.7.1  Infrastructure 

A2.7.1.1 

Accommodation for additional staff  

The rise in the number of staff required to implement Option 3 requires new office space 
to be purchased and or leased. This is assumed to take place from 2020 onwards. The 
total cost of increasing the square meters of the NCC premises to accommodate for new 
staff  is  assumed  to  be  Estimated  replacement  cost  of  NCC  building  (calculated  by 
amortisation of a new NCC over 20 years) X proportion of increase in staff. Hence the 
cost of accommodating new staff is €0.2 million per year.   

A2.7.2  Operating and IT equipment 

No  additional  operating  and  IT  costs  were  identified.  It  is  assumed  EUROSUR  Fusion 
Services will use existing applications in option 4.2. 

September, 2019 

86 

 
 
 
Study to assess the impacts related to possible evolutions of EUROSUR - Final Report 

A2.7.3  Staff costs 

A2.7.3.1 

Additional staff costs for EUROSUR Fusion services 

The specification of option 4.2 also requires additional EUROSUR Fusion services.  It is 
estimated that an additional 2 FTEs are  required to deliver  EUROSUR Fusion services 
under option 4.2.  It is assumed that the labour cost for each EUROSUR Fusion FTE is 
€105,300.    This  is  based  on  information  from  the  previous  impact  assessment  of 
EUROSUR and information from Eurostat. 

The estimated staff cost for the additional  EUROSUR Fusion service staff is calculated 
by multiplying the labour cost by the number of additional FTEs (2).  This is an annual 
cost, assumed to be incurred every year from 2020 to 2027.  The cost is to the EBCGA. 

A2.7.3.2 

Additional staff costs for secondary movement experts 

The  specification  of  option  4.2  requires  NCCs  to  have  some  secondary  movement 
experts,  who  are  familiar  with  secondary  movement  data  and  the  organisations  that 
collect it.  It is estimated that an average of 1 FTE per NCC is required.  It is assumed 
that  the  labour  cost  for  each  EUROSUR  secondary  movement  expert  FTE  is  €32,000.  
This  is  based  on  information  from  the  previous  impact  assessment  of  EUROSUR  and 
information from Eurostat.  An additional 15% has been added to the labour costs.  This 
is  to  cover  the  costs  associated  with  providing  a  desk,  IT  systems  and  other  costs 
associated with the member of staff being able to undertake their job role.  The 15% is 
based on the ratio between the labour cost and desk / IT costs for EBCGA staff.  

The estimated staff cost for the additional staff is calculated by multiplying the labour 
cost  by  the  number  of  additional  FTEs  and  the  costs  associated  with  the  worker 
undertaking their job role.  This is an annual cost, assumed to be incurred every year 
from 2020 to 2027.  The cost is to the Member States. 

A2.7.4  Communication and maintenance 

A2.7.4.1  Additional decision support applications at EUROSUR Fusion Services 

Option  4.2  requires  additional  support  applications  so  that  EUROSUR  Fusion  services 
can  provides  the  information  needed  to  support  NCCs  and  decision  making.    In  this 
option, these additional applications are estimated to cost €1.1 million per year.  It has 
been assumed that 65% of this cost is borne by the EBCGA, and the remaining 35% of 
the cost is for the Member States (which utilise information from the decision support 
application.  The cost estimates are based on information provided by the EBCGA. 

A2.7.4.2 

Maintenance 

The maintenance cost is assumed to be 10% of operational spend for the option.  This 
estimate is based on previous impact assessments undertaken by ICF which examined 
the cost of ICT systems. 

September, 2019 

87 

 
 
 
 
 
Study to assess the impacts related to possible evolutions of EUROSUR - Final Report 

A2.8  Option 4.3 - Enhanced coordinated / integrated planning 

All costs described in option 3, plus: 

A2.8.1  Infrastructure 

A2.8.1.1 

Accommodation for additional staff  

The rise in the number of staff required to implement Option 3 requires new office space 
to be purchased and or leased. This is assumed to take place from 2020 onwards. The 
total cost of increasing the square meters of the NCC premises to accommodate for new 
staff  is  assumed  to  be  Estimated  replacement  cost  of  NCC  building  (calculated  by 
amortisation of a new NCC over 20 years) X proportion of increase in staff. Hence the 
cost of accommodating new staff is €0.6 million per year.   

A2.8.2  Operating and IT equipment 

A2.8.2.1 

Additional CAPEX for new EUROSUR Fusion Services 

The  specification  of  option  4.3  also  requires  an  improvement  of  EUROSUR  Fusion 
Services.  For option 4.3, these upgrades will require an additional spend of €5 million.    
This cost is assumed to be incurred in 2020, so that EUROSUR Fusion Services can be 
fully implemented over the period 2020-2027.  The cost only applies to the EBCGA.  This 
unit cost is based on information provided by the EBCGA. 

A2.8.3  Staff costs 

A2.8.3.1  Additional  staff costs for  analysing joint  operation planning and or 

coordination of national operational plans 

The specification of option 4.3 requires additional staff to plan joint operations and to 
strategically  plan  operations  alongside  other  Member  States.    For  NCCs,  this  is  extra 
staff to coordinate planning of operations.  It is estimated that on average, each NCC 
requires an additional 3 FTEs to coordinate the planning of operations.   

The cost  of the additional staff member is an ongoing cost, incurred  every year  from 
2020 to 2027.  The additional member of staff is assumed to be a planning officer, and 
the annual labour cost for a planning officer at an NCC is estimated to be €32,000 (based 
on information from the previous EUROSUR impact assessment and data from Eurostat).  
An  additional  15%  has  been  added  to  the  labour  costs.    This  is  to  cover  the  costs 
associated  with  providing  a  desk,  IT  systems  and  other  costs  associated  with  the 
member of staff being able to undertake their job role.  The 15% is based on the ratio 
between the labour cost and desk / IT costs for EBCGA staff. 

The cost to NCCs each year is the number of additional staff (3) multiplied by the labour 
cost for a planning officer and the costs associated with the worker undertaking their 
job role. 

A2.8.3.2 

Additional staff costs for EUROSUR Fusion services 

The specification of option 4.3 also requires additional EUROSUR Fusion services.  It is 
estimated that an additional  6 FTEs are  required to deliver  EUROSUR Fusion services 
under option 4.3.  It is assumed that the labour cost for each EUROSUR Fusion FTE is 
€105,300.    This  is  based  on  information  from  the  previous  impact  assessment  of 
EUROSUR and information from Eurostat. 

September, 2019 

88 

 
 
 
Study to assess the impacts related to possible evolutions of EUROSUR - Final Report 

The estimated staff cost for the additional  EUROSUR Fusion service staff is calculated 
by multiplying the labour cost by the number of additional FTEs (6).  This is an annual 
cost, assumed to be incurred every year from 2020 to 2027.  The cost is to the EBCGA. 

A2.8.3.3 

Additional staff costs for EBCGA 

Option 4.3 will also require additional staffing in the EBCGA.  These staff are: 

  Planning officer staff (18 staff members, cost estimated to €141,700 per staff 

member); 

  IT staff members (8 staff members, cost estimated to be €72,200 per staff 

member); and 

  Risk analysis staff (12 staff members, cost estimated to be €105,300 per staff 

member). 

The estimated staff cost for the additional staff is calculated by multiplying the labour 
cost by the number of additional FTEs.  This is an annual cost, assumed to be incurred 
every year from 2020 to 2027.  The cost is to the EBCGA. 

A2.8.4  Communication and maintenance 

A2.8.4.1 

Additional  decision  support  applications  at  EUROSUR  Fusion 

Services 

Option  4.3  requires  additional  support  applications  so  that  EUROSUR  Fusion  services 
can  provides  the  information  needed  to  support  NCCs  and  decision  making.    In  this 
option, these additional applications are estimated to cost €1.1 million per year.  It has 
been assumed that 65% of this cost is borne by the EBCGA, and the remaining 35% of 
the cost is for the Member States (which utilise information from the decision support 
application.  The cost estimates are based on information provided by the EBCGA. 

A2.8.4.2 

Maintenance 

The maintenance cost is assumed to be 10% of operational spend for the option.  This 
estimate is based on previous impact assessments undertaken by ICF which examined 
the cost of ICT systems. 

September, 2019 

89 

 
 
 
 
Study to assess the impacts related to possible evolutions of EUROSUR - Final Report 

Annex 3  Detailed benefit assumptions  

This  annex  describes  the  assumptions  and  calculations  for  assigning  a  value  to  the 
indicators of the benefits model.  

The benefits included in the calculations are the same in each of the policy options, but 
the scale of the effect varies across each policy option.   

The benefits for each option are cumulative – the indicator values for each benefit for 
option  2  includes  all  the  benefits  associated  with  option  1,  plus  the  extra  benefits 
associated with option 2.  The indicator values for each benefit for option 4 sub options 
(4.1, 4.2, and 4.3) build on those derived from option 3 (the indicator values for each 
benefit for option 3 plus the additional benefits derived from each of the option 4 sub-
options separately). 

A3.1  Improvement in data quality, flow and speed of reporting 

The possible evolutions of EUROSUR are expected to improve data quality as well as the 
flow  and  speed  of  reporting.  The  assessment  of  the  extent  to  which  each  option  will 
deliver this expected benefit has been estimated via the following indicators:  

  Data quality (re-entry rate) – measured in terms of the proportion of incomplete 
data entries divided by the number of data entered into the EUROSUR system;  
  Volume of data  entered – measured in terms  of the  number of data  entries in 
EUROSUR by layer (events and products in the analysis layer)  or proportion of 
assets participating in joint operations reported on the operational layer and this 
on an annual basis  

  Latency of data – measured in terms of the time elapsed between the occurrence 
of  the  new  information  and  the  entry  of  that  information  (by  layer  –  event, 
operational and analysis) in the EUROSUR system.  

Table A3.1 presents the baseline value, maximum value of such indicators as well as 
the estimated operational benefits brought by each of the different options.  

Table A3.1  Operational  benefit:  improvement  in  data  quality,  flow  and  reporting 

speed  

Data 
quality 
(re-
entry 
rate) 

Greater 
than 
135%  

Less 
than 
100%  

Less 
than 
100%  

Baseline 
values97  

Maximum 
values98 

Option 1 

Volume of 
data 
entered: 
events96 

Volume of 
data 
entered: 
Operational 
assets 

Volume of 
data entered: 
Analytical 
reports 

28,000 

0% 

500 

84,000 

100% 

1500 

56,000 

Limited 
benefits 

1000 

Data latency  

All events are 
reported within 
24 hours  

50% of event 
are reported 
within 24 hours 

All events are 
reported within 
24 hours  

96 Estimated number of events depending on additional events collected through the introduction of the possible 
evolutions of EUROSUR  
97 Source: EBCGA analysis from EUROSUR system  
98 Source: estimated by EBCGA 

September, 2019 

90 

 
 
 
 
                                           
Study to assess the impacts related to possible evolutions of EUROSUR - Final Report 

Data 
quality 
(re-
entry 
rate) 

Volume of 
data 
entered: 
events96 

Volume of 
data 
entered: 
Operational 
assets 

Volume of 
data entered: 
Analytical 
reports 

Data latency  

Option 
1.1 

Option 2 

Option 
2.1* 

Option 3 

Option 
3.1* 

Option 
4.1 

Option 
4.11 

Option 
4.2 

Option 
4.21 

Option 
4.3 

Option 
4.31 

Less 
than 
100%  

Less 
than 
100%  

Less 
than 
100%  

Less 
than 
100%  

Less 
than 
100%  

Less 
than 
100%  

Less 
than 
100%  

Less 
than 
100%  

Less 
than 
100%  

Less 
than 
100%  

Less 
than 
100%  

Greater 
than 56,000 

Moderate 
benefits  

Greater than 
1000 

60,000 

Limited 
benefits 

1100 

Greater 
than 60,000 

Moderate 
benefits  

Greater than 
1100 

66,000 

Limited 
benefits 

1200 

Greater 
than 66,000 

Moderate 
benefits  

Greater than 
1200 

84,000 

Limited 
benefits 

1500 

Greater 
than 84,000 

Moderate 
benefits  

Greater than 
1500 

84,000 

Limited 
benefits 

1500 

Greater 
than 84,000 

Moderate 
benefits  

Greater than 
1500 

66,000 

High benefits  1200 

66,000 

High benefits  Greater than 

1200 

* includes the EU Confidential network 

All events are 
reported within 
24 hours  

All events are 
reported within 
24 hours  

All events are 
reported within 
24 hours  

All events are 
reported within 
24 hours  

All events are 
reported within 
24 hours  

Most of the 
events are 
reported within 
24 hours  

Most of the 
events are 
reported within 
24 hours  

All events are 
reported within 
24 hours  

All events are 
reported within 
24 hours  

All events are 
reported within 
24 hours  

All events are 
reported within 
24 hours  

A3.2  Improved  interagency  cooperation  through  exchange  of  data 

across geographies and sectors (EU LEVEL) 

The possible evolutions of EUROSUR are expected to improve interagency cooperation 
through exchange of data across geographies and sectors at EU Level. The assessment 
of the extent to which each option will deliver this expected benefit has been estimated 
via the following indicators:  

September, 2019 

91 

 
 
 
 
Study to assess the impacts related to possible evolutions of EUROSUR - Final Report 

  The number of cooperation agreement by sector  
  The  number  of  data  or  functional  services  covered  by  EU  level  inter-agency 

agreements  

  The number of analytical services exchanged at EU level falling within the scope 

of the agreements 

Table A3.2 presents the baseline value, maximum value of such indicators as well as 
the estimated operational benefits brought by each of the different options.  

Table A3.2  Operational benefit: Improved interagency cooperation through exchange 

of data across geographies and sectors (EU LEVEL) 

Number of 
cooperation 
agreement by 
sector  

Number of data or 
functional services 
covered by EU level 
inter-agency 
agreements  

Number of analytical 
services exchanged at EU 
level falling within the 
scope of the agreements 

Baseline 
values 

999  

Maximum 
values 

12102 

Option 1 

 9 

Option 
1.1 

 9 

Option 2 

 10 

Option 
2.1* 

 10 

Option 3 

 10 

13100 

17103 

13 

13 

15 

15 

16 

A minimum of 300 per year101  

 Unlimited 

A minimum of 300 per year  

A minimum of 300 per year  

A minimum of 300 per year  

A minimum of 300 per year  

A minimum of 300 per year  

99  Source:  EBCGA.  The  Agency  currently  covers  eight  coast  guard  functions  and  three  additional  sectors 
namely: maritime safety, maritime, port and ship security, fisheries inspection and control, the prevention and 
suppression  of  trafficking  and  smuggling  and  connected  maritime  and  land  law  enforcement;  Search  and 
Rescue, (Maritime) environmental protection and response; and three additional sectors aviation (e.g. air traffic 
control, airspace management); earth observation and cooperation with the military. Note that the two functions 
"Maritime border control" and "Maritime monitoring and surveillance" are coast guard functions not subject to 
EU or inter-agency cooperation since they are within the remit of the EBCGA. 
100  Source  EBCGA:  Currently  EFS  covers  the  following  13  areas:  Vessel  Monitoring  System  (VMS);  Vessel 
Detection  Service;  Vessel  Monitoring  and  Tracking  Service;  Tracking  Vessels  of  Interest  Service;  Anomaly 
Detection Service; Maritime Simulation Module Service; Maritime Aerial Surveillance; Satellite Imagery Service; 
Coastal Monitoring Service;  Pre frontier Monitoring Service; Reference Imagery / Mapping Service; Visual Data 
Discovery Service; Meteo Service; Multipurpose Aerial Surveillance activities (MAS). 
101 Source: EUROSUR Evaluation report. 294 analytical reports were provided by EBCGA to EU and national 
public bodies since the start of EUROSUR. 
102 Source: EBCGA. In addition to the eight functions, the Agency's agreements could cover at the maximum all 
the 11 coast guard functions and three additional sectors: Maritime safety, including vessel traffic management; 
Maritime, ship and port security; Maritime customs activities; The prevention and suppression of trafficking 
and  smuggling  and  connected  maritime  law  enforcement;  Maritime  environmental  protection  and  response; 
Maritime  search  and  rescue;  Ship  casualty  and  maritime  assistance  service;  Maritime  accident  and 
disaster response; Fisheries inspection and control and activities related to the above Coast Guard Functions. 
Note that the two functions "Maritime border control" and "Maritime monitoring and surveillance" are coast guard 
functions not subject to EU or inter-agency cooperation since they are within the remit of the EBCGA. 
103 Source EBCGA: It is expected that EBCGA will bring one new service at least every year over the period 
and  introduce  at  least  the  following  services  in  the  list  of  EFS  services:  Air  Border  Surveillance  services; 
monitoring of secondary movement services; Border Crossing Point analysis services as well as the  Europol 
Big Data services.  

September, 2019 

92 

 
 
 
 
                                           
Study to assess the impacts related to possible evolutions of EUROSUR - Final Report 

Number of 
cooperation 
agreement by 
sector  

Number of data or 
functional services 
covered by EU level 
inter-agency 
agreements  

Number of analytical 
services exchanged at EU 
level falling within the 
scope of the agreements 

Option 
3.1* 

Option 
4.1 

Option 
4.11 

Option 
4.2 

Option 
4.21 

Option 
4.3 

Option 
4.31 

 10 

 12 

 12 

 10 

 10 

 10 

 10 

16 

16 

16 

17 

17 

16 

16 

A minimum of 300 per year  

 A minimum of 300 per year  

 A minimum of 300 per year  

 A minimum of 300 per year  

 A minimum of 300 per year  

 A minimum of 300 per year  

 A minimum of 300 per year  

* includes the EU Confidential network 

A3.3  Improved  interagency  cooperation  through  exchange  of  data 

across geographies and sectors (Member State level) 

The possible evolutions of EUROSUR are expected to improve interagency cooperation 
through exchange of data across geographies and sectors at Member State Level. The 
assessment  of  the  extent  to  which  each  option  will  deliver  this  expected  benefit  has 
been estimated via the following indicators:  

  The proportion of NCCs exchanging event related data with neighbouring NCCs 

on a regular basis;  

  The  proportion  of  NCCs  exchanging  data  related  to  operational  assets  with 

neighbouring NCCs on a regular basis;  

  The  proportion  of  NCCs  exchanging  data  related  to  analytical  reports  with 

neighbouring NCCs on a regular basis; and,  

  The proportion of national authorities involved in border control exchanging data 

with NCCs on a regular basis by governance level (Local, Regional, National level)   

Table A3.3 presents the baseline value, maximum value of such indicators as well as 
the estimated operational benefits brought by each of the different options.  

September, 2019 

93 

 
 
 
 
Study to assess the impacts related to possible evolutions of EUROSUR - Final Report 

Table A3.3  Operational benefit: Improved interagency cooperation through exchange 

of data across geographies and sectors (Member State level) 

Proportion 
of NCCs 
exchanging 
data 
related to 
events with 
neighbouri
ng NCCs on 
a regular 
basis  

Proportion of 
NCCs 
exchanging 
data related to 
operational 
assets with 
neighbouring 
NCCs on a 
regular basis  

Proportion of 
NCCs 
exchanging 
data related to 
analytical 
reports with 
neighbouring 
NCCs on a 
regular basis 

Proportion of 
national 
authorities 
involved in border 
control 
exchanging data 
with NCCs on a 
regular basis by 
governance level 
(Local, Regional, 
National level) 

Baseline 
values104   77% 

0% 

7% 

33% 

Maximum 
values105 

100% 

100% 

100% 

Option 1  80% 

Limited benefits  14% 

100% 

33% 

Option 
1.1 

100%  

Moderate 
benefits 

15% 

33% 

Option 2  80% 

Limited benefits  28% 

Greater than 33% 

Option 
2.1* 

100% 

Moderate 
benefits 

31% 

Greater than 33% 

Option 3  80% 

Limited benefits  31% 

Greater than 36% 

Option 
3.1* 

Option 
4.1 

Option 
4.11 

Option 
4.2 

Option 
4.21 

Option 
4.3 

Option 
4.31 

100% 

Moderate 
benefits 

34% 

Greater than 36% 

80% 

Limited benefits  62% 

Greater than 50% 

100% 

Moderate 
benefits 

68% 

Greater than 50% 

80% 

Limited benefits  62% 

100% 

100% 

Moderate 
benefits 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

68% 

75% 

80% 

100% 

Greater than 66% 

Greater than 66%% 

* includes the EU Confidential network 

104 Source: EUROSUR Evaluation, EBCGA analysis from EUROSUR system as well as EBCGA estimation  
105 Source: estimated by EBCGA.   

September, 2019 

94 

 
 
 
 
                                           
Study to assess the impacts related to possible evolutions of EUROSUR - Final Report 

A3.4  Improved  interagency  cooperation  through  exchange  of  data 
across  geographies  and  sectors  (Regional  Networks  and  Third 
Countries) 

The possible evolutions of EUROSUR are expected to improve interagency cooperation 
through  exchange  of  data  across  geographies  and  sectors  in  Regional  Networks  / 
Third Countries. The assessment of the extent to which each option will deliver this 
expected benefit has been estimated via the following indicators:  

  The working arrangements between EBCGA and third countries; 
  The number of data or analytical services covered by EBCGA working 

arrangements with third countries; and,  

  The bilateral agreements between Member States and third countries (or third 

countries part of the regional networks)  

Table A3.4 presents the baseline value, maximum value of such indicators as well as 
the estimated operational benefits brought by each of the different options.  

Table A3.4  Operational benefit: Improved interagency cooperation through exchange 
of data across geographies and sectors (Regional Networks / Third Countries) 

Working 
arrangements 
between EBCGA 
and third 
countries 

Number of data or 
analytical services 
covered by EBCGA 
working arrangements 
with 3rd countries  

Bilateral agreements 
between Member States 
and third countries (or 
third countries part of 
the regional networks)  

Baseline 
values106   19 

Maximum 
values107 

25 

Option 1  19 

Option 
1.1 

19 

Option 2  19 

Option 
2.1* 

19 

Option 3  19 

Option 
3.1* 

Option 
4.1 

Option 
4.11 

Option 
4.2 

19 

25 

25 

19 

0 

17 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

17 

17 

0 

26 

26 at the minimum 

26 

26 

26 

26 

26 

26 

26 at the minimum  

26 at the minimum  

26 

106 Source: EBCGA analysis based on the current agreements between the Agency and the third countries.  
107 Source: estimated by EBCGA based on upcoming or future agreements, analytical services already 
available. Virtually, the EBCGA could sign agreement with all 193 (but the EU 28) countries part of the United 
nations.  

September, 2019 

95 

 
 
 
 
                                           
Study to assess the impacts related to possible evolutions of EUROSUR - Final Report 

Working 
arrangements 
between EBCGA 
and third 
countries 

Number of data or 
analytical services 
covered by EBCGA 
working arrangements 
with 3rd countries  

Bilateral agreements 
between Member States 
and third countries (or 
third countries part of 
the regional networks)  

Option 
4.21 

Option 
4.3 

Option 
4.31 

19 

19 

19 

0 

0 

0 

* includes the EU Confidential network 

26 

26 

26 

A3.5  Improved  situational  awareness  at  Member  States’  NCCs  and 

across Europe 

The possible evolutions of EUROSUR are expected to improve situational awareness at 
Member States' NCCs and across Europe. The assessment of the extent to which each 
option will deliver this expected benefit has been estimated via the following indicators:  

  The coverage of border sections (by Land / Sea / Air border) (%) 
  The coverage of border crossing points (%)  
  The coverage of external airs border (%)  
  The coverage of irregular migration phenomena  
  The coverage of border control assets included in the operational layer (%)  

Table A3.5 presents the baseline value, maximum value of such indicators as well as 
the estimated operational benefits brought by each of the different options.   

Table A3.5  Operational benefit:  Improved situational awareness at Member States' 

NCCs and across Europe 

Coverage of 
border 
sections (by 
Land / Sea / 
Air border) 
(%) 

Baseline 
values108  

50%109 

Covera
ge of 
border 
crossin
g 
points 
(%)  

Max 
66%110 

Coverage 
of 
external 
air 
border 
(%)  

Coverage 
of 
irregular 
migration 
phenomen
a  

Coverage of 
border control 
assets included 
in the 
operational 
layer (%) 

0%111 

3112 

30%113 

108 Source : ICF analysis.  
109 Source ICF estimation. The current regulation mandates EUROSUR to cover land and maritime borders. If 
air borders are to be covered this represent the same area than the land and maritime borders combined, that 
is twice as much as currently covered by the EUROSUR Regulation.   
110 Source ICF estimation based on an analysis of EU 28 border crossing points at sea, land and air borders.  
111 Source: EUROSUR current regulation. The current Regulation does not mandate Member States to cover 
air borders in their reporting to EUROSUR.  
112 Source: ICF elaboration. Currently EUROSUR reporting covers smugglers/ facilitators, irregular crossings 
and irregular migrants. In the future, they could cover at least secondary movements and monitoring of the 
external air border.  
113 Source: EUROSUR Evaluation. A third of the Member States indicated that they display their own assets in 
the operational layer, but no Member State indicates that it shares its assets through the operational layer with 
other authorities. 

September, 2019 

96 

 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Study to assess the impacts related to possible evolutions of EUROSUR - Final Report 

Coverage of 
border 
sections (by 
Land / Sea / 
Air border) 
(%) 

Covera
ge of 
border 
crossin
g 
points 
(%)  

Coverage 
of 
external 
air 
border 
(%)  

Coverage 
of 
irregular 
migration 
phenomen
a  

Coverage of 
border control 
assets included 
in the 
operational 
layer (%) 

Maximum 
values114 

100% 

100% 

100% 

A minimum 
of 5 

100%115 

Option 1 

50% 

Option 1.1 

50% 

Max 
66% 

Max 
66% 

Option 2 

50% min  

100% 

Option 2.1*  50% min  

100% 

Limited 
benefits 

A minimum 
of 3 

30% 

Limited 
benefits 

A minimum 
of 3 

33% 

Limited 
benefits 

A minimum 
of 3 

30% 

Limited 
benefits 

A minimum 
of 3 

33% 

Option 3 

100%  

 100%  High 

benefits 

Option 3.1*  100% 

 100%  High 

benefits 

Option 4.1 

100%  

 100%  High 

benefits 

A minimum 
of 4 

30% 

A minimum 
of 4 

33% 

A minimum 
of 4 

30% 

Option 4.11  100%  

100% 

High 
benefits 

A minimum 
of 4 

33% 

Option 4.2 

100%  

 100%  High 

benefits 

A minimum 
of 5 

30% 

Option 4.21  100%  

100% 

High 
benefits 

A minimum 
of 5 

33% 

Option 4.3 

100%  

 100%  High 

Option 4.31  100%  

100% 

* includes the EU Confidential network 

benefits 

High 
benefits 

Higher than 
33%% 

Higher than 33% 

 A 
minimum 
of 4 

 A 
minimum 
of 4 

A3.6  Enhanced planning and operational coordination between NCCs 

in different Member States 

The possible evolutions of EUROSUR are expected to enhance planning and operational 
coordination between NCCs in different Member States. The extent to which each option 
will deliver this expected benefit has been estimated via the following indicators:  

114 Source: estimated by EBCGA.  
115 Source: estimated by EBCGA on the basis that all relevant assets participating in border surveillance and 
or border control of external borders of relevance to EU level operations should be reported under Option 4.3.  

September, 2019 

97 

 
 
 
 
                                           
Study to assess the impacts related to possible evolutions of EUROSUR - Final Report 

  The extent to which NCC’s operational plans are shared with neighbouring NCCs 

(including third countries) and EBCGA on a regular basis (outside JO);  

  The extent to which local and regional operational plans are shared with NCC’s 

operational management level (excluding joint operations);  

  The  extent  of  coordination  of  daily  surveillance  activities  at  bilateral  level 

(excluding joint operations) by type of border section; and,  

  The  extent  of  coordination  of  daily  surveillance  activities  at  multilateral  level 

(within and outside joint operations) by type of border section.  

Table A3.6 presents the baseline value, maximum value of such indicators as well as 
the estimated operational benefits brought by each of the different options.  

Table A3.6  Operational  benefit:  Enhanced  planning  and  operational  coordination 

between NCCs in different Member States 

Extent to 
which NCC’s 
operational 
plans are 
shared with 
neighbouring 
NCCs 
(including 
third 
countries) & 
EBCGA on a 
regular basis 
(outside JO) 

Extent to 
which local 
and regional 
operational 
plans are 
shared with 
NCC’s 
operational 
management 
level 
(excluding 
joint 
operations) 

Extent of 
coordination of 
daily 
surveillance 
activities at 
bilateral level 
(excluding joint 
operations) by 
type of border 
section  

Extent of 
coordination of 
daily 
surveillance 
activities at 
multilateral 
level (outside 
joint operations) 
by type of 
border section  

Baseline 
values116  

0% 

Maximum 
values117 

100% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

Option 1  Only deployment plans are 

No effect 

Option 
1.1 

Option 2 

Option 
2.1* 

Option 3 

Option 
3.1* 

Option 
4.1 

shared in cases of joint 
operations, pilot projects and 
rapid interventions as per Art. 
10.5(a) of Regulation 2013/1052 

Operational plans for operations 
on territory of third countries to 
be agreed with neighbouring EU 
MS. (Art. 75.3) of EBCG Proposal 
Regulation  

Potential for improvement if a model 
third country agreement and 
implementing act details the 
information layers in specific 

116 Source: Assumption based on the analysis of the current EUROSUR Regulation   
117 Source: Under the proposed regulation Member States will share assets participating in joint operations and 
other asset of relevance for coordination of border control and border surveillance activities at national, bilateral 
or multilateral level.  

September, 2019 

98 

 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Study to assess the impacts related to possible evolutions of EUROSUR - Final Report 

Extent to 
which NCC’s 
operational 
plans are 
shared with 
neighbouring 
NCCs 
(including 
third 
countries) & 
EBCGA on a 
regular basis 
(outside JO) 

Extent to 
which local 
and regional 
operational 
plans are 
shared with 
NCC’s 
operational 
management 
level 
(excluding 
joint 
operations) 

Extent of 
coordination of 
daily 
surveillance 
activities at 
bilateral level 
(excluding joint 
operations) by 
type of border 
section  

Extent of 
coordination of 
daily 
surveillance 
activities at 
multilateral 
level (outside 
joint operations) 
by type of 
border section  

situational picture (Art. 25.4 of EBCG 
Proposal Regulation  

Only deployment plans are 
shared in cases of joint 
operations, pilot projects and 
rapid interventions as per Art. 
10.5(a) of Regulation 2013/1052 

No effect  

100% for border sections with high and critical impact levels; 

100% for border sections with high and critical impact levels;  

Option 
4.11 

Option 
4.2 

Option 
4.21 

Option 
4.3 

Option 
4.31 

* includes the EU Confidential network 

A3.7  Improved reaction capabilities from Border Guard Agencies and 

EBCGA 

The possible evolutions of EUROSUR are expected to improve the reaction capabilities 
of  national  Border  Guard  Agencies  and  the  EBCGA.  The  assessment  of  the  extent  to 
which each option will deliver this expected benefit has been estimated via the following 
indicators:  

  The number of multipurpose aerial surveillance coordinated at multilateral level 

/ Number of overall patrolling hours  

  The Size of the areas covered by joint patrols (Km2) in high risk areas  
  The number of interceptions made following EFS detections 

Table A3.7 presents the baseline value, maximum value of such indicators as well as 
the estimated operational benefits brought by each of the different options.  

September, 2019 

99 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Study to assess the impacts related to possible evolutions of EUROSUR - Final Report 

Table A3.7  Operational  benefit:  Improved  reaction  capabilities  from  Border  Guard 

Agencies and EBCGA 

Number of multipurpose 
aerial surveillance 
coordinated at 
multilateral level / 
Number of overall 
patrolling hours  

Size of the area 
covered by joint 
patrols (Km2) in 
high risk areas  

Number of 
interceptions 
made following 
EFS detections 

Baseline 
values118   1934 hours 

784,870 km2 

127 

Maximum 
values119  Greater than 2000 hours 

Greater than 800,000 
km2  

Greater than 500  

Option 1  1934 hours 

784,870 km2 

Option 
1.1 

1934 hours 

784,870 km2 

127 

127 

Option 2  at least 2000 hours 

at least 800,000 km2   at least 250 

Option 
2.1* 

Greater than 2000 hours 

Greater than 800,000 
km2  

Greater than 250 

Option 3  at least 2000 hours 

at least 800,000 km2   at least 250 

Option 
3.1* 

Option 
4.1 

Option 
4.11 

Option 
4.2 

Option 
4.21 

Option 
4.3 

Option 
4.31 

Greater than 2000 hours 

Greater than 800,000 
km2  

Greater than 250  

at least 2000 hours 

at least 800,000 km2   at least 500  

Greater than 2000 hours 

Greater than 800,000 
km2  

Greater than 500  

at least 2000 hours 

at least 800,000 km2   at least 500  

Greater than 2000 hours 

Greater than 2000 hours 

Greater than 2000 hours 

Greater than 800,000 
km2  

Greater than 800,000 
km2  

Greater than 800,000 
km2  

Greater than 500  

Greater than 250 

Greater than 250  

* includes the EU Confidential network 

118 Source: EBCGA analysis from EUROSUR system  
119 Source: estimated by EBCGA. 

September, 2019 

100 

 
 
 
 
                                           
HOW TO OBTAIN EU PUBLICATIONS 

Free publications: 

  one copy: 

via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu); 

  more than one copy or posters/maps: 

from the European Union’s representations 
(http://ec.europa.eu/represent_en.htm); 
from the delegations in non-EU countries 
(http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/index_en.htm); 
by contacting the Europe Direct service 
(http://europa.eu/europedirect/index_en.htm) or calling 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 
(freephone number from anywhere in the EU) (*). 

(*)  The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels 
may charge you). 

Priced publications: 

  via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu). 

Priced subscriptions: 

  via one of the sales agents of the Publications Office of the European Union 

(http://publications.europa.eu/others/agents/index_en.htm). 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
doi: 10.2837/82414 

DR-02-19-769-EN-N