COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EVALUATION of the TEMPORARY SCHENGEN FACILITY OF CROATIA
Date: 2020-05-12
Institutions: Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs, European Commission
Subjects: Croatia, EU financial instrument, Schengen Information System, border control, external border of the EU

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 12.5.2020  SWD(2020) 86 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EVALUATION    of the               TEMPORARY SCHENGEN FACILITY OF CROATIA {SWD(2020) 84 final}  
 
 
Table of contents 

1. 

INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 4 

Purpose and scope ........................................................................................................... 4 

2.  BACKGROUND TO THE INTERVENTION ........................................................... 5 

Description of the intervention and its objectives .......................................................... 5 

Management of Schengen Facility and roles of Authorities........................................... 7 

Intervention logic ............................................................................................................ 8 

Baseline and points of comparison ............................................................................... 10 

3. 

IMPLEMENTATION / STATE OF PLAY .............................................................. 13 

Description of the current situation .............................................................................. 14 

4.  METHOD .................................................................................................................. 17 

Short description of methodology................................................................................. 17 

Deviation from the evaluation roadmap ....................................................................... 18 

Limitations and robustness of findings ......................................................................... 18 

5.  ANALYSIS AND ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS ................ 19 

Relevance ...................................................................................................................... 19 

Effectiveness ................................................................................................................. 22 

Efficiency ...................................................................................................................... 28 

Coherence ..................................................................................................................... 30 

Sustainability ................................................................................................................ 34 

EU-added value............................................................................................................. 37 

6.  CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................... 39 

ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION ................................................................ 43 

ANNEX 2: SYNOPSIS REPORT OF THE STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ........ 44 

ANNEX 3: METHODS AND ANALYTICAL MODELS ............................................... 49 

1 

 
 
Glossary 

Term or acronym 

Meaning or definition 

AMIF 

ARPA 

BC 

BCP 

BPS 

CEF 

CR 

CS 

EOD/IED 

EQ 

ERDF 

ESF 

eu-LISA 

EBCGA 

GIS 

IBM 

IBM AP 

IP 

Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund 

The Agency for the Audit of EU Programmes 
Implementation System 

Border Crossing 

Border Crossing Point 

Border Police Station 

Connecting Europe Facility 

Comprehensive Report on the implementation of 
measures and the execution of the payments under the 
Schengen Facility for Croatia  

Case study 

Explosive Ordnance Disposal/Improvised Explosive 
Devices 

Evaluation Question 

European Regional Development Fund 

European Social Fund 

European Union Agency for the Operational 
Management of Large-Scale IT Systems in the Area of 
Freedom, Security and Justice 

The European Border and Coast Guard Agency 

Geographic Information System 

Integrated Border Management 

Integrated Border Management Action Plan 

Indicative Programme of the Schengen Facility for 
Croatia 

ISF – B&V 

Internal Security Fund – Borders and Visa 

2 

 
 
 
MFEA 

MoI 

N.SIS 

NBMIS 

PPF 

SAP 

SIRENE 

SIS II 

VIS 

TC 

Croatian Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs 

Croatian Ministry of Interior 

National component of the Schengen Information 
System 

National Border Management Information System 

Project Preparation Facility 

Schengen Action Plan 

Supplementary Information Request at the National 
Entries 

Schengen Information System 

Visa Information system 

Transit Centre 

3 

 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

Purpose and scope 

Croatia  joined  the  European  Union  on  1  July  2013.  As  of  the  accession  date,  the 
provisions  of  the  original  Treaties  and  the  acts  adopted  by  the  institutions  before 
accession were binding on Croatia and applied in Croatia under the conditions laid down 
in those Treaties and the Act of Accession1. Article 31 of the Act of Accession entailed 
the creation of a temporary financing instrument (i.e. Schengen Facility) from the date of 
accession until 31 December 2014, whose objective was to help Croatia finance actions 
at the new external borders of the Union for the implementation of the Schengen acquis 
and external border control.  

The  main  objective  of  this  evaluation  is  to  examine  all  outcomes,  including  outputs, 
results and impacts resulting from the implementation of actions and measures under the  
Schengen Facility for Croatia, in the period 1 July 2013 - 21 January 2017. Based on the 
examinations  of  implemented  measures,  the  evaluation  provided  elements  which  could 
be taken into consideration for any future EU funded interventions with similar features. 

The preparation for entering the Schengen Area started before Croatia’s accession to the 
EU.  Croatia  introduced  the  Integrated  Border  Management  concept  (IBM)  in  2005  and 
has since then continuously been upgrading it to align it to the acquis communitaire.  

In 2007, Croatia adopted the Schengen Action Plan (SAP)2 with the goal of aligning the 
national legislation to the Schengen acquis and planning for activities that would allow 
strengthening  administrative  capacity.  The  key  areas  outlined  by  the  SAP  overlapped 
largely  with  the  areas  that  will  later  on  be  mentioned  in  the  Indicative  Program  of  the 
Schengen  Facility  (IP):  border  police  management,  asylum  and  migration,  visa 
management,  police  cooperation,  and  fight  against  crime  and  terrorism.  The  SAP  was 
revised in 2014 to reflect the updated status of actions that still needed to be undertaken 
in  aligning  to  the  Schengen  acquis,  complementary  to  the  provisions  of  the  IP  2013-
2014. 

In 2013, the Croatian Government adopted the Law on state border surveillance and the 
Law  on  amendments  and  additions  to  the  Law  on  foreign  nationals,  which  ensured  the 
harmonisation of Croatian law with the Schengen acquis of provisions related to border 
police activities. In the same year, the Regulation on border crossings in the Republic of 
Croatia  was  adopted,  establishing  the  border  crossings,  locations,  categories  as  well  as 
the types of transportation allowed.  

An evaluation  of the  Schengen Facility for Croatia  was launched on 6 April 2018 with 
the  publication  of  a  Roadmap  that  describes  the  context,  purpose  and  scope  of  the 
evaluation as well as its main evaluation criteria: (1) effectiveness of the intervention; (2) 
efficiency in relation to resources used; (3) relevance in relation to identified needs and 

1  Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of Croatia (L 112/21), Council of the 

European Union. 

2     Reference  in  the  Integrated  Border  Management  Strategy  (Strategija  integriranog  upravljanja 
granicom), Section 2, article 3 (published by the  Croatian  Official Gazette NN 92/2014, available at 
https://narodne-novine.nn.hr/clanci/sluzbeni/2014_07_92_1864.html). 

4 

 
 
                                                           
problems;  (4)  coherence;  (5)  sustainability;  and  (6)  EU  added  value  compared  to  what 
could  have  been  achieved  at  Member  State  or  international  level.  As  part  of  the 
evaluation, a public consultation took place.  

This  staff  working  document  describes  the  evaluation  process,  how  it  was  carried  out, 
and  what  it  found.  It  is  accompanied  by  four  annexes  that  contain  procedural 
information, a summary of the consultations and an overview of the methodology.  
An external contractor has carried out a study that has informed the evaluation. The study started 
in November 2018 and ended in July 2019. 

2.  BACKGROUND TO THE INTERVENTION 

Description of the intervention and its objectives 

The  Schengen  Facility    for  Croatia  is  the  third  such  instrument  for  new  EU  Member 
States.  The  first  one  (Schengen  Facility  I),  in  the  period  2004-2006,  helped  seven  new 
EU  Member  States3  to  get  prepared  for  accession  to  the  Schengen  area4.  The  second 
Schengen  Facility  (Schengen  Facility  II)  was  set  up  for  Bulgaria  and  Romania  for  the 
period 2007-20095.  

The Schengen Facility for Croatia ensured EUR 120 million to finance actions at the new 
external borders of the Union for the implementation of the Schengen acquis and external 
border control 

The  general  objective  of  the  Schengen  Facility  is  the  compliance  of  Croatia  with  the 
Schengen acquis.  

The Schengen Facility addressed the general need of full compliance with the Schengen 
acquis, including improved external borders control, surveillance, and interoperability, as 
well  as  specific  needs  such  as:  insufficient/outdated  operating  equipment,  inadequate 
border crossing infrastructure and related buildings, non-interoperable IT and insufficient 
qualification  of  border  police  and  consular  staff.  There  was  also  a  horizontal  need  to 
support the necessary logistics and operations, required to fulfil the obligations in respect 
of Schengen acquis.  

In  order  to  meet  this  general  objective  of  the  Schengen  Facility,  Croatia  drafted  an 
Indicative Programme (IP), which covered three areas of intervention:  

- 

- 

- 

enhancing control and surveillance of the borders,  

implementation of the Integrated Border Management (IBM) principle at national 
and international level and  

enhancing  the  skills  and  knowledge  of  the  border  police  and  employees  at 
consular and diplomatic mission in relation to the Schengen acquis.  

3   Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, the Slovak Republic and Slovenia. 
4   Commission Decision C(2004) 248 on the management and monitoring of the Schengen Facility. 
5  Commission Decision C(2007) 1417 on the management and monitoring of the Schengen part of the 

Schengen Facility. 

5 

 
 
 
                                                           
The IP further defined 11 objectives6: 

  Objective  1:  Acquisition  of  new  technical  equipment  for  surveillance  and  control  of 

external borders  

  Objective  2:  Modernisation  and  development  of  radio  communication  system 

necessary for surveillance and control of external borders  

  Objective  3:  Development  and  upgrading  of  information  systems  and  computer 

networks related to the implementation of the Schengen acquis  

  Objective  4:  Construction  of  new  and  renovation  and  modernisation  of  the  existing 

border infrastructure  

  Objective 5: Increase of the qualification of the border police  

  Objective 6: Development of the Croatian Visa Information System and connection to 

the EU Visa Information System (VIS)  

  Objective 7:  Improvement  of Schengen related knowledge and skills  of the consular 

staff.  

  Objective  8.  Providing  Croatian  diplomatic  missions  and  consular  offices  with 

additional security equipment; 

  Objective 9: Support costs for logistics and operations for managing the Instrument; 

  Objective  10:  Increasing  the  number  of  police  officers  for  border  control  and  police 

officers for state border protection; 

  Objective 11: Equipment for border police. 

The objectives of the Schengen Facility for Croatia and their links to all other elements 
of the intervention logic of the Schengen Facility are presented in section 2.4.1. 

The 11 objectives of the Schengen Facility were further broken down to measures, out of 
which the procurement of equipment accounted for most of the financial allocations, with 
more than 30% of allocated funds, followed by infrastructure (approx. 28%).  

It  was  expected  that  a  share  of  contracted  amounts  would  not  be  paid  as  some  of  the 
planned actions may not be implemented within the eligibility period.  Thus, in order to 
increase  the  absorption  rate  and  utilise  as  much  funds  as  possible  within  the  eligibility 
period,  the  Responsible  Authority  exceeded  the  available  Schengen  Facility  funding  in 
procurement plans, up to EUR 122,75 million.  

6  

Initially, the IP defined 7 objectives (1 to 7). Throughout the implementation, four additional 
objectives were added (8 to 11), by three amendments of the IP. 

6 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Financial allocation of the Schengen Facility per activity type in euro 

Table 1 
Activity type  

Equipment 
Infrastructure 
IT solutions 
Means of transport 
Operations 
Salaries 
Training 
Grand Total 

Programmed 
Amount (EUR)  % out of 

Costs incurred7 
 Amount (EUR)  % out of 

41 027 079,26 
34 224 523,71 
8 841 599,15 
37 583 663,37 
340 000,00 
350 000,00 
381 000,00 
122 747 865,49 

total 

33,42% 
27,88% 
7,20% 
30,62% 
0,28% 
0,29% 
0,31% 
100 % 

38 207 321,79 
33 747 343,85 
8 303 506,91 
35 274 952,97 
228 264,20 
887 532,61 
212 493,45 
116 861 415,78 

total 

32,69% 
28,87% 
7,10% 
30,18% 
0,19% 
0,75% 
0,18% 
100,00 % 

The Schengen Facility helped Croatia in securing border management that would help it 
with tackling the complexities of the border and allow it to join the Schengen area. The 
needs of Croatia in relation to border surveillance and control are strongly influenced by 
the  specificities  of  the  national  border,  which  is  relatively  long  given  the  size  of  the 
country.  The  total  border  length  is  3  318,6  km,  out  of  which  the  external  border  is  2 
304,3 km. A high volume of cross border traffic and large number of traffic routes makes 
the  surveillance  and  control  of  the  border  challenging.  Other  challenges  concern  the 
geographical features, the remaining potential mine fields in the vicinity of borders with 
Serbia,  Bosnia  and  Herzegovina  and  Montenegro,  and  the  discontinuity  of  the  land 
border between Dubrovnik and the rest of the Croatian territory.  

The implementation of the Schengen Facility for Croatia was finalised in January 2017; 
however  Croatia  has  not  yet  entered  the  Schengen  area.  The  Commission  adopted  a 
Communication8 to the European Parliament and Council on 22 October 2019 in which it 
is concluded that the Commission considers that Croatia has taken the measures needed 
to  ensure  that  the  necessary  conditions  for  the  application  of  all  relevant  parts  of  the 
Schengen  acquis  are  met.  It  also  indicates  that  Croatia  will  need  to  continue  working 
consistently on the implementation of all the ongoing actions, in particular in the field of 
management of the external borders, to ensure that these conditions continue to be met. 
Furthermore,  the  Council  of  the  European  Union  should  take  a  decision  on  Croatia’s 
accession. 

Management of Schengen Facility and roles of Authorities 

As  per  Article  13  of  the  Commission  Decision  C(2013)2159,  Croatia  was  required  to 
designate a responsible authority, a certifying authority and an audit authority that would 
oversee  the  implementation  of  the  Schengen  Facility.  These  authorities,  as  well  as  a 

7 The amounts are subject to further verifications by the Commission  

8     COM(2019) 497 final. 

7 

 
 
 
                                                           
coordinating  body  and  the  beneficiaries  of  the  Schengen  Facility,  were  nominated  by 
Government Decision9. 

The  Independent  Sector  for  Schengen  coordination  and  EU  Funds  of  the  Ministry  of 
Interior  (MoI)  was  set  up  as  the  Responsible  Authority  (RA),  whose  role  was  the 
management  of  the  Schengen  Facility  and  the  implementation  of  actions  under  the 
defined objectives.  

The Agency for the Audit of EU Programmes Implementation System was designated as 
the Audit Authority, whose main duty was to ensure that independent verifications on the 
effective functioning of the management and control system are performed.  

The  Sector  for  National  Fund  Affairs  of  the  State  Treasury  in  the  Ministry  of  Finance 
was appointed as the Certifying Authority and performed tasks related to the certification 
of  the  declared  expenditure.  It  was  in  charge  of  processing  the  receipts  for  services 
procured under the Schengen Facility and paying contractors.  

A  separate  Coordination  and  Monitoring  Board  was  also  established,  consisting  of  the 
Minister of interior, deputy ministers of several  relevant  ministries10, the representative 
of  the  State  Commission  for  Supervision  of  Public  Procurement  Procedures,  Chief  of 
Police, Head of the Border Police Directorate, Head of the  Responsible Authorityand a 
representative  of  the  Audit  Authority  (as  observer).  The  Board  gave  recommendations 
related  to  the  IP  and  its  possible  changes,  assessed  the  overall  implementation  of  the 
Schengen Facility and advised the Responsible Authority.  

Five  beneficiaries  of  the  Schengen  Facility  were  chosen  on  the  basis  of  their 
administrative jurisdictions and legal status related to project implementation: the Border 
Police Directorate (MoI), the IT and Telecommunications Sector (MoI), the Service for 
Construction and Maintenance of Border Crossings (Ministry of Finance), the Consular 
Affairs Sector and the Sector for Informatics, Distribution of Data and Protection of the 
Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs. 

Intervention logic 

The  intervention  logic  presented  below  serves  to  depict  the  chain  of  expected  effects 
associated with the Schengen Facility.  

The  intervention  logic  illustrates  the  causality  between  objectives,  activities  and  the 
expected effects. Understanding it is essential for the design of the analytical framework 
and  the  evaluation  of  the  actions  and  measures  performed  under  the  Schengen  Facility 
for Croatia. 

9   Croatian Government Decision of 28 November 2013 (Class:022-03/13-04/493) available in Croatian 

at http://eufondovi.mup.hr/UserDocsImages/dokumenti/Odluka%20Vlade%20RH%20-
%20sustav%20upravljanja%20i%20kontrole%20Schengenskog%20instrumenta.pdf [28.03.2019]. 
10   Ministry of Regional Development and EU funds, Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Construction and 

Spatial Planning, and Ministry of Foreign and EU affairs. 

8 

 
                                                           
Figure 1 

Intervention logic of the Schengen Facility for Croatia

9 

ObjectivesInputsActivitiesOutputsResultsImpactsNeedsOperationalContribute to compliance with the Schengen acquisFinancial resourcesManagement resourcesEnhance control and surveillance of the bordersImplement the principle of integrated border management at national and international level Support the acquisition of new technical equipment for border control of the external borders and at diplomatic missions/consular posts (Objectives 1, 2, 8, 11)General need: Full compliance with the Schengen acquis, including improved external borders control, surveillance, and interoperability Insufficient / outdated operating equipmentEquipment procuredInfrastructure renovated / modernised / constructedTrainings providedCosts and logistics covered    OutcomesProcure technical equipmentConstruction / renovation of existing infrastructureTrainings of border police and consular staffCoverage of costs and logistics of the SF and police officers for border control and police officers for border protectionIT development and upgradingIT systems developed / upgradedStrengthened external borders control and surveillanceIncreased interoperability of the IT systemsEnhanced skills and knowledge Increased compliance with the Schengen acquisExternal FactorsTraffic at the bordersNational measuresEnsuring sustainabilitySpecificGeneralInadequate  border crossing infrastructure and related buildingsNon-interoperable ITInsufficient qualification of border police and consular staffSupport costs for logistics and operations, including payment of the salaries of the personnel required to fulfil the obligations of Croatia in respect of Schengen acquisEnhance the skills and knowledge of the Border Police and employees at consular and diplomatic mission in relation to the Schengen acquisSupport the construction of new and renovation and modernization of the existing border infrastructure (Objective 4) Provide support for the development and upgrading of IT systems (Objectives 3 and 6)Increase the qualification of border police and consular staff (Objectives 5 and 7)Support costs and logistics (Objectives 9 and 10)Complexity of the procurement procedures 
 
The  general  objective of the Schengen Facility  was  the  compliance of  Croatia with  the 
Schengen acquis. The Schengen Facility  addressed the general need of full compliance 
with the Schengen acquis, including improved external borders control, surveillance, and 
interoperability,  as  well  as  specific  needs  such  as:  1)  insufficient/outdated  operating 
equipment;  2)  inadequate  border  crossing  infrastructure  and  related  buildings;  3)  non-
interoperable  IT  and  4)  insufficient  qualification  of  border  police  and  consular  staff. 
There  was  also  a  horizontal  need  to  support  the  necessary  logistics  and  operations, 
required to fulfil the obligations in respect of Schengen acquis.  

In  order  to  meet  this  general  objective  of  the  Schengen  Facility,  the  Indicative 
Programme (IP) covered three areas of intervention:  

- 

- 

- 

enhancing control and surveillance of the borders,  

implementation of the Integrated Border Management (IBM) principle at national 
and international level and  

enhancing  the  skills  and  knowledge  of  the  border  police  and  employees  at 
consular and diplomatic mission in relation to the Schengen acquis.  

The IP further defined 11 operational objectives (as described on Section 2.1 above). The 
inputs are the financial and management resources needed for the implementation of the 
Schengen Facility.  
The envisaged activities - procurement of technical equipment, construction/ renovation 
of existing infrastructure, development and upgrading of IT systems, trainings of border 
police and consular staff, coverage of the costs and logistics for border police officers as 
well  as  for  the  management  of  the  Schengen  Facility  –  are  clearly  linked  to  the 
operational objectives of the Schengen Facility.  
The  outputs  of  the  abovementioned  activities11  have  contributed  to  the  achievement  of 
three main results:  

  strengthening of the external border control;  
 
increased interoperability of the IT systems; 
  enhanced skills of the relevant staff. 

The  implementation  of  the  Schengen  Facility  in  Croatia  has  been  influenced  by  some 
external factors.  

Certain  factors  have  influenced  negatively  the  implementation  process;  aspects  such  as 
the  complexity  of  the  procurement  procedures,  the  limited  administrative  capacity  of 
public Authorities  in some situations as well as the extended traffic at the borders did not 
allow for a the smooth progress of certain activities.  

11   Equipment 

procured; 

Infrastructure 

renovated/modernised/constructed; 

IT 

systems 

developed/upgraded; Trainings provided; Costs and logistics covered. 

10 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
On  the  other  hand,  some  national  measures  which  complemented  or  facilitated  the 
actions funded by the Schengen  Facility, such as the investments  near the state border, 
influenced positively the implementation of the Schengen Facility. 

Baseline and points of comparison  

Overall situation at the external and internal boarder 

Since  the  Schengen  Facility  implementation  started  in  2014,  the  baseline  year  for  the 
evaluation was considered 2013, the last year before the intervention for which relevant 
information/ data is available.  

In 2013, Croatia had 189 border crossing points. The external land border was supervised 
by border police distributed across 27 police stations.  

In 2013, 136.347.236 passengers crossed the Croatian border. The highest share of these 
crossings  occurred  at  the  border  with  Slovenia,  where  65.133.886  crossings  were 
registered.  The  second  highest  traffic  was  recorded  at  the  Bosnian  border  crossing, 
amounting to 43,688,380 passengers. The most frequently used border crossings were at 
the  border  with  Slovenia:  Macelj  (11,632,571),  Bregana  (11,251,484),  and  Kaštel 
(9,157,498). A total number of 45.866.702 vehicles have crossed the Croatian border in 
2013.  Out  of  those,  41.563.900  were  personal  vehicles,  3.600.212  were  cargo  vehicles, 
568.572  buses,  65.057  airplanes,  18.417  trains  and  50.544  ships.  Maritime  border 
crossings in 2013 amounted to 3.183.408 passengers. 

The  number  of  registered  illegal  border  crossings  in  2013  was  4.734  (including  EU 
nationals).  Looking  at  illegal  crossings  according  to  police  directorates  shows  that  the 
highest number of illegal crossings (1.091) occurs in the  Zagrebačka police directorate, 
followed  by  Vukovarsko-srijemska  police  directorate  (993)  and  Primorsko-goranska 
(874). Out of the registered illegal border crossings 603 took place at the border crossing 
and 1.363 close to the border crossing. According to Eurostat data, the number of third 
country nationals found to be illegally present in Croatia in 2013 was 4.150.  

In  2013,  reception  and  accommodation  of  asylum  seekers  was  organised  by  two 
reception  centres,  one  in  Zagreb  (Dugave)  and  the  other  in  Kutina,  which  received 
funding through PHARE12 and IPA13. A reception centre for foreigners14 in Ježevo was 
also functional and data on its functioning is provided below: 

  Number of persons in the centre: 784 (2012) 

  Number of days spent in the centre: 18,494 (2012) 

As mentioned above, the number of apprehended irregular migrants in 2013 was 4.734, 
which  presents  a  decrease  in  comparison  to  the  previous  year  (6.839).  The  number  of 
asylum  seekers  amounted  to  1.089  in  2013,  presenting  a  slight  decrease  since  the  year 
before (1.193). 

When it comes to the registration of human trafficking cases, there is no available data 
for  2013  and  2014  concerning  persons  coming  into  formal  contact  with  the  police 

12   Poland and Hungary: Assistance for Restructuring their Economies. 
13   Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance. 
14   The reception centre for foreigners (prihvatni centar za strance) is a facility that accommodates 

migrants who are to be returned to their origin countries. 

11 

 
                                                           
(suspected,  arrested,  or  cautioned),  but  only  for  2011  and  2012:  14  and  11  cases 
respectively. 

The number of all valid residence permits in Croatia in 2013 was 12.259. According to 
Eurostat  data,  the  number  of  immigrants  in  Croatia  in  2013  was  10.378.  No  publicly 
available data was available for the number of visas issued in 2013, but according to data 
provided  by  the  MFEA,  their  number  was  around  110  000.  In  2014,  72  463  visa 
applications were processed. 

Technical equipment 

Although significant progress was made in providing technical equipment to the border 
police even before the Schengen Facility, further modernisation was needed in order to 
reach  the  technical  standard  of  Schengen  external  borders.  The  equipment  for  border 
surveillance  and  checks  at  border  crossing  points  did  not  adequately  meet  the 
requirements in order to ensure compliance with the Schengen acquis. In particular: 
  the TETRA15 system did not ensure adequate signal in the overall area along the land 

and maritime state border; 

  there  was  insufficient  optical  and  other  special  surveillance  equipment  required  to 

prevent or reduce the illegal crossing of EU external borders;  

  patrols  did  not  have  sufficient  vehicles  and  were  hence  did  not  have  the  required 

mobility to appropriately respond to dynamic situation at the border; 

  lack  of  special  surveillance  equipment  to  perform  border  protection,  border  control 

and surveillance functions from the air; 

  Not  all  Border  Crossing  Points  (BCPs)  at  the  external  border  were  covered  with 

permanent video surveillance; 

  the maritime police had access to 6 type A vessels, 13 type B vessels and 24 type C 
vessels16, all of which were used to control the high risk areas. However, more A and 
B type vessels were needed for the purpose of ensuring presence of police vessels at 
sea.  

Infrastructure  

According  to  the  IP  2013-2014,  BCPs  in  Croatia  were  not  constructed  and  equipped 
according  to  standards  and  requirements  imposed  on  BCPs  and  the  standards  and 
recommendations of the EU on the future external border of Republic of Croatia and EU. 
Respectively, indoor facilities in existing containers and control booths were considered 
too small and not adequately technically equipped.  

The  border  control  of  incoming  passengers  was  done  in  accordance  to  national 
regulations  that  were  aligned  to  the  EU  legislation.  However,  according  to  the  revised 
SAP, the state of play at the Croatian airports in 2013 did not entirely meet EU standards. 
The  infrastructural  units  and  the  organisational  procedures  conducted  by  the  airport 
police  in  relation  to  border  controls  were  not  congruent  to  Schengen  standards.  An 

15   Terrestrial Trunked Radio / Trans European Trunked Radio. 
16   Type A (over 18 m length), type B (10-18 m length), and type C (less than 10 m length). 

12 

 
 
 
                                                           
infrastructural reconstruction was needed for the purpose of dividing arriving passengers 
based  on  location  of  departure  (Schengen  vs  non-Schengen).  The  number  of  air  traffic 
counted by passengers crossing the Croatian border was 5.380.081 in 2013. 

From 2014, the Maritime Police Development Strategy for blue border surveillance 
was incorporated in the IBM Strategy and its Action Plan. Thus, a strategic framework 
for  the  establishment  of a  surveillance  system  of  the  blue  state  border  has  been  set  up. 
However, as identified by the IP 2013-2014, the premises of the maritime police stations 
were not completely functional and did not satisfy the organisational needs. 

IT systems 

In  2013,  the  NBMIS17  was  functional  and  in  use  on  all  external  border  crossings  that 
were operating at the time, and at 7 border crossings at the internal border. Even though 
the system was considered critical, before the launch of the Schengen FS it did not fully 
meet the standards required for safe and reliable operation. 
The  Croatian  SIRENE18  Bureau  was  set  up  within  the  Sector  for  General  Crime  and 
International Police Cooperation of the General Police Directorate in 2012. It employed 
10 police officers whose work related primarily to tracing and handing over persons with 
issued European Arrest Warrants, as well as cooperation with EU Member States’ police 
departments  on  topics  of  international  interest.  There  was,  however,  a  need  to  develop 
SIRENE application that would allow the connection to the MoI Information System and 
as well as to other SIRENE offices in EU member states. 

In relation to the EU Visa Information System, the MFEA identified the need to modify 
and extend the functionalities of the existing Croatian Visa Database and to establish the 
Croatian VIS. As concerns radio communication equipment, prior the implementation of 
the  Schengen  Facility,  it  was  considered  that  the  coverage  of  TETRA  signal  at  the 
borders  with  Serbia,  Bosnia  and  Herzegovina,  and  Montenegro  was  insufficient,  and 
other  communications  capabilities  that  provide  public  communications  operators  were 
weak or non-existent. 

The National Maritime Centre for Data Collection was established in May 2012 in Zadar. 
In  2013,  the  Vessel  Traffic  Management  and  Information  Systems  (VTMIS),  which 
would give the MoI direct access to the maritime surveillance database, was in its final 
phases of implementation.  

Human resources  

The  total  number  of  border  police  officers  in  October  2013  amounted  to  6,163,  out  of 
which 4,904 police officers were stationed at the external border. The SAP envisaged an 
increase of police officers to 5,825 at external borders.  

According  to  SAP,  the  border  police  officers  had  received  specialised  training  on  a 
regular  basis  since  2005.  The  following  areas  were  emphasised  as  priorities  during  the 

17   The National Border Management Information System is the Croatian IT system for conducting border 

control of entry and exit of vehicles, passengers and objects. 

18   The Supplementary Information Request at the National Entries (SIRENE) Bureau is responsible for 
any supplementary information exchange and coordination of activities connected to SIS alerts 
between Member States. 

13 

 
 
 
                                                           
specialisation  process:  EU  law,  combating  smuggling  of  vehicles  and  misuse  of 
documents,  risk  analysis,  using  the  NBMIS,  combating  trafficking  in  human  being, 
maritime  police  related  topics,  fundamental  rights  and  issuing  visas  at  border  crossing 
points.  The  IP  identified  the  training  needs  concerning  the  maintenance  and  use  of  the 
newly developed SIS II and SIRENE, improvement of Schengen related knowledge and 
skills  of  the  consular  staff,  as  well  as  the  need  for  modernising  and  equipping  the 
premises at the Police Academy, which provides trainings to the MoI. 

3. 

IMPLEMENTATION / STATE OF PLAY 

As a temporary financing instrument, the Schengen Facility provided EUR 120 million to 
finance  actions  at  the  new  external  borders  of  the  Union  for  the  implementation  of  the 
Schengen acquis and external border control. The types of actions that were eligible for 
financing  under  the  Schengen  Facility  included:  investments  in  border  crossing 
infrastructure, investments in operating equipment and IT systems needed to implement 
the  Schengen  acquis,  training  of  border  guards,  and  support  to  costs  for  logistics  and 
operations.  In  the  following  paragraph,  more  details  on  the  implementation  of  the 
Schengen Facility are provided.  

Description of the current situation  

For the period 1 July 2013 to 31 December 2014, the total amount of EUR 120 million 
was made available to Croatia (in two lump sums of EUR 40 million for 2013 and EUR 
80 million for 2014). These funds were supposed to be used within three years from the 
first payment. The first expenditure was executed on the 24 July 2013, setting the end of 
the expenditure admissibility period to 23 July 2016. Due to the low execution caused by 
the limited capacity or the responsible authorities in the first years of the implementation 
of the programme19, the MoI requested a six-month prolongation of the implementation, 
which  was  approved  by  the  Commission.  Decision  C(2016)  4656  allowed  for 
expenditures until the 23 September 2016 and payments until 21 January 2017. 

The  costs  incurred  in  the  implementation  period  and  declared  to  the  Commission 
amounted to EUR 116 861 415,77. The breakdown of the programmed Schengen Facility 
allocations per objective (and the actual declared expenditure) is presented in Table 2.  

19   For more details see below, Evaluation Question 2.4. 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Table 2 

Financial allocation of the Schengen Facility per objective in euro 

Objectives 

1 

Objective 1 Acquisition of new technical equipment for border 
control of the external borders 
Objective 2 Modernisation and development of radio communication 
system necessary for surveillance and control of external borders 
Objective 3 Development and upgrading of information systems and 
computer networks related to the implementation of the Schengen 
acquis 
Objective 4 Construction of new and renovation and modernisation of 
the existing border infrastructure 
Objective 5 Increase of the qualification of the border police 
Objective 6 Development of the Croatian Visa Information System 
and connection to the EU Visa Information System (VIS) 
Objective 7 Improvement of Schengen related knowledge and skills 
of the consular staff 
Objective 8 Investment in security equipment at diplomatic 
missions/consular posts according to the Schengen standards 
Objective 9 Support costs for logistic and operations for managing 

20   The amounts are subject to further verifications by the Commission. 

Programmed 

Costs incurred20 

Amount (EUR) 
2 
71 146 051,41 

% out of 
total 
3 
57,96 

Amount (EUR)  
4 
66 983 911,67 

% out 
of total 
5 
57,31 

8 668 534,08 

7,06 

8 263 138,31 

7,07 

14 129 107,07 

11,51 

14 279 507,45 

12,21 

Percentage point 
difference between 
the share of 
programmed and 
incurred cost 
6 (3-5) 
-0,64 

0,008 

0,70 

20 328 700,93 

16,51 

19 610 964,31 

16,78 

0,22 

300 000,00 
1 560 000,00 

81 000,00 

2 109 000,00 

170 000,00 

0,24 
1,27 

0,06 

1,71 

0,13 

207 031,70 
1 053 480,13 

0,17 
0,90 

5 461,75 

0,004 

958 387,27 

0,82 

227 980,10 

0,19 

-0,067 
-0,36 

-0,061 

-0,89 

0,056 

15 

 
 
                                                           
Objectives 

Programmed 

Costs incurred20 

Amount (EUR) 

% out of 
total 

Amount (EUR)  

% out 
of total 

Percentage point 
difference between 
the share of 
programmed and 
incurred cost 

the Instrument 
Objective 10 Increasing the number of police officers for border 
control and police officers for state border protection 
Objective 11 Equipment for border police 
Grand Total 

350 000,00 

0,28 

887 532,61 

0,75 

3 905 472,00 
122 747 865,4921 

3,18 
100,00 

4 384 020,48 
116 861 415,78 

3,75 
100,00 

0,47 

0,56 
- 

21   According to the CR, the Responsible Authority assessed in 2016 that a share of contracted amounts would not be payed as some of the planned actions may not be implemented 
within the eligibility period. In order to increase the absorption rate and utilise as much funds as possible within the eligibility period, the Responsible Authority exceeded the 
available Schengen Facility funding in procurement plans. 

16 

 
                                                           
The Schengen Facility significantly supported the modernisation process and completing 
the  measures 
the  gaps  concerning  the  insufficient/outdated  equipment,  through 
implemented  under  Objectives  1,  2,  8  and  11  of  the  IP,  aiming  to  attain  the  technical 
standard of Schengen external borders.  

Most  of  the  targets  of  Objective  1  were  achieved,  consisting  of  procurement  of  border 
surveillance  equipment  (cameras,  stationary  radars),  devices  and  materials  for  border 
control,  specialised  vehicles,  vessels  and  helicopters,  setting  up  the  border  surveillance 
IT system and purchase of the necessary hardware. 

The  measures  of  Objective  2  led  to  the  upgrade  of  the  MoI  national  network 
(MUPNet)/TETRA  system  for  digital  radio-communication  system  for  blue  and  green 
border.  

Under  Objective  8,  technical  protection  equipment  (video  surveillance,  access  control, 
intrusion  detection  etc.)  was  delivered  to  50  locations.  In  addition,  interior  adaptation 
works were performed for priority Diplomatic Missions/Consular Offices. 

Under  Objective  11,  necessary  equipment  was  purchased  for  the  border  police  such  as 
motorcycle gears, police uniform articles, weapon kits. 

The  need  for  construction,  renovation  or  upgrading  of  border  related  infrastructure  and 
related  buildings  was  addressed  by  the  measures  implemented  under  Objective  4,  such 
works being done in 13 locations.  

Due to the measures implemented under Objectives 3 and 6, the relevant IT systems have 
been developed and upgraded, in particular the national component (N.SIS II) of the new 
Schengen  Information  System  (SIS  II)  and  the  IT  backup  for  SIS  II,  the  NBMIS 
infrastructure of the MoI`s Information system, the application for the SIRENE bureau, 
Croatian VIS and the communication channels MoI - MFEA and MFEA – DM/CPs. 

Objectives 5 and 7 addressed the needs identified in the human resources area, through 
language  training,  training  on  Schengen  acquis  and  training  for  identification  and 
detection of counterfeited and false documents.  

4.  METHOD 

Short description of methodology 

This  Commission  evaluation  relies on an external  study carried out  between November 
2018  and  July  2019  by  a  specialised  consultancy.  The  evaluation  aimed  to  analyse  the 
implementation  and  application  of  the  Schengen  Facility  in  Croatia  according  to  a 
number  of  specific  criteria  (relevance,  coherence,  effectiveness,  efficiency,  EU  added 
value and sustainability) set out in the Commission’s Better Regulation Guidelines. The 
evaluation  covered  the  implementation  of  the  Facility  from  its  entry  into  force  in  July 
2013 to January 2017. 

17 

 
 
The study’s methodology combined desk research, and both qualitative and quantitative 
analysis; information was drawn from various primary and secondary sources, such as: 

-  Desk research; 
-  Interviews  with  EU  staff,  senior  public  officers  of  the  relevant  Croatian 

Authorities, beneficiaries etc.; 

-  Surveys with recipient and end-users benefiting from Schengen Facility funding; 
-  8 case studies on various elements of the programme, covering at least 75% of the 

total funding22; 

-  Public consultation, as foreseen in the Commission’s Better Regulation Guidelines.  

A more detailed overview of the methodology used for the evaluation study is presented 
in Annex 3. 

Deviations from the evaluation roadmap 

One deviation from the Evaluation Roadmap was made over the course of the evaluation. 
While according to the Roadmap the evaluation should have been completed in the last 
quarter of 2018, the actual completion date was June 2019. This was due to the fact that 
the  tendering  procedures  took  longer  than  expected  and  the  actual  timeframe  of  the 
contract had also to be adjusted, providing more time for consultation activities.  

Limitations and robustness of findings 

The  overall  assessment  of  the  availability  and  robustness  of  data  is  that  they  provide 
sufficient basis to answer the evaluation questions.  

Nevertheless, the data collection and analysis faced limitations: 

-  Changes  in  the  Indicative  Programme,  which  hampered  a  clear  comparison 

between planned and achieved measures/allocations;   

-  The  semi-structured  interviews  were  informative,  nevertheless,  they  provided 

mostly anecdotal data rather than hard evidence on certain issues; 

-  Limited outreach to different types of end users; 

-  Beneficiaries  did  not  always  have  sufficient  knowledge  to  provide  all  the 

information that was requested; 

-  Low response rate of the open public consultation. 

More information on data limitations is provided in Annex 3.  

22  The  selected  case  studies  covered  a  variety  of  objectives  and  measures  set  out  in  the  Indicative 
Programme. In particular, the topics selected for the case studies included: acquisition of new technical 
equipment for surveillance and control (vehicles, helicopters and special equipment); development of 
information  systems  (development  of  the  national  SIS  II);  (re)construction  of  border  infrastructure; 
development  of  the  national  VIS;  trainings  for  border  guards  and  consular  officers;  costs  for 
management of the Schengen Facility; and salaries for additional border police officers. 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
5.  ANALYSIS AND ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

In accordance with the Commission's Better Regulation Guidelines, the evaluation 
looked at the effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence and the EU added value of 
the Schengen Facility.  

Relevance 

The main criterion to judge the relevance of the Schengen Facility for Croatia was 
assessing the extent to which it addressed the needs and problems identified in relation to 
external border control and surveillance in Croatia.  

EQ  1.1:  To  what  extent  were  the  objectives  of  the  Schengen  Facility  relevant  for  the 
needs  of  EU  and  Croatia,  including  stakeholders,  to  prepare  the  accession  to  the 
Schengen area?  

Findings: The objectives of the Schengen Facility were relevant to a large extent to the 
needs of the EU and Croatia. In particular: 
  The  analysis  showed  that  there  was  a  strong  link  between  the  needs  identified  in 
national  strategic  documents  and  through  the  stakeholder  consultation  and  the 
objectives of the IP 2013-2014.  

  The Schengen Facility in Croatia was designed to meet the European Union priorities 
with  regard  to  the  Schengen  acquis.  The  Schengen  Facility  has  contributed  to  EU 
priorities with regard to the Schengen acquis by ensuring technical means to prepare 
Croatia for the accession to the Schengen area. 

  The  objectives  setting  of  the  Schengen  Facility  showed  flexibility  in  light  of  newly 
identified  needs.  Thus,  the  original  objectives  were  supplemented,  which  was 
considered  as  one  of  its  greatest  advantages  compared  to  other  EU  assistance 
programs. 

  At the same time, the Schengen Facility did not address needs related to trainings for 
border  police  in  human  rights  protection  and  interactions  with  immigrants,  an  issue 
which was highlighted by NGOs and the Ombudsman of the Republic of Croatia.  
  Furthermore,  there  were  outstanding  needs,  which  were  not  fully  addressed  by  the 
Schengen  Facility  due  to  financial  limitations:  land  border  surveillance  of  the  green 
border with Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Montenegro, further trainings on how to use 
the equipment, and infrastructure needs at BCPs. 

Overall, the objectives of the Schengen Facility were relevant to addressing the needs of 
Croatia to prepare for the accession to the Schengen area. 

Concerning  the  IT  systems,  the  need  to  address  insufficient  and  outdated  operating 
equipment was of major significance to achieve the required level of border surveillance 
and  control, 
this  need. 
therefore  several  Schengen  Facility  objectives  address 
Furthermore,  there  was  a  need  for  construction,  renovation  or  upgrading  of  border 
crossing  infrastructure  and  related  buildings.  This  included  changes  to  external  objects 
(e.g. booths) for performance of border control, which were judged to be too small and 
not functionally organised, as well as changes to indoor facilities (police stations).  

Although  the  National  Border  Management  Information  System  (NBMIS)  was 
developed  and  the  IT  structure  at  borders  were  in  place  to  some  extent,  improvements 
were  needed.  Specifically,  there  was  lacking  capacity  for  data  provision  and  data 

19 

 
 
management,  as  well  as  the  need  to  adapt  to  the  Schengen  information  system.  This 
entailed  the  establishment  of  the  National  component  of  the  Schengen  Information 
System  and the SIRENE23 bureau and development of an adequate national interface for 
the  Schengen  Information  System  and  storage  facilities.  Insufficient  qualification  of 
border police and consular staff required to fulfil the obligations of Croatia in respect of 
the Schengen acquis was assessed as another need that the Schengen Facility sought to 
address.  Lastly,  support  to  costs  for  logistics  and  operations  was  needed,  including 
payment  of  the  salaries  of  the  personnel  required  to  fulfil  the  obligations  of  Croatia  in 
respect of Schengen acquis.  

Insufficient and outdated operating equipment 

Enforcement  of  border  control  as  well  as  a  continuous  development  of  external  border 
surveillance, were pointed out in the Integrated Border Management Action Plan as one 
of  the  main  goals  in  the  process  of  harmonisation  with  the  Schengen  standards.  The 
Council of the European Union24 recognised the lack of necessary technical equipment at 
land,  air  and  sea  borders.  The  investments  relating  to  external  border  surveillance 
(Objective 1) were designed to address needs that the border police was facing due to the 
challenging terrain along the Croatian border, as well as to ensure proper border controls 
and prevent illegal crossings.  
Objective 2 envisaged the establishment of the TETRA system25 in order to enable more 
efficient border police communication as identified in the Council recommendations26.  
In  order  to  comply  with  the  standards  of  the  EU  Schengen  Catalogue27,  the  consular 
offices  end  diplomatic  missions  were  upgraded  through  implementation  of  technical 
protection and surveillance systems at consular offices (Objective 8).  

Objective  11  provided  for  procurement  of  equipment  like  motorcycle  gear,  police 
uniforms and weapon kits. 

Need for construction, renovation or upgrading of border crossing infrastructure 
and related buildings 

Many  BCPs  were  not  constructed  and  equipped  according  to  applicable  standards  and 
requirements for safe and economic performance of border control, as well as standards 
and recommendations of EU at the future external border of Republic of Croatia and EU. 
Some police facilities were not satisfying the organisational needs of the border police. 
Hence,  under  Objective  4  several  investments  in  construction,  reconstruction  and 
renovation of border infrastructure were carried out. 

Development and upgrading of IT systems 

23   Supplementary Information Request at the National Entries. 
24   Council  Implementing  Decision  (2017/0037  (NLE))  setting  out  recommendations  addressing  the 
deficiencies identified in the evaluation of Croatia in view of fulfilling the conditions necessary for the 
application of the Schengen acquis in the field of management of the external border. 

25   The  terrestrial  Trunked  Radio  is  a  European  standard  for  a  trunked  radio  system,  is  a  professional 

mobile radio and two-way transceiver specification. 

26   SCH-EVAL 96, 2017. 
27   EU Schengen Catalogue, Volume 3, Council of the European Union, General Secretariat, March 2003. 

20 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
The  SAP  indicated  that  the  Croatian  IT  equipment  and  infrastructure  was  inadequate. 
This issue was addressed under Objective 3.  

Furthermore,  it  was  necessary  to  develop  the  Croatian  component  of  Visa  Information 
System and to connect it to the EU VIS as stated in the IBM Action Plan, the SAP and 
the Migration Policy and further addressed by the IP under Objective 6.  

Insufficient qualification of border police and consular staff 

Priority areas for increasing the qualification of border officers were linked to Objective 
5  of  the  IP.  These  were  in  line  with  the  Schengen  Action  Plan,  which  defined  several 
fields  such  as  strengthening  of  the  competencies  in  English,  qualification  of  trainers, 
combatting human trafficking, and trainings on database searches. Moreover, the Council 
recommendations outlined the need for training on operational planning, use of tracking 
dogs, technical surveillance systems, patrolling and interception tactics.  

Support to costs for logistics and operations 

According  to  the  Commission’s  monitoring  visit  in  2014,  Croatia  needed  to  strengthen 
the  capacity  of  the  Responsible  Authority;  thus  Objective  9  being  added  to  the  IP, 
providing support for additional staff in the Responsible Authority.  

The  lack  of  capacity  (e.g.  lack  of  enough  police  officers)  was  a  major  gap  for  border 
surveillance,  border  control  and  related  administrative  capacity,  as  outlined  in  the 
Council’s recommendations. Accordingly, this was translated to Objective 10 of the IP. 

In order to address the evolving needs of the country with respect to border surveillance 
and  control,  the  scope  of  the  IP  had  be  extended  during  its  implementation.  The 
possibility  of  changing  /  supplementing  the  actions  in  order  to  better  achieve  EU 
priorities with respect to the Schengen acquis was a great  advantage compared to other 
programs in which this possibility was very limited. 

The Council provided two recommendations outlining further needs at the time of their 
evaluation in 2017 and 201828. Outstanding needs, which were not fully addressed by the 
Schengen Facility, included: 

  Policy  related  areas  (e.g.  updating  development  of  projects  related  to  the  IBM 

Strategy), which were not within the scope of the Schengen Facility; 

  Human resources and trainings29, which represent a reoccurring need and were not at 
the  focus  of  the  Schengen  Facility  (these  included  as  well  trainings  related  to  risk 
analysis methodology); 

28   SCH-EVAL 96, 7739/17 - Schengen evaluation of CROATIA - Action Plan to remedy the deficiencies 
identified  in  the  2016  evaluation  of  Croatia  in  view  of  fulfilling  the  conditions  necessary  for  the 
application  of  the  Schengen  acquis  in  the  field  of  management  of  the  external  borders  (27  March 
2017); and SCH-EVAL 218, 13902/18 - Schengen evaluation of CROATIA - Action Plan to remedy 
the  deficiencies  identified  in  the  2017  evaluation  of  Croatia  in  view  of  fulfilling  the  conditions 
necessary for the application of the Schengen acquis in the field of management of the external borders 
(revisit) (6 November 2018). 

29   For  instance,  even  though  the  Schengen  Facility  entailed  an  increase  in  Border  Police  officers,  the 
allocated funds for this measure were not sufficient to cover the needs. The Council recommendations 
(2018)  still  mention  the  need  to  further  increase  the  number  of  staff  responsible  for  performing 

21 

 
 
 
                                                           
 
  Infrastructure and technical equipment - Land border surveillance of the green border 
with Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Montenegro, which included the need to set up a 
mobile  technical  surveillance  system  during  the  time  one  border  crossing  point  is 
under construction30.  

As  concerns  the  EU  objectives,  the  IP  actions  and  measures  had  to  fall  entirely  or 
principally  within  the  Schengen  acquis31  and  be  designed  to  further  strengthen  and 
upgrade  external  border  control  and  must  be  physically  located  at  external  borders,  or 
otherwise must be related to  the protection of the external  borders. The enlargement of 
the  European  Area  required  the  development  of  appropriate  infrastructures,  institutions 
and  mechanisms  to  protect  public  and  internal  security  in  the  enlarged  Schengen  Area 
and ensuring smooth and swift crossing the external borders. The evaluation showed that 
all measures funded under the Schengen Facility satisfy the above-mentioned criteria as 
objectives were related to construction and investment in equipment, training of staff and 
logistical support.  

All versions of the IP were approved by the Commission, ensuring thereby full alignment 
with EU priorities with regard to the Schengen acquis. 

Effectiveness 

Under  the  criterion  Effectiveness,  the  extent  to  which  the  objectives  of  the  Schengen 
Facility have been achieved is explored.  

EQ  2.1:  To  what  extent  were  the  operational  objectives  of  the  Schengen  Facility 
achieved?  What  outcomes  (positive  and  negative,  intended  or  unintended)  can  be 
attributed to the Schengen Facility in Croatia? 

Findings:  Most  targets  of  the  Schengen  Facility  have  been  met,  with  only  a  few 
exceptions under some objectives as described in the IP. Out of 11 objectives defined in 
the IP, 5 were fully achieved (100%), 4 were achieved to a large extent (> 90%) and 2 
were  partially  achieved  (between  50%  -  90%).  Consequently,  in  line  with  the 
Intervention Logic presented in section 2.4.1, the operational objectives of the Schengen 
Facility were achieved to a large extent.  

While  some  modifications  did  not  necessarily  have  a  negative  impact  on  the 
effectiveness  of  the  Schengen  Facility  (e.g.  acquisition  of  helicopter  instead  of  aircraft 
under Objective 1), equipment and services that were planned but not procured/delivered 
hampered  the  effectiveness  (most  notably  for  Objectives  5  and  8).  Effectiveness  was 
diminished  in  particular  by  the  long  duration  of  procurement  procedures,  unresolved 
property-legal relations and inability to reallocate premises for diplomatic missions.  

Positive  outcomes  of  the  Schengen  Facility  implementation  include  improved  mobility 
and  efficiency  of  border  control,  upgraded  communication  and  information  systems, 

practical  border  tasks,  especially  number  of  staff  at  land  border  crossing  points  to  provide  effective 
border checks during peak times (Recommendation 4). 

30   Even though the surveillance system was partially covered through Objective 4, there was no need for 

a mobile surveillance system at the time that the IP was drafted. 

31  The Schengen acquis - Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between 
the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and 
the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders; Official Journal L 
239 , 22/09/2000 P. 0019 - 0062. 

22 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                                            
improved  working  conditions  for  Border  Police,  and  improved  capacity  and  working 
conditions of staff at consular missions in third countries.  

The achievement of the operational objectives of the Schengen Facility can be attributed 
to the achievement of the IP objectives, which built on the achievement of targets32. Out 
of  the  5  operational  objectives,  2  were  fully  achieved  (Provide  support  for  the 
development and upgrading of IT systems; Support costs and logistics), 2 were achieved 
to a large extent (Support the acquisition of new technical equipment for border control 
of  the  external  borders  and  at  diplomatic  missions/consular  posts;  Support  the 
construction  of  new  and  renovation  and  modernisation  of  the  existing  border 
infrastructure)  and  1  was  partially  achieved  (Increase  in  qualification  of  border  police 
and consular staff).  

More details are provided on Table 3 below.  

Table 3  Assessment of the achievement of targets  

Objectives (11) as defined in the Indicative 
programme of the Schengen Facility and 
Operational objectives (5) as presented in Figure 1. 
Operational objective: Support the acquisition of new technical equipment for 
border control of the external borders and at diplomatic missions/consular 
posts 
Objective 1 Acquisition of new technical equipment for 
border control of the external borders 

Level of 
achievement of 
target values  

Achieved to a large 
extent  

-  Measure 1.1 - 100% of target met 
-  Measure 1.2 - 82% of target met 
-  Measures 1.3 - 1.4 - 100% of targets met 
-  Measure 1.5 - 100% of targets met 
-  Measure 1.6 - 100% of targets met after 

modification of measure 

-  Measure 1.7 - 53% of targets met 
-  Measure 1.8 - 100% of targets met 
-  Measure 1.9 - 87% of targets met 
-  Measure 1.11 - 1.12 - 100% of target met 
Objective 2 Modernisation and development of radio 
communication system necessary for surveillance and 
control of external borders 

-  Measure 2.1 - 90% of targets were met  
Objective 8 Investment in security equipment at 
diplomatic missions/consular posts according to the 
Schengen standards 

Achieved to a large 
extent 

Partially achieved 

32   Targets  fell  within  one  of  the  following  categories:  targets  fully  met;  targets  met  to  a  large  extent; 
targets  partially  met;  and  targets  met  but  modified.  When  planned  and  achieved  targets  were  fully 
aligned, they were judged as fully met. In cases of minor amendments between planned and achieved 
targets (at least 90% correspondence) the targets were met to a large extent. Targets were judged to be 
partially met when there was a lower correspondence between planned and achieved targets (at least 
50%). In cases where targets were met but solely due to modifications done to planned measures, the 
‘targets met but modified’ categorisation is noted. 

23 

 
  
                                                           
-  Measure 8.1 - 86% of targets met 
-  Measure 8.2 - 75% of targets met 
-  Measure 8.3 - 50% of targets met 
Objective 11 Equipment for border police 

-  Measure 11.1 - 100% of targets met 

Fully achieved 
(based on targets 
from revised 
Indicative 
Programme) 

Operational objective: Support the construction of new and renovation and 
modernisation of the existing border infrastructure 
Objective 4 Construction of new and renovation and 
modernisation of the existing border infrastructure 

Achieved to a large 
extent 

-  Measure 4.1 - 66% of targets met 
-  Measure 4.2 - 100% of targets met 
-  Measure 4.3 - 100% of targets met 
-  Measure 4.4 - 100% of targets met after 

modification of measure 

Operational objective: Provide support for the development and upgrading of 
IT systems 
Objective 3 Development and upgrading of information 
systems and computer networks related to the 
implementation of the Schengen acquis 

Fully achieved 

-  Measure 3.1 - 100% of targets met 
-  Measure 3.2 - 100% of targets met 
-  Measure 3.3 - 100% of targets met 

Measure 3.4 - 100% of targets met after modification of 
measure 
Objective 6 Development of the Croatian Visa 
Information System and connection to the EU Visa 
Information System (VIS) 

-  Measures 6.1 - 6.6 - 100% of targets met 

Fully achieved 

Operational objective: Increase in qualification of border police and consular 
staff 
Objective 5 Increase of the qualification of the border 
police 
Measure 5.1 - 50% of targets met 
Objective 7 Improvement of Schengen related 
knowledge and skills of the consular staff 
-  Measure 7.1 - 75% of targets met 
-  Measure 7.2 - 100% of targets met 

Achieved to a large 
extent 

Partially achieved 

Operational objective: Support costs and logistics 
Objective 9 Support costs for logistic and operations for 
managing the Instrument 

-  Measures 9.1.-.9.5 - 100% of targets met 

Objective 10 Increasing the number of police officers 
for border control and police officers for state border 
protection 

Fully achieved 
(based on targets 
from revised 
Indicative 
Programme) 
Fully achieved 
(based on targets 
from revised 

24 

 
-  Measure 10.1 - 100% of targets met 

Indicative 
Programme) 

EQ 2.2: To what extent and how have external/internal factors influenced the 
implementation of the Schengen Facility in Croatia? 

Findings:  Both  internal  and external  factors have influenced the implementation  of the 
Schengen  Facility,  but  their  effects  are  not  judged  to  be  significant.  External  factors 
influencing the implementation of the Schengen Facility included complex procurement 
procedures and time required to acquire permits, while internal factors included limited 
administrative capacity and insufficient guidance. 

Croatia  initially  experienced  a  significant  delay  in  implementing  projects  financed 
through the Schengen Facility. In some cases, the inability to implement projects within 
the given timeframe was related to the complexity of project implementation, mainly due 
to the challenging procurement procedures.  

There  were  also  other  issues  such  as  unclear  ownership  rights  of  property  where 
infrastructure  was  to  be  developed,  issues  with  acquiring  construction  and  building 
permits/operational licence, unfavourable conditions on the ground, etc. 

The uncertainty related to the date of accession to Schengen area was the main external 
factor  influencing  the  connection  of  Croatian  VIS  with  EU  VIS  inhibiting  the  full 
realisation of Objective 6. Concerning Objective 8, there was a need to perform interior 
adaptation  of  16  priority  Diplomatic  Missions  and  Consular  Offices  of  Republic  of 
Croatia, which was completed except for one case.  

The limited administrative capacity (within the Responsible Authority specifically) was a 
major internal factor that hampered the implementation of projects at the beginning of the 
implementation period. 

EQ  2.3:  To  what  extent  has  the  Schengen  Facility  in  Croatia  been  aligned  to  and 
contributed to the EU priorities with regard to the Schengen acquis? 

Findings: The Schengen Facility was fully aligned and contributed to the EU priorities 
with  regard to  the Schengen acquis.  Specifically, the  Schengen  Facility  for Croatia has 
been designed to contribute to the broad European Union priorities on border and internal 
security. Furthermore, the Schengen Facility measures are aligned and contributed to all 
specific  areas  of  the  Schengen  acquis,  in  particular  external  borders  policy.  The 
Schengen  Facility  did  not  directly  affect  only  issues  related  to  police,  but  Objectives  5 
and 7 contributed to the implementation of this part of Schengen acquis. 

The Schengen Facility  objectives  were fully  aligned and contributed to  the EU  Internal 
Security Strategy for the period 2015-2020, which aims at reinforced border security and 
integrated  border  management  as  these  are  specific  objectives  and  benefits  of  the 
Schengen Facility.  

25 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Furthermore,  the  Schengen  Facility  is  aligned  to  the  priorities  of  the  Schengen  acquis, 
which covers: 
  external borders policy; 
  visa policy; 
  the Schengen Information System; 
  data protection; 
  police cooperation; 
  judicial cooperation in criminal matters; 
  the absence of border control at the internal borders, and; 
  the functioning of the authorities applying the relevant parts of the Schengen acquis. 

All  of  the  Schengen  Facility  objectives  correspond  to  the  external  borders  policy  area 
priority.  In  particular,  proper  protection  of  the  EU  external  borders,  which  requires 
appropriate technical means to protect  green and blue borders (Objectives 1 and 2) and 
also ensuring adequate border crossing infrastructure (Objective 4) directly correspond to 
the  policy  on  external  borders.  At  the  same  time,  Objective  10  concerns  employment 
costs of additional border police officers, which is related to the proper implementation 
of the external border policy.  

Although none of the Schengen Facility objectives were directly related to the absence of 
a border control  at  internal  borders, measures  of the Objectives 1, 2, 4, and 10 directly 
affected the implementation of this part of the Schengen acquis.  

Issues  of  the  Schengen  acquis  relating  to  visa  policy  were  covered  by  Objective  6 
measures  as  they  supported  the  preparation  of  an  appropriate  system  that  is 
complementary  to  the  EU  visa  system.  Objective  8  provided  Croatian  diplomatic 
missions and consular offices with additional security measures, while Objective 7 raised 
the level of knowledge about Schengen and increased skills of consular staff in Croatia's 
diplomatic posts. 

The  Schengen  acquis  priorities  in  the  areas  of  Schengen  information  system  as  well  as 
data protection were envisaged under Objective 3. These measures created the basis for 
integration  with  EU  IT  systems  which  are  currently  under  implementation  (EES33, 
ETIAS34, ECRIS-TCN35) as well as for their interoperability.  

Police  cooperation  was  facilitated  through  implementation  of  systems  such  as  the 
SIRENE,  the  VIS  and  SIS,  whose  objective  was  to  ensure  seamless  information  flow 
with  other  Member  States  (Objectives  3  and  7).  Activities  that  strengthened  the  border 
surveillance  system  at  the  external  “green”  and  “blue”  borders  contributed  to  more 
frequent communication with the police of neighbouring countries (Objective 1).  

The only part of the Schengen acquis, which was not directly covered by  the objectives 
of the Schengen Facility, is judicial cooperation in criminal matters. This component of 
the Schengen acquis was outside the scope of the Schengen Facility.  

33   Entry-Exit System. 
34   European Travel Information and Authorisation System. 
35   The European Criminal Records Information System (Third Country Nationals). 

26 

 
                                                           
The  functioning  of  the  bodies  applying  the  relevant  parts  of  the  Schengen  acquis  in 
Croatia  was  originally  planned  to  be  supported  by  Schengen  Facility  through 
improvement  of  the  knowledge  and  skills  related  to  Schengen  consular  employees  and 
investments in security equipment in diplomatic missions / consular offices in accordance 
with  Schengen  standards  (Objectives  7  and  8).  During  the  implementation  of  the 
Schengen Facility, it was found that support for its logistics and management, increasing 
the  number  of  police  officers  for  border  control  and  police  officers  for  state  border 
protection,  as  well  as  additional  equipment  for  border  police  (objectives  9,  10  and  11) 
were necessary to ensure proper functioning of the bodies applying the relevant parts of 
the Schengen acquis.  

Furthermore, the Schengen Facility for Croatia created the conditions for implementation 
of  the  Schengen  Borders  Code  (Regulation  (EU)  2016/399  of  the  European  Parliament 
and  of  the  Council  of  9  March  2016  establishing  a  Community  Code  on  the  rules 
governing the movement of persons across borders) - one of the pillars of the Schengen 
acquis. 

EQ  2.4:  To  what  extent  the  monitoring  of  the  Schengen  Facility  in  Croatia  has  been 
appropriate  and  supported  the  achievements  of  the  Schengen  Facility?  Were  the 
monitoring arrangements adequate? 

Findings:  In  the  beginning  of  the  implementation  of  the  Schengen  Facility,  the 
monitoring  of  the  funding  instrument  was  not  adequate  and  it  partially  supported  the 
achievements of the Schengen Facility due to limited administrative capacity. After the 
problems with Schengen Facility implementation in the first two years caused by the lack 
of  sufficient  number  of  staff,  monitoring  functioned  well.  The  annual  reports  are 
comprehensive  and  of  good  quality,  but  did  not  contain  monitoring  indicators  that  can 
present results of the measures, which is a deficiency in the monitoring system. 

There  have  been  several  organisational  changes  within  the  Independent  Sector  for 
Schengen  Coordination  and  European  Union  Projects  (Responsible  Authority) 
throughout  the  implementation  period,  whose  aim  was  to  enhance  the  capacity  of  the 
unit, in particular for management and monitoring of the Schengen Facility. In 2013, the 
Responsible Authority started with one employee in 2013 and one year later the number 
of  staff  increased  to  five  employees  and  two  trainees.  Since  2015,  the  capacity  of  the 
Responsible  Authority  has  significantly  been  improved  due  to  the  contracting  of 
temporary staff – in total 9 additional employees.  

The  monitoring  of  the  Schengen  Facility  has  been  planned  in  order  to  support  its 
achievements and prevent misuse of funds. The tasks of the Responsible Authority were 
carried out  by the  Independent  Sector for Schengen coordination and EU Funds within 
the  MoI,  which  provided  technical  assistance  to  the  Board  for  coordination  and 
monitoring  of  the  Schengen  Facility,  and  monitored  the  implementation  of  related 
activities.  The  organisational  unit  within  the  Independent  Sector  for  Schengen 
coordination  and  EU  Funds  which  manages  the  projects  was  the  Department  for 
Schengen Coordination. 

The  Responsible  Authority  cooperated  with  the  Schengen  Facility  Coordinator,  which 
was established within the Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs (MFEA). The task 
of the Schengen Facility Coordinator was to coordinate and monitor the activities of three 

27 

 
 
working groups in MFEA (each of them was responsible for the implementation of one 
Schengen Facility objective). 

The  Responsible  Authority  was  responsible  for  control  of  payment  (payment  was 
allowed  only  after  their  approval)  as  well  as  for  final  control  of  all  documentation  and 
compatibility  of  issued  documents  with  different  regulations.  The  monitoring  of 
individual  projects  was  carried  out  at  the  level  of  departments  responsible  for  projects. 
The  Infrastructure  Department  of 
in  charge  for  monitoring  of 
implementation for all infrastructural projects.  

the  MoI  was 

The  Responsible  Authority  carried  out  on-the-spot  check  and  ex-ante  checks  of  the 
invoices  and  accompanying  documentation  before  allowing  the  execution  of  payments. 
In  total,  27  on-the-spot  visits  on  12  projects  implemented  under  Objective  1  were 
undertaken  by  the  Responsible  Authority,  i.e.  21%  of  all  planned/concluded  contracts 
within  this  objective  were  verified  on-the-spot.  There  are  5  on-the-spot  visits  on  4 
projects  implemented  under  Objective  2  (14%  of  contracts),  8  on-the-spot  visits  on  8 
projects  under  Objective  3  (21%  of  contracts)  and  8  visits  on  four  projects  under 
Objective 4 (21% of contracts).  

The  Responsible  Authority  was  in  charge  of  preparing  quarterly,  yearly  and  the  final 
report,  as  well  as  checking  quarterly  and  progress  reports  that  were  prepared  by 
beneficiaries. The Responsible Authority prepared summary reports that were presented 
to the Board for coordination and monitoring of the Schengen instrument. Reports were 
approved  by  the  Board  before  being  sent  to  the  Croatian  government  and  the 
Commission for approval.  

As  the  Schengen  Facility  objectives  were  formulated  in  the  form  of  immediate  effects, 
the  monitoring  system  was  based  on  procurement  (product)  indicators  only,  which 
provided information on outputs (e.g. about the number of new technical equipment for 
border  control,  number  of  BCPs  and  transit  centres  built  and  renovated,  usage  of 
technical equipment etc.). There were no result indicators (e.g. on surveillance equipment 
coverage, illegal crossings detected), which could allow the assessment of the Schengen 
Facility  contribution  to  the  implementation  of  the  Schengen  acquis  and  external  border 
control.  

Efficiency 

The three evaluation questions covered by this criterion consider the relationship between 
the resources used to implement the Schengen Facility in Croatia, in other words its cost, 
and the changes generated as a result of it. In general, it poses the question of whether the 
achievements were maximised, given the level of resources available or could the same 
have been achieved at a lower cost. 

EQ 3.1: Which were the costs and benefits of the Schengen Facility? To what extent were 
the results of the Schengen Facility achieved at a reasonable cost? 

Findings:  The  results  of  the  Schengen  Facility  were  achieved  to  a  large  extent,  at  a 
reasonable  cost.  This  is  mostly  due  to  the  conducting  of  competitive  procurement 
procedures, which guaranteed fair prices for the goods and services procured. Most of the 
expected  outputs  of  the  Schengen  Facility  were  achieved  at  a  cost  below  the  allocated 

28 

 
 
 
 
funds.  Comparison  with  similar  (Schengen  Facility)  investments  in  Bulgaria  and 
Romania indicate that costs of acquisition were in line with prevailing market prices. 

The  total  programmed  costs  for  the  Schengen  Facility  for  Croatia  were  EUR  122  747 
865, the contracted amount was EUR 119 318 705, and the costs incurred and declared to 
the Commission were EUR 116 861 415. These costs were allocated to 11 objectives of 
the IP, and each objective was divided into several measures. The eligible costs represent 
95,2% of the programmed allocations, while the contracted projects amount to 97,3% of 
the programmed allocations, showing a reasonably high absorption rate for the Schengen 
Facility for Croatia as it is close to 100%. 

Significant  variances  between  programmed  allocations  and  actual  costs  occurred  in 
Objective 1 (with savings of EUR 4,16 million) and Objective 8 (with savings of EUR 
1,15 million). Competitive bids for the procurement of equipment in these two objectives 
explain the variance between planned and incurred costs.  

The evaluation  concluded that the benefits  of the  Schengen Facility were achieved at  a 
reasonable cost, based on the following: 

  All  large  investments  in  equipment  (helicopters,  vehicles,  vessels),  infrastructure 
development,  information  systems  upgrades  and  development,  surveillance  facilities 
were  procured  at  or  below  the  programmed  allocations  for  the  respective  objectives 
and measures; 

  For most procurement projects, competitive bids were received and the lowest bidders 
were awarded the contract. No significant irregularities with the tendering procedures 
were reported by bidders, by the Audit Authority or as a result of monitoring visits by 
the Commission, suggesting that procurement was fair and the purchases were done at 
the best possible terms. Most of the acquisitions were through open public procedures. 
For  a  limited  number  of  items  restricted  tenders  were  held  as  the  nature  of  the 
equipment  or  services  to  be  procured  did  not  allow  open  public  tenders  either  for 
security  or  for  technical  reasons,  such  as  need  for  compatibility  with  existing 
equipment (e.g. construction of the IT back-up centre of the MoI, video surveillance 
equipment  at  BCPs  etc.).  The  value  of  restricted  procurement  procedures  was  about 
EUR 6,5 million, or 5,6% of the total eligible costs of the Schengen Facility. 

  Direct comparison of market prices was not possible for most of the investments, due 
to  their  unique  requirements  and  technical  specifications.  Nevertheless,  comparisons 
with similar acquisitions indicate that the costs incurred under the  Schengen Facility 
for Croatia are comparable within reasonable deviations with costs incurred by other 
EU  Member  States  under  Schengen  Facility  (Bulgaria  and  Romania),  or  under 
External Borders Fund (EBF)36 or ISF-B&V37 projects. 

36   Decision No 574/2007/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 May 2007 establishing 
the External Borders Fund for the period 2007 to 2013 as part of the General programme Solidarity 
and Management of Migration Flows. 

37   Regulation (EU) No 515/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 

establishing, as part of the Internal Security Fund, the instrument for financial support for external 
borders and visa and repealing Decision No 574/2007/EC. 

29 

 
 
                                                           
EQ 3.2: Do the outcomes of the Schengen Facility represent value for money? 

Findings:  The  outcomes  of  the  Schengen  Facility  for  Croatia  represent  good  value  for 
money.  This  conclusion  was  based  on  the  achieved  savings  and  future  cost  reductions, 
but also on the perception of stakeholders. The management costs are very low compared 
with the management costs of other EU funds. 

The  allocated  funds  were  sufficient  for  achieving  the  goals  of  the  IP  and  were  used 
effectively  to  obtain  the  desired  benefits  and  impact  in  terms  of  strengthening  border 
control at the external border and preparing Croatia for joining the Schengen area.  

The Schengen Facility has generated good value for money and has brought measurable 
positive  changes  in  critical  areas,  such  as  reaction  capacity  of  the  border  guards, 
connectivity  of national  information  systems  with  Schengen  Information  System  II  and 
Visa  Information  System,  preparation  for  introduction  of  future  EU  systems  (e.g.  EES, 
ETIAS),  improving  the  safety  and  efficiency  of  border  checks,  preparedness  for  full 
introduction of the Schengen acquis.  

Acquisitions financed by the Schengen Facility have contributed to cost reduction in the 
future (for instance, the construction of additional refugee facilities or BCPs have had a 
long-term  effect  of  reducing  transportation  costs  as  refugees  can  be  transported  to  the 
nearest  facilities  rather  than  a  central  one;  additional  BCPs  reduce  waiting  lines  at  the 
border and offer more convenient routes to travellers; surveillance systems at the green 
border reduce the need for border patrols).  

Several  tenders  resulted  in  savings  of  over  EUR  6  million.  These  savings  were  re-
allocated  to  increase  the  capacity  of  Border  Police  through  acquisition  of  technical 
equipment and hiring of additional human resources. 

The management costs of the Schengen Facility were partially covered under Objective 
9, covering the compensation for 9 employees of the  Responsible Authority, for a total 
amount  of  EUR  198  186,  representing  about  0,2%  of  the  total  eligible  cost  of  the 
Schengen  Facility.  Given  the  number  of  projects  and  beneficiaries  involved  in  the 
implementation of the Schengen Facility for Croatia, these costs are very low compared 
with management costs of other EU funds (where costs usually account for 3% to 5% of 
the fund). While the low amount provided for management cost can be seen as a sign of 
efficiency, it also shows that, in particular at the beginning of the implementation of the 
Schengen  Facility  measures,  the  required  effort  for  the  implementation  has  not  been 
considered  and  there  have  been  some  delays,  due  to  lack  of  staff  and  their  limited 
experience.  

EQ 3.3: Which were the factors that helped or inhibited the efficiency, simplification and 
reduced burden? What were the simplification and reduced burden gains? 

Findings:  A  variety  of  factors  produced  mixed  results  in  terms  of  helping  efficiency 
simplification  and  reduced  administrative  burden.  While  certain  areas  benefited  from 
in 
improved  productivity  (communications,  exchange  of 
surveillance),  other  areas,  such  as  border  checks,  management  of  BCPs  or  use  of 
acquired  equipment  had 
to  comply  with  additional  operational  and  reporting 
requirements which slowed down the work and created new administrative tasks. 

information,  mobility 

30 

 
 
 
 
Overall it can be considered the Schengen Facility contributed to the simplification and 
reduction of  administrative  burden of the  Border Police. However, there  are significant 
differences  in  the  opinions  and  information  collected  during  the  evaluation,  from 
acknowledging  the  positive  impact  of  more  streamlined  processes,  better  training  and 
equipment  which  facilitates  the  work  of  border  police  and  consular  officers,  to  claims 
that the Schengen Facility had either no impact on administrative burden or it created a 
heavier  burden  due  to  the  introduction  of  new  business  processes  and  applications  that 
need  maintenance  and  supervision.  The  latter  was  observed  at  units  managing  the 
information  systems  and  at  BCPs  and  police  stations,  where  overhead  costs  had  to  be 
split for reporting and accounting purposes.  
It  should  be  noted  that  there  were  several  factors  into  play,  such  as  the  introduction  of 
systematic checks of all travellers crossing the external borders, which caused delays at 
some BCPs. At the same time, automation of access to SIS II and national information 
systems has had a positive impact on the time needed to complete border checks, and on 
the ability to carry out mobile checks (e.g. on trains or outside of BCPs). 

Coherence 

The evaluation of coherence covers both the external perspective (complementarities and 
synergies between the Schengen Facility and national and EU-funded programmes) and 
the internal perspective (looking at how the various components of the Schengen Facility 
operate together to achieve its objectives). 

EQ  4.1:  To  what  extent  was  the  implementation  of  the  Schengen  Facility  in  Croatia 
coherent  with  and  complementary  to  the  border  control  measures  in  Croatia  financed 
from national resources? 

Findings:  The  implementation  of  the  Schengen  Facility  has  been  to  a  large  extent 
complementary to the overall border control measures in Croatia. The Schengen Facility 
has  been  complementary  with  national  actions,  when  it  comes  to  investments  in  police 
infrastructure  (for  example  national  budget  was  used  for  facilities  of  the  regular  and 
special police, while the Schengen Facility was used for facilities for the border police, 
within  the  same  police  station  building),  but  also  access  roads  and  other  communal 
infrastructure near the border crossing points. Since 2009, Croatia has a well elaborated 
Strategy  and  Action  plan  for  Integrated  Border  Management  (significantly  revised  and 
re-adopted  in  2014),  managed  by  an  inter-ministerial  steering  group,  which  ensures 
complementarity and coherence of measures and sources of funding used to improve its 
border management.  

For the purpose of  ensuring adequate border  management, next  to  the alignment of the 
legislative  framework  and  continuous  institutional  capacity  building,  Croatia  has 
elaborated  several  strategic  documents  providing  key  guidance  in  terms  of  priority 
actions and investments, taking into account the needs of the border police, but also other 
relevant  stakeholders  linked  to  the  border  management:  Strategy  for  IBM  and  Action 
Plan,  Strategy  for  development  of  maritime  police  and  Action  Plan,  Concept  for  green 
border protection and Concept for implementation of compensation measures. 

The  complementary  national  funding  was  primarily  used  for  ensuring  the  required 
national co-financing for the internationally (mostly EU) funded projects.  

31 

 
 
The majority of the related national investments were in the police infrastructure, which 
is  not  exclusively  for  the  border  police  but  located  in  the  same  premises  and  used  by 
other police officers. Complementary national funding came not only from the MoI and 
MFEA as beneficiaries of the Schengen Facility, but also from the Ministry of Finance 
and the Ministry of Agriculture. In addition, national funding was used for access roads 
and other communal infrastructure (energy, water, sewage, telecommunication etc.) near 
the  border  crossing  points38,  which  were  not  planned  under  the  Schengen  Facility.  The 
Schengen  Facility  financed  structures  directly  related  to  the  functioning  of  the  Border 
Police, while national funds were used to finance auxiliary infrastructure.  

Furthermore, national funding was used to support EU funded activities for the necessary 
but ineligible costs related to infrastructure (construction permits, technical documents)  

Given the limited timeframe of the Schengen Facility implementation, national resources 
were  used  in  cases  where  there  were  delays  in  the  public  procurement  procedures 
(occurrence  of  irregularities,  lack  of  valid  offers,  filed  complaints,  etc.),  which  were 
preventing a timely implementation of actions/measures. In such cases, the procurement 
was  finalised  using  the  national  budget  and  savings  from  the  Schengen  Facility  budget 
were reallocated to other measures.  

Complementarity  can  also  be  seen  in  the  example  of  the  development  of  new 
functionalities  of  the  Croatian  VIS  (Objective  6,  Measure  6.1).  The  national  VIS  was 
fully developed through the combination of the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance  
and  national  resources,  while  new  functionalities  were  financed  through  the  Schengen 
Facility.   

EQ  4.2:  To  what  extent  was  the  implementation  of  the  Schengen  Facility  in  Croatia 
coherent  with  and  complementary  to  other  EU  funded  actions  in  the  field  of  border 
controls, the Schengen acquis implementation and related policy areas (such as PHARE, 
the  External  Borders  Fund  2010  Annual  Programme,  the  European  Regional 
Development  Fund,  the  Cohesion  Fund,  the  Connecting  Europe  Facility),  in  particular 
concerning synergies and overlaps?  

Findings:  The  implementation  of  the  Schengen  Facility  was  to  a  large  extent 
complementary  and  consistent  with  measures  financed  by  other  EU  instruments.  High 
coherence and complementarity has been identified in particular for investments prior to 
the Schengen Facility, in particular CARDS39 and PHARE programmes (e.g. in the field 
of  institutional  capacity  building,  strengthening  of  the  border  police,  NBMIS, 
modernisation  of  surveillance  system  on  blue  and  green  border).  After  the  Schengen 
Facility investments, there is good complementarity with the ISF (e.g. for purchasing and 
maintaining  additional  IT  equipment,  trainings  and  operational  costs)  and  Asylum, 
Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF) - actions targeting migrants and asylum seekers). 

Prior to 2013 and since 2005, the concept of IBM was adopted and since then there has 
been a continuous strategic planning effort to identify and prioritise investments needs so 

38   This includes national financing for building of additional infrastructure to/from building site financed 

through the Schengen Facility and additional support infrastructural works. 
39   Community Assistance for Reconstruction, Development and Stabilisation. 

32 

 
                                                           
as  to  ensure  the  proper  use  of  all  the  available  international  funding  (mostly  EU  pre-
accession  funds:  CARDS,  PHARE,  IPA).  An  Inter-ministerial  working  group  was 
established, meeting relatively frequently (on monthly or even bi-weekly basis), for the 
coordination purposes.  

The  Strategy  for  IBM  and  Action  Plan  was  elaborated  in  the  framework  of  an  EU 
supported action. It was developed in the frame of a Twinning light programme in 2013, 
together  with  Slovenian  partners,  to  include  already  all  needs  linked  to  the  Schengen-
related requirements of integrated border management. The Strategy was adopted in 2014 
and was the basis for elaboration of the IP, therefore ensuring that the Schengen Facility 
in Croatia would be used in a coherent way, linking to the past investments and avoiding 
the possible investments in the political “wish lists”, not relevant for the preparations for 
Schengen40.The main activities from the Strategy which the Croatian government (mostly 
through its Ministry of Interior) is implementing can be grouped as follows: 

• 
• 

• 
• 

• 
• 
• 

• 
• 

harmonisation of legal framework with the EU acquis, 
revision  of  existing  bilateral  agreements  on  border  crossing  and  border 
control, 
organisational reform and related human resource management, 
modernisation  and  improvement  of  training  programmes  and  increasing  the 
professionalism of the border police officers, 
upgrading of national IT infrastructure and systems, 
procurement of technical equipment for border control and protection, 
introducing  risk  analysis  and  information  exchange  (compliant  with  joint 
integrated risk analysis model), 
increasing fight against corruption, 
strengthening bilateral and multilateral cooperation. 

For  each  objective  and  measure,  the  Indicative  Programme  has  clearly  indicated  the 
chapter  related  to  the  “Complementarity  and  consistency  with  measures  financed  by 
other instruments“. 

Although in the IP only Objectives 2 and 6 indicated a direct link with other investments 
(the  TETRA  radio-communication  system  procured  through  ERDF  and  national  funds 
and the National VIS funded through IPA 2010 and PHARE PPF 200641), it is clear that 
there  is  coherence  of  the  investments  also  in  all  other  topics  covered  by  the  Schengen 
Facility. 

The  consistency  and  coherence  of  the  investments  started  prior  to  EU  accession,  from 
CARDS  and  PHARE42  programmes,  in  the  field  of  institutional  capacity  building, 
asylum,  IBM  inter-agency  cooperation,  strengthening  of  the  border  police,  NBMIS/SIS 
II, criminal intelligence, modernisation of surveillance system on blue and green border 
(including purchase of cars and vessels), combating trafficking in firearms, ammunition 

40   The previous version of the Strategy (2009-2013) did not include all the necessary investments and 

actions in this respect. 

41   PHARE Project Preparation Facility 2006. 
42   Until 2007, when both CARDS and PHARE were substituted by IPA. 

33 

 
                                                           
and  explosives.  This  complementarity  continued  though  IPA  funds,  which  were  used 
through  investments  in  IT  and  surveillance  systems,  border  police  equipment, 
institutional  and  administrative  capacities,  construction  and  equipping  BPSs  and 
reception centres. 

Croatia has  benefitted  from  the last 6 months of the implementation  of the Programme 
‘Solidarity  and  Management  of  Migration  Flows’  (July-December  2013),  through  the 
European Refugee Fund and the European Return Fund, which financed transport of third 
translation  services,  reception 
country  nationals,  procurement  of  basic 
infrastructure. Overlapping investments with Schengen Facility were not noted. 

items, 

From  2014  Croatia  has  benefited  from  AMIF.  This  Fund  covers  actions  in  the 
migration/asylum areas,  which are not  directly linked to  the requirements of Schengen, 
but complementary and relevant for the integrated migration management, where border 
control  plays  a  significant  role.  On  the  other  hand,  ISF  is  closely  linked  to  Schengen 
Facility  as  it  provides  for  additional  procurements  and  maintenance  of  IT  equipment, 
vehicles, vessels and helicopters purchased from the Schengen Facility, operational costs, 
training of border police officers etc. 

Croatia  did  not  benefit  from  the  External  Borders  Fund,  as  this  was  programmed  in 
2010/2011  when  Croatia  was  not  an  EU  Member  State.  Also,  ESI  Funds  for  Croatia 
(ESF,  ERDF  and  Cohesion  Fund)  were  not  used  for  any  Schengen  Facility  related 
activities. 

EQ  4.3:  To  what  extent  were  the  measures/actions  implemented  under  the  Schengen 
Facility in Croatia internally coherent? 

Findings:  The  measures/actions  implemented  under  the  Schengen  Facility  were 
internally  coherent  without  overlapping  and  very  often  with  significant  synergies. 
Differences  between  the  initial  and  final  version  of  IP  should  be  considered  as  fast 
adaptation  to  changing  needs  during  the  implementation  of  the  Schengen  Facility  and 
reaction  aimed  to  substitute  time-consuming  activities  in  order  to  maximise  absorption 
rate. 

Several internal synergies and complementarities can be noticed:  

  Measure  3.2  (Enhancing  the  infrastructure  of  the  MoI`s  Information  System  needed 
for Schengen operation; Action b - NBMIS application upgrade) was implemented in 
unison  with  Measure  6.3  (Upgrade  NBMIS  software  for  VIS  Functionality)  as  the 
scope of both measures was similar to a large extent.  

  Infrastructural  issues  were  solved  by  investments  in  construction  of  new  and 
renovation and modernisation of the existing border infrastructure and investment  in 
security equipment at diplomatic missions/ consular posts according to the Schengen 
standards.  This  allowed  better  working  conditions  and  the  level  of  efficiency  was 
increased by acquisition of new technical equipment for border control of the external 
borders  and  modernisation  and  development  of  radio  communication  system 
necessary for surveillance and control of external borders. 

34 

 
 
 
  The  development  and  upgrading  of  information  systems  and  computer  networks 
related  to  the  implementation  of  the  Schengen  acquis  as  well  as  the  development  of 
the Croatian VIS and connection to the EU VIS increased connectivity inside Croatia 
and  with  other  EU  countries.  Departments  using  NBMIS  and  Croatian  VIS  have 
access to much more data in comparison with the period before the Schengen Facility 
implementation. As reported during the evaluation, the joint development of NBMIS 
and Croatian VIS allowed synergies, which would not have been accomplished if both 
systems were developed as two stand-alone systems that are connected at a later stage. 

  Internal  coherence  was  visible  also  in  the  cases  when  capacity  building  activities 
followed  the  procurement  of  equipment,  to  ensure  that  all  the  required  skills  and 
knowledge  are  in  place  to  maximise  the  benefits  of  procured  equipment  and 
investments in infrastructure. 

Sustainability 

The evaluation questions related to sustainability concern two issues: the first one looks 
at  the  prospects  for  endurance  of  the  results  achieved  under  the  Schengen  Facility 
(infrastructure,  equipment,  and  training),  while  the  second  one  considers  long-term 
effectiveness of the actions funded under the facility. 

EQ 5.1: Are the effects achieved under the Schengen Facility in Croatia likely to be long-
lasting? 

Findings:  The  overall  effects  achieved  under  the  Schengen  Facility  are  likely  to  be 
sustainable in the long-run, but there are also indications of problems due to decreasing 
national funding resulting in inability to maintain and upgrade all the acquired equipment 
and  the  need  for  continuation  of  training.  Due  to  intensive  use  of  some  equipment  and 
vehicles, they need to be replaced by new ones earlier than planned, which reduces the 
sustainability  of  the  Schengen  Facility  actions  even  in  the  short-term.  The  Internal 
Security  Fund  is  often  used  as  a  way  of  ensuring  the  sustainability  of  the  Schengen 
Facility actions. 

The effects achieved under the Schengen Facility are likely to be sustainable in the long-
run, but there are also exceptions where the useful life of acquired assets has proved too 
short.  During  the  evaluation,  the  equipment,  systems  and  facilities  acquired  and 
developed through the Schengen Facility were in use, with a few exceptions. 

The  evaluation  also  revealed,  to  a  certain  extent,  that  the  acquired  equipment  was  not 
maintained  and  upgraded  on  a  regular  basis,  as  well  as  the  fact  that  there  were  not 
sufficient human resources to utilise the assets acquired through the Schengen Facility.  

The financial resources required for the exploitation of the acquired equipment, systems 
and  facilities  have  been  made  available  from  the  Croatian  national  budget,  however 
decreasing  in  the  last  10  years.  In  some  cases  this  may  result  in  insufficient  funds  for 
maintaining the equipment and systems acquired through the Schengen Facility and may 
put their sustainability under risk.  

35 

 
 
 
The  sustainability  of  large  acquisitions,  such  as  vehicles,  information  systems  and 
helicopters, stationary systems for border surveillance, seems to be heavily dependent on 
EU financing (mainly ISF Borders). This would require the allocation of national funds 
to support the sustainability of the acquisitions through the Schengen Facility.  

An  important  action  that  contributes  to  the  sustainability  of  the  investments  is  the 
training  of  end  users  who  are  operating  and  maintaining  the  acquired  equipment  and 
systems.  The  evaluation  revealed  that  a  significant  proportion  of  the  staff  has  received 
training related to the equipment and systems acquired through the Schengen Facility. 

In  order  to  ensure  that  the  effects  achieved  under  the  Schengen  Facility  will  be  long-
lasting, both national and EU financing are used to support operational and maintenance 
costs.  

EQ 5.2: Were the actions funded by the Schengen Facility in Croatia designed to further 
strengthen and upgrade external border control? 

Findings: The actions funded by the Schengen Facility had a significant positive impact 
on  strengthening  the  control  at  the  external  borders  by  providing  the  necessary 
equipment,  information  systems  and  skills  to  prepare  Croatia  for  joining  the  Schengen 
area. There is a decreased number and share of detections of illegal crossings close to the 
border as a consequence of using the thermal imaging cameras and ground surveillance 
systems.  

A significant proportion of the opinions and collected information indicate an increase of 
the  waiting  times  at  the  BCPs,  although  these  were  expected  to  decrease  due  to  the 
technological improvements.  

Access  to  SIS  II  and  the  national  information  systems  enhanced  interoperability  and 
increased  the  efficiency  of  border  officers  performing  border  checks.  The  Schengen 
Facility contributed to enhancing the skills and knowledge of the relevant staff. 

In line with the Intervention logic of the Schengen Facility (see section 2.4.1), the general 
objective  of  contributing  to  compliance  with  the  Schengen  acquis  was  to  be  achieved 
through the following specific objectives: 

  Enhance control and surveillance of the borders 

  Implement the principle of IBM at national and international level 

  Enhance the skills and knowledge of the Croatian Border Police and employees at 

consular and diplomatic mission in relation to the Schengen acquis 

An assessment of the achievement of the specific objectives is presented below. 

Enhancing control and surveillance of the borders 

The activities contributing to  strengthening  of the external  borders control included the 
construction of new BCPs and the upgrade of existing BCPs at the external borders, the 
improved surveillance capacities at both the land and sea borders through the acquisition 
of vehicles, vessels and helicopters, and specialised equipment for surveillance.  

The  Schengen  Facility  had  a  positive  impact  on  border  control,  emphasising 
improvements of surveillance and the green and blue borders, including higher capacity 
to  detect  illegal  border  crossings,  improved  communication  infrastructure  and  BCP 
facilities.  

36 

 
 
the  border  surveillance 

Overall 
increased 
considerably, while reaction times decreased, mainly due to the new mobility equipment 
(vehicles,  helicopters,  vessels)  and  the  performant  surveillance  systems  and  devices 
operating at the external borders.  

improved,  as  surveillance  coverage 

To  a  certain  extent,  the  pattern  and  size  of  the  illegal  crossings  have  changed  due  the 
implementation of the Schengen Facility. Still, a clear connection with the developments 
funded under the Schengen Facility cannot be established, as these could be influenced 
by a variety of other factors.  

As shown in Table 4, there is a significant change in the pattern of occurrence of illegal 
border crossings between 2013 and 2018: 

- 

- 

- 

a decreased number and share of detections of illegal crossings detected close to 
the  border  confirms,  as  a  consequence  of  the  upgrading  of  the  surveillance 
systems (e.g. installing thermal imaging cameras at the green borders); 

a significantly increased number and share of illegal border crossings detected at 
BCPs, which may be seen as a displacement effect  of the strong surveillance  at 
the  green  borders,  forcing  irregular  migrants  to  attempt  illegal  entry  through 
BCPs instead; 

an  increased  number  and  share  of  illegal  crossings  detected  by  neighbouring 
countries. 

Place of detection 

 Table 4. Place of detection of illegal border crossings 
Share 
14% 
31% 
38% 
17% 
100% 

BCPs 
Close to the border 
Deep inside the territory 
Detected by other countries 
Total 

2013 
603 
1 363 
1 664 
740 
4 370 

2018 
2 541 
583 
2 699 
2 384 
8 207 

Share 
31% 
7% 
33% 
29% 
100% 

The number of irregular third country nationals found in Croatia also increased compared 
to  the  baseline,  from  4150  (2013)  to  5580  (2018),  similarly  to  the  trend  in  illegal 
crossings. 

Concerning  the  waiting  times  on  BCPs,  there  is  no  hard  data,  but  only  the  responses 
received in the online survey carried out as a part of the evaluation. Although there isn’t a 
clear opinion, it seems that the better equipment and faster checks which are due to the 
Schengen Facility contributed to the decrease of the waiting times in some BCPs, while 
in other BCPs several internal and external factors (slow internet speed, increased traffic, 
shortage of human resources, insufficient trainings etc.) led to increased waiting times. 

Exploring another aspect of the baseline - trafficking in human beings, the data show an 
increase  in  the  registration  of  such  cases  during  the  implementation  of  the  Schengen 
Facility  (more  than  double).  Even  though  a  direct  link  cannot  be  drawn  between  the 
enhancement of border security achieved through the Schengen Facility and this increase 

37 

 
 
 
 
 
in  registered  human  trafficking  cases,  the  data  show  positive  development  in  detecting 
these serious crime. 

Implementing the principle of IBM at national and international level 

The largest contribution of the Schengen Facility to the implementation of the principle 
of IBM was performed through Objective 3 - Development and upgrading of information 
systems  and  computer  networks  and  Objective  6  (Development  of  the  Croatian  Visa 
Information  System  and  connection  to  the  EU  Visa  Information  System  (VIS)).  As  the 
targets  of  both  objectives  were  achieved,  the  necessary  changes  to  the  NBMIS 
application were realised in order to ensure the introduction of the SIS II. Access to SIS 
II  and  the  national  information  systems  enhanced  interoperability  and  increased  the 
productivity of border officers performing border checks.  

Enhancing skills and knowledge 

The  Schengen  Facility  financed  training  courses  on  the  Schengen  acquis  for  border 
police officers and employees at consular and diplomatic mission. In addition, language 
training and training for the operation and maintenance of newly acquired equipment and 
information systems was provided to end users. The training of border police officers in 
using  the  equipment  and  systems  acquired  through  the  Schengen  Facility  is  part  of  the 
police  academy  curriculum.  Sustainability  in  terms  of  skills  and  knowledge  is  also 
supported by the low level of turnover among Border Police officers.  

EU-added value 

EU-added value is a criterion that is exploring changes which it can reasonably be argued 
are due to the EU intervention, beyond what could reasonably have been expected from 
national actions by the Member States.  

EQ6.1 What is the likelihood that the positive effects of the Schengen Facility in Croatia 
would have occurred without the EU support? 

Findings:  There  is  a  very  small  likelihood  that  the  positive  outcomes  of  the  Schengen 
Facility  would  have  occurred  without  the  EU  support.  No  similar  effects  would  have 
been achieved in terms of both scope and speed.  

There  are  several  positive  effects  of  the  Schengen  Facility  in  Croatia,  including: 
improvement of quality during border control, improved surveillance of green border and 
blue border, improved connection of BCP and Police Stations to MoI central IT system, 
and  higher  quality  in  data  exchange  collected  by  NBMIS  between  police-security  and 
other  relevant  bodies  in  Croatia  and  other  EU  member  states.  The  increased  level  of 
security on EU external borders brought safer environment for citizens and consequently 
better prospects of Croatia joining the Schengen zone. 

It  would  have  been  extremely  difficult  to  have  the  similar  outcomes  without  the  EU 
support. One of the major advantages of the Schengen Facility was that it allowed for a 
wide scope of actions that could  be financed under a single programme.  The  Schengen 
Facility  also  created  a  quality  foundation  for  integration  with  EU  IT  systems  before 
Croatia joining the Schengen zone.  

38 

 
 
 
On the other hand, the EU added value is diminished by the fact that the positive effects 
of  the  improved  IT  systems  on  visas  will  not  be  functional  before  Croatia  will  have 
entered the Schengen zone. 

EQ6.2 To what extent has the support provided by the EU helped to improve the ability 
of  Croatian  authorities  in  strengthening  and  upgrading  external  border  control 
compared to what they could do at national level without the support? 

Findings: The support provided by the EU helped to a great extent improve the ability of 
Croatian  authorities  in  strengthening  and  upgrading  external  border  control  and  similar 
effects could not have been achieved only with national financing. National financing is 
marginal  as  compared  to  the  Schengen  Facility,  but  the  Schengen  Facility  also 
significantly exceeds any other EU support allocated to Croatia in the area. 

The national financing for the management of borders is very limited as compared to the 
support provided by the Schengen Facility.  

The national financing (excluding salaries) was rather small as compared to the Schengen 
Facility  financing  -  23%  of  the  Schengen  Facility  in  2014  and  just  3%  in  2015. 
Furthermore, the Schengen Facility financing was significantly larger than other support 
provided  by  the  EU  to  the  management  of  the  borders.  Even  though  this  is  a  positive 
conclusion when it comes to the Schengen Facility itself, what if of concern is that after 
the  completion  of 
subsequent  EU 
the  Schengen  Facility,  none  of 
programmes/instruments (ISF, AMIF etc.) is matching its scale.  

the 

The  national  budget  would  most  probably  have  not  allowed  for  the  scope  that  the 
Schengen  Facility  had,  most  notably  in  terms  of  equipment  and  infrastructure. 
Furthermore, based on national  funding only it would have taken more time to  achieve 
same outputs and results.  

The  Schengen  Facility  also  allowed  for  more  exchange  of  experience  with  the  other 
Member States, which would have not been prioritised in the case of national financing.  

6.  CONCLUSIONS 

Relevance 

To a large extent the objectives of the Schengen Facility were relevant both to the needs 
of the EU and Croatia. There was a strong link between the needs identified in national 
strategic  documents  and  those  expressed  by  stakeholders  during  the  evaluation  and  the 
objectives of the IP 2013-2014. Relevance was ensured by having beneficiaries drafting 
the IP by taking into account existing national strategies related to external border control 
and  surveillance.  The  objectives  setting  of  the  Schengen  Facility  showed  flexibility  in 
light of newly identified needs. Thus, the original objectives were supplemented, which 
was considered as one of its advantages compared to other EU assistance programs that 
offer less opportunities for adding and changing objectives. Furthermore, funds under the 
Schengen Facility  were  provided before the commencement of the project,  whereas  for 
post-Schengen  Facility  financial  instruments  the  resources  are  usually  given  based  on 
fulfilment  of  the  applicable  rules,  after  a  certain  period  of  implementation,  which  is 
another factor that contributed to the high relevance of the Schengen Facility. 

39 

 
 
 
At the same time, new needs have been identified later, such as the trainings for border 
police  in  human  rights  protection  and  interactions  with  immigrants,  as  highlighted  by 
NGOs and the Ombudsman of the Republic of Croatia in their Annual Report for 2017. 
In  spite  of  the  high  relevance  of  the  Schengen  Facility,  there  are  current  outstanding 
needs, identified by the  Council and stakeholders consulted during the evaluation: land 
border surveillance of the green border with Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Montenegro, 
further trainings on how to use the equipment and infrastructure needs at BCPs. 

Effectiveness 

The implementation of the Schengen Facility can overall be considered as effective. At 
the  level  of  objectives  defined  in  the  IP  of  the  Schengen  Facility,  out  of  a  total  of  11 
objectives, 5 have been fully achieved, 4 have been achieved to a large extent and 2 have 
been  partially  achieved.  While  some  modifications  did  not  necessarily  have  a  negative 
impact  on  the  effectiveness  of  the  Schengen  Facility  (e.g.  acquisition  of  helicopter 
instead of aircraft under Objective 1), equipment and services that were planned but not 
procured/delivered hampered the effectiveness (most notably under Objectives 5 and 8). 

Hence,  the  operational  objectives  of  the  Schengen  Facility  were  achieved  to  a  large 
extent. Two operational objectives relating to development and upgrading of IT systems 
and  contributing  to  support  cost  and  logistics  were  fully  achieved,  while  acquisition  of 
new  equipment  for  border  control  as  well  as  construction/renovation  of  existing  border 
infrastructure  were  achieved  to  a  large  extent.  The  only  operational  objective  that  was 
partially achieved concerned the qualification of border police and consular staff. 

The targets that were not achieved and the corresponding reasons are provided below: 

  The  complexity  of  procurement  procedures  resulted  in  a  proportion  of  stationary 
systems  for  day/night  supervision  not  procured,  as  these  would  not  have  been 
procured within the eligibility period (Objective 1).  

  Unresolved property-legal relations have proven challenging on two occasions. In one 
case  a  small  share  of  concrete  pillars  for  closing  road  routes  were  not  procured 
because the properties (i.e. routes that were to be closed) could not be used (Objective 
1). In a second case, the inability to acquire a land use permit resulted with one less 
TETRA base station installation (Objective 2).  

  The cancellation of the reconstruction of the police academy, which was funded under 
another  programme  resulted  in  targets  not  being  met  under  the  Schengen  Facility 
(Objective 5).  

  The organisation of trainings for the consular staff during the summer period resulted 

in a smaller number of training participants in trainings (Objective 7).  

  The  need  for  reallocation  of  certain  premises  and  lack  of  permission  to  perform 
adaptations  to  diplomatic  missions’  infrastructure  disabled  the  fulfilment  of  these 
targets during the eligibility period (Objective 8). Moreover, additional staff that was 
intended  for  performing  project  management  tasks  could  not  be  hired  due  to  the 
complexity of the employment procedure and the government’s decision on limits for 
new employment in civil service. 

Even  though  the  above  mentioned  cases  influenced  negatively  the  effectiveness  of  the 
Schengen  Facility  implementation, they  constitute a minor  share of measures  that  were 
not achieved.  

40 

 
 
Positive  outcomes  that  contributed  to  the  effectiveness  of  the  Schengen  Facility 
implementation  include  improved  mobility  and  efficiency  of  border  control,  upgraded 
communication  and  information  systems,  improved  working  conditions  for  Border 
Police,  and  improved  capacity  and  working  conditions  of  staff  at  consular  missions  in 
third countries.  

Both internal (limited administrative capacity and insufficient guidance in the beginning 
of  the  implementation  of  the  Schengen  Facility)  and  external  factors  (complex 
procurement  procedures  and  time  required  to  acquire  permits)  have  influenced  the 
implementation  of  the  Schengen  Facility.  The  negative  effects  are  not  judged  to  be 
significant, but should be considered in similar future operations. 

The  Schengen  Facility  for  Croatia  has  been  designed  and  contributed  to  the  broad  EU 
priorities on border and internal security. As expected considering the objectives of the 
Schengen  Facility,  its  measures  are  aligned  and  contributed  to  all  specific  areas  of  the 
Schengen  acquis,  in  particular  external  borders  policy.  The  Schengen  Facility  did  not 
directly affect only issues related to police cooperation, but Objectives 5 (Increase of the 
qualification  of  the  border  police)  and  7  (Improvement  of  Schengen  related  knowledge 
and skills of the consular staff) contribute to the implementation of this part of Schengen 
acquis. 

Efficiency 

The  results  of  the  Schengen  Facility  were  achieved  at  a  reasonable  cost  due  to  the 
conducting of competitive procurement procedures, which guaranteed fair prices for the 
goods  and  services  procured.  The  eligible  costs  represent  95,2%  of  the  programmed 
allocations,  while  the  contracted  projects  amount  to  97,3%  of  the  programmed 
allocations, which suggests a reasonably high absorption rate.  

Most of the expected benefits of the Schengen Facility were achieved at a cost below the 
allocated  funds,  while  a  comparison  with  similar  Schengen  Facility  investments  in 
Bulgaria  and  Romania  indicate  that  costs  of  acquisition  were  in  line  with  prevailing 
market prices.  

Considering the achieved savings and future cost reductions (e.g. surveillance systems at 
the  green  border  reduce  the  need  for  border  patrols)  the  outcomes  of  the  Schengen 
Facility for Croatia represented good value for money. The management costs were very 
low  (representing  about  0,2%  of  the  total  eligible  cost  of  the  Schengen  Facility) 
compared with management costs of other EU funds. While certain areas benefited from 
in 
improved  productivity  (communications,  exchange  of 
surveillance),  other  areas,  such  as  border  checks,  management  of  BCPs  or  use  of 
acquired  equipment  had 
to  comply  with  additional  operational  and  reporting 
requirements which slowed down the work and created new administrative tasks.  

information,  mobility 

Coherence 

The implementation of the Schengen Facility has been to a large extent complementary 
to  the  overall  border  control  measures  in  Croatia.  The  Schengen  Facility  has  been 
complementary  with  national  actions,  when  it  comes  to  investments  in  police 
infrastructure  (for  example  national  budget  was  used  for  facilities  of  the  regular  and 
special police, while the Schengen Facility was used for facilities for the border police, 

41 

 
 
 
within  the  same  police  station  building),  but  also  access  roads  and  other  communal 
infrastructure  near  the  border  crossing  points.  Since  2009,  Croatia  has  had  a  well 
elaborated  Strategy  and  Action  plan  for  Integrated  Border  Management  (significantly 
revised and re-adopted in 2014), managed by an inter-ministerial steering group, which 
ensured  complementarity  and  coherence  of  measures  and  sources  of  funding  used  to 
improve its border management. 

The implementation  of the  Schengen  Facility was to  a large  extent complementary and 
consistent  with  measures  financed  by  other  EU  instruments.  High  coherence  and 
complementarity has been identified in particular for investments starting from CARDS 
and  PHARE  programmes  (e.g. 
institutional  capacity  building, 
strengthening of the border police, NBMIS, modernisation of surveillance system on blue 
and  green  border).  Currently  there  is  good  complementarity  with  the  ISF  (on  IT 
equipment and vehicles, vessels, trainings and operational costs) and with the AMIF (on 
migrants and asylum seekers). 

the  field  of 

in 

The measures/actions implemented under the Schengen Facility were internally coherent 
(i.e. without overlapping) and very often had significant synergies. As mentioned in the 
analysis on Relevance, differences between  the initial and final version of IP should be 
considered as fast adaptation to changing needs. 

Sustainability 

The overall effects achieved under the Schengen  Facility are likely to be sustainable in 
the  long-run,  but  at  the  same  time,  the  decreasing  national  funding  could  pose  some 
problems to the ability of the Croatian Authorities to maintain and upgrade the acquired 
equipment and continue the necessary training (in  particular on using BCP equipment). 
Thus,  the  EU  funding,  in  particular  ISF,  remains  the  most  important  alternative  for 
sustaining the Schengen Facility  achievements and further strengthening of the external 
borders control. Due to intensive use of some equipment and vehicles, they already need 
to be replaced by new ones earlier than planned, which reduces the sustainability of the 
Schengen Facility actions. The ISF is often used as a way of ensuring the sustainability 
of  measures  implemented  under  the  Schengen  Facility  (e.g.  for  purchase  of  vehicles, 
helicopter equipment, and trainings). 

The  actions  funded  by  the  Schengen  Facility  had  a  significant  positive  impact  on 
strengthening the control at the external borders by providing the necessary equipment, 
information systems and skills to prepare Croatia for joining the Schengen area. There is 
a decreased number and share of detections of illegal crossings close to the border as a 
consequence of using the thermal imaging cameras and ground surveillance systems. The 
maritime  surveillance  systems  have  now  the  capacity  to  detect  smaller  vessels  and 
therefore avoidance of border controls at the blue borders has been decreased. 

There is no available hard data on the actual waiting times at borders, which is why it is 
not possible to verify whether waiting time increased, or decreased. Based on results of 
the survey with border police staff, it can be concluded that in some cases the Schengen 
Facility  contributed  to  decreasing  waiting  time  at  BCPs  thanks  to  technological 
improvements.  However,  in  other  cases  the  waiting  time  increased  due  to  insufficient 
trainings  on  the  operation  of  the  equipment,  as  well  as  due  to  insufficient  internet 
connection and staffing. 

42 

 
 
Access  to  SIS  II  and  the  national  information  systems  enhanced  interoperability  and 
increased  the  productivity  of  border  officers  performing  border  checks.  The  Schengen 
Facility contributed to enhancing the skills and knowledge of the Croatian Border Police 
and employees at consular and diplomatic mission by financing training courses on the 
Schengen acquis. 

EU added value 

In  general,  the  evaluation  of  the  Schengen  Facility  of  Croatia  showed  that  there  was  a 
very  small  likelihood  that  outcomes  (in  terms  of  both  scope  and  speed)  similar  to  the 
Schengen Facility achievements would have occurred without the EU support.  

The  Schengen  Facility  allowed  for  a  wide  scope  of  actions  financed  under  a  single 
programme (for example not only building of centres, but also buying furniture, clothes, 
salaries  of  border  police,  etc.).  This  provided  thus  an  extended  scope  of  action  to  the 
Croatian Authorities.  

The  strengthening  and  upgrading  of  the  external  border  control  achieved  through  the 
Schengen Facility could not have been achieved to the same extent and the same timeline 
only with national financing. The national financing (excluding salaries) was rather small 
as compared to the Schengen Facility financing - 23% of the Schengen Facility financing 
in  2014  and  just  3%  in  2015.  Furthermore,  the  Schengen  Facility  allocation  is 
significantly  higher  than  any  EU  funds  allocated  to  Croatia  for  the  purpose  of 
strengthening the management of external borders43. 

Overall conclusion 

The Schengen  Facility had a significant  positive impact  on strengthening  the control at 
the  external  borders  by  providing  the  necessary  equipment,  information  systems,  and 
trainings  to  prepare  Croatia  for  joining  the  Schengen  area.  This  strengthening  and 
upgrading of the external border control could not have been achieved to the same extent 
and the same timeline only with national financing. Even though the Schengen  Facility 
effects are likely to be sustainable in the long-run, the decreasing national funding may 
be challenging to maintain and upgrade the acquired assets. In this context, the Croatian 
authorities  will  continue  to  rely  on  the  availability  of  EU  funding,  such  as  ISF,  as  an 
essential  resource.  The  objectives  of  the  Schengen  Facility  are  relevant  to  the  EU  and 
Croatian needs and relevance was constantly reinforced via the flexible  approach of the 
Schengen  Facility.  The  targets  of  the  Schengen  Facility  have  been  largely  met  and  the 
results were achieved at a reasonable cost through competitive procedures, although the 
monitoring posed some problems in the first years of the implementation of the Schengen 
Facility.  

43   IPA, ISF, FRONTEX etc. 

43 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION 

1. 

LEAD DG, DeCIDE PLANNING/CWP REFERENCES 

The  Evaluation  Roadmap  for  the  initiative  was  published  by  DG  Migration  and  Home 
Affairs (DG HOME) on the Commission’s ‘Have  your say’  webpage on 6/4/2018. The 
Terms of Reference for engaging a contractor to  carry out  the external  study as part of 
the evaluation were drawn up by DG HOME and validated by the inter-service steering 
group and a request for service was issued in July 2018, and a contractor selected by an 
evaluation committee consisting of staff from DG HOME in November 2018. The study 
commenced in  November 2018 and ended in  July  2019. The agenda planning (Decide) 
reference assigned to the evaluation is PLAN/2018/2434. 

2.  ORGANISATION AND TIMING 

As  per  the  Better  Regulation  Guidelines,  an  inter-service  steering  group  was  set  up  in 
June  2018  within  the  Commission  to  oversee  the  evaluation.  Several  Directorates-
General  (DGs)  within  the  Commission  were  invited  to  nominate  representatives  to  the 
steering group. 

The  steering  group  had  3  meetings,  which  were  were  chaired  by  DG  HOME.  The 
steering  group  was  regularly  consulted  over  the  course  of  the  evaluation,  typically  in 
conjunction with the submission of specific draft reports by the contractor responsible for 
carrying  out  the  external  study.  These  consultations  took  place  both  in  the  context  of 
regular meetings, via email and telephone.  

Finally,  the  steering  group  was  consulted  during  the  drafting  of  this  staff  working 
document. 

3. 

EXCEPTIONS TO THE BETTER REGULATION GUIDELINES 

In  conducting  the  evaluation,  no  exceptions  from  the  usual  procedural  requirements 
described in the Better Regulation Guidelines were required. 

4. 

EVIDENCE, SOURCES AND QUALITY 

The evaluation  drew on different  types of documents which were examined through an 
extensive desk research. More information on sources is provided in Annex 3. 

Besides  a  review  of  the  relevant  documents,  the  evaluation  also  relied  on  extensive 
consultations  with  a  wide  range  of  stakeholders.  These  consultations  served  as 
opportunities  to  collect  new  data  or  to  confirm  the  validity  of  already  collected  data. 
Additional information concerning the stakeholder consultations is provided in Annex 2. 

44 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX 2: SYNOPSIS REPORT OF THE STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION 

1.  OVERVIEW OF STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS 

A broad range of stakeholder consultations were carried out as part of the evaluation of 
the  Facility.  The  aim  of  the  consultations  was  to  gather  different  views  that  could  be 
useful  in  answering  the  evaluation  questions  concerning  the  relevance,  coherence, 
effectiveness, efficiency, EU added value and sustainability of the Facility. The Synopsis 
Report  aims  to  describe  and  summarise  all  formal  consultation  work,  any  ad  hoc 
contributions directly linked to the preparation of the evaluation, as well as any relevant 
input received through the feedback mechanism for the Evaluation Roadmap. 

2.  METHODOLOGY AND CONSULTED STAKEHOLDERS  

The  evaluation  of  the  Schengen  Facility  of  Croatia  included  consultations  with  several 
stakeholders. The consultations were conducted  by the  Commission  and  by  an  external 
consultancy  specialised  in  evaluation  in  the  framework  of  their  contract  with  the 
Commission to provide a study on the ex post evaluation (‘the external evaluators’). This 
annex  provides  an  overview  of  the  consultation  processes  and  the  type  of  stakeholders 
consulted. Moreover, it presents the results of these consultations. 
The  consultation  activities  were  defined  in  cooperation  between  the  European 
Commission (EC) and the Contractor (Ecorys). Stakeholders were mapped to identify all 
relevant  groups  and  to  identify  suitable  consultation  activities  to  reach  out  to  these 
groups.  The  objective  of  the  consultation  was  to  collect  factual  information,  data, 
knowledge  and  opinions.  Information  was  collected  on  all  evaluation  criteria  of  the 
study: effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence, Sustainability and EU added value. 

The  consultation  activities  took  place  between  December  2018  and  April  2019  and 
included the following activities, which are further presented in the next sections:  

  Online public consultation; 
 
  Survey with end recipients. 

Interviews; 

The key stakeholder groups identified in the Stakeholder Consultation Strategy include: 
competent  authorities  at  the  Member  State  level;  beneficiaries  of  the  measures  of  the 
Facility;  end  users  academia  and  think  tanks;  the  general  public;  and  the  relevant 
Directorates-General within the Commission.  

3.  CONSULTATIONS CONDUCTED BY THE COMMISSION 

CONSULTATIONS ON THE ROADMAP 

45 

 
 
 
 
 
 
The Roadmap, published in April 2018, served to inform stakeholders and citizens about 
how the Commission intends to carry out the evaluation of the Directive. 
There was only 1 answer as feedback to the Roadmap.  

THE PUBLIC CONSULTATION CONDUCTED BY THE COMMISSION 

The  public  consultation  ran  for  12  weeks  between  the  4th  of  January  2019  and  29th  of 
March  2019.  EU  Survey  was  used  to  manage  the  OPC.  The  questionnaire  targeted  the 
following stakeholder groups: 

the general public; 

• 
•  all  non-government/private  organisations/entities  with  an 

interest 

in 

the 

implementation of the Schengen Facility for Croatia; 

The questionnaire for the public consultation consisted of mainly closed questions along 
with a limited number of open questions to allow for clarifying remarks and/or remarks 
of  a  more  general  nature.  While  the  questionnaire  itself  was  only  available  in  English, 
French, German and Croatian, respondents were free to complete the ‘open’ elements of 
the questionnaire using any recognised EU language. 

Only  two  responses  were  received  to  the  OPC  –  from  EU  citizens,  one  from  Germany 
and one from France. 

Due to the small number of responses, it is not possible to include results of the closed-
end questions.  

4.  TARGETED CONSULTATIONS CONDUCTED BY THE EXTERNAL 

EVALUATORS  

ONLINE SURVEY 

The online survey was set up to gather additional information from end users benefiting 
from the Schengen Facility funding and it was live in the period January-February 2019. 
The survey was translated to Croatian and distribution was done online via beneficiaries 
as  it  became  clear  after  the  first  couple  of  field  visits  that  all  employees  have  official 
email addresses. The distribution of the survey on the ground, in parallel with the field 
visits, was seen as an effective way in reaching the stakeholders.  

The total number of responses was 232. The majority of respondents indicated they are 
contributing as border police officers, followed by border surveillance officers (such as 
for instance employees of the National Coordination Centre). 

46 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 6  Distribution of respondents  

I am giving my contribution as 

3 

10  8 

39 

165 

Border surveillance
officer

Border police officer

Police officers

Vehicle operator or
tehnician

The results of the on-line survey were integrated in the main report of the consultant.  

INTERVIEWS 

Semi-structured  interviews  were  conducted  with  respondents  from  different  instances, 
including  senior  public  officers  able  to  respond  to  general  issues  and  strategic  level 
questions as well as those responsible for implementation, and beneficiaries. Interviews 
carried out during site visits enabled reaching respondents who were directly benefiting 
from  the  implementation  of  Schengen  Facility,  such  as  users  of  equipment  and 
infrastructure.  On-site  visits  enabled  the  assessment  of  the  usage  and  management  of 
equipment/infrastructure implemented through Schengen Facility measures.  

In total, five interviews with Croatian stakeholders at central level have been conducted: 
  the  Responsible  Authority  [Ministry  of  Interior  (MoI)  -  Independent  Sector  for 

Schengen coordination and EU funds];  

  MoI - Border police Directorate; 
  MoI  -  Sector  for  Real  Estate  Management  of  Directorate  for  Material  and  Financial 

Affairs; 

  MoI - Development, Equipment and Support Directorate, ICT Sector; 
  Ministry  of  Foreign  and  European  affairs  (MFEA)  -  Directorate  for  IT  security  and 

Consular Affairs Sector. 

Two NGOs (Centre for Peace Studies - CSD and Croatian Law Centre) were interviewed 
in order to complete the triangulation process. CSD was chosen based on their work on 
migration and asylum issues and their experience with EU funding schemes, but also due 
to  the  fact  that  they  provided  feedback  on  the  evaluation  roadmap44.  Based  on  the 
recommendation of CSD and their collaboration with the Ministry of Interior on projects 
related  to  protection  of  migrants  and  asylum  seekers,  the  Croatian  Law  Centre  was 
chosen as the second NGO. 

44   Available here: https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/initiatives/ares-2018-

1850784/feedback/F11415_en?p_id=222299  

47 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
The outcome of the interviews is the following:  

  The stakeholders judged the Schengen Facility as extremely relevant. Without the 
Schengen  Facility,  it  would  not  have  been  possible  to  finance  all  the  measures 
and  actions  needed  to  prepare  Croatia  for  entering  the  Schengen  Area.  The 
national  budget  would  most  probably  have  not  allowed  for  the  scope  that 
Schengen Facility had. However, due to the specificities of the external border in 
Croatia,  outstanding  needs  remain  and  financial  resources  are  still  required  and 
additional financial means would be beneficial. The NGO added needs related to 
trainings  for  border  police  in  human  rights  protection  and  interactions  with 
immigrants.  

the  Schengen  Facility 

implementation.  With  regards 

  The stakeholders were of the opinion that the objectives of the Schengen Facility 
have fully achieved in an effective manner. It was pointed out that modifications 
were made to certain measures and objectives, which did not however hamper the 
effectiveness  of 
to 
unintended  outcomes  resulting  from  the  Schengen  Facility  implementation,  no 
major outcomes were reported. Stakeholders mentioned external factors that had 
an  effect  on  the  Schengen  Facility  implementation.  These  relate  to  specific 
projects,  particularly  construction  projects,  where  unexpected  issues  occurred 
during  construction  (e.g.  finding  groundwater  on  site).  Acquisition  of 
construction  permits  was  mentioned  as  another  external  factor  influencing  the 
implementation  as  it  was  in  the  hands  of  local  authorities.  Projects  with  more 
complex  procurement  procedures  saw  more  unexpected  events  than  others 
(procurement  of  thermo-vision  system).  Lack  of  administrative  capacity  in 
combination with lack of guidance on operational aspects of the implementation, 
were  mentioned  as  internal  factors  that  hampered  the  effectiveness  of  the 
Schengen Facility implementation. In addition to limited capacity, a high turnover 
at  managerial  level  did  not  contribute  to  smooth  implementation.  Monitoring 
systems  were  judged  as  adequate  and  enabled  prevention  of  potentially 
inappropriate use of funds.  

  Stakeholders reported that the benefits of the Schengen Facility are palpable and 
were  very  visible  during  the  2015  migration  crisis.  The  absorption  rates  were 
stagnant at the beginning of the implementation period due to limited experience 
with  implementation  of  financial  instruments  that  were  time  bound  (i.e. 
implementation  period  of  two  years).  As  concerns  the  procurement  procedures, 
stakeholders stated that public procurement parameters were very strictly defined, 
and  in  the  specific  case  of  purchases  made  through  the  Schengen  Facility,  the 
selected  procurement  is  considered  as  executed  in  accordance  with  the  ZOJN 
(Croatian  public  procurement  legislation)  if  the  product  fulfils  all  technical 
specifications and has the lowest price. It was therefore difficult to comment on 
whether it is possible in all cases to get the best value for money at all.  

  Stakeholders  reported  that  there  was  complementarity  between  the  Schengen 
Facility  and  other  funding  programmes  with  similar  objectives  precisely  due  to 
the fact that the general objective is the strengthening of borders and accession to 
the  Schengen  area.  All  the  projects  that  were  implemented  under  the  Schengen 
Facility presented a logical continuation to those implemented with funds before 
the  Schengen  Facility.  Stakeholders  stated 
they  observed 
complementarity with the ISF (IT equipment and vehicles, vessels, trainings and 
operational  costs)  and  with  the  AMIF  (on  migrants  and  asylum  seekers).  The 

that  currently 

48 

 
 
Schengen Facility was complementary to national actions, as these were used to 
finance  non-eligible  costs  (e.g.  reconstruction  of  facilities  used  by  both  the 
regular and border police). 

  Stakeholders stressed that the varied geographical terrain and long border have a 
direct  effect  on  the  equipment  used,  the  resources  are  used  rather  quickly.  The 
turnover  of  employees  at  BCPS  and  police  stations  is  not  that  high  so 
sustainability is supported. Training at the Police Academy adapted to the needs 
of the new equipment and therefore newly trained police officers are taught how 
to  use  the  new  equipment.  The  stakeholders  pointed  out  that  the  system  is 
sustainable by design and sustainability will be ensured through maintenance. 
  One  of  the  major  advantages  of  the  Schengen  Facility  was  that  it  allowed  for  a 
wide  scope  of  actions  that  could  be  financed  (e.g.  salaries  for  Border  Police 
officers). Without EU support, it is questionable when and at what level positive 
effects would be achieved. 

49 

 
 
Annex 3: Methods and analytical models 

In this annex, the methods and sources that were drawn upon in carrying out the 
evaluation are described, as well as the limitations that were encountered. 

1. METHODS AND SOURCES 

1.1 DESK RESEARCH 

The desk research was carried out throughout the entire evaluation process and included 
the  analysis  and  extraction  of  relevant  information  from  secondary  sources  (IPs,  CR, 
annual  reports,  audit  and  monitoring  reports)  necessary  for  the  analysis  on  evaluation 
questions.  Furthermore,  relevant  legislation,  national  strategies  and  action  plans  were 
reviewed. Statistical and administrative data were gathered from public sources such as 
the Croatian MoI’s website, the EBCGA and Eurostat. Internal data related to allocation 
of funds and investment procurement was provided by the Responsible Authority. 

1.2 FIELD RESEARCH 

Interviews  

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with representatives of different institutions, 
including  senior  public  officers  able  to  respond  to  general  issues  and  strategic  level 
questions as well as those responsible for implementation, and beneficiaries. Interviews 
carried out during site visits enabled reaching respondents who were directly benefiting 
from  the  implementation  of  Schengen  Facility,  such  as  users  of  equipment  and 
infrastructure.  

Two NGOs were interviewed in order to receive an external perspective of the needs of 
the border police. They were chosen based on their work on migration and asylum issues 
and their experience with EU funding schemes.  

Case studies 

The  evaluation  was  supported  by  eight  case  studies.  The  selected  case  studies  covered 
75% of all expenses eligible under the Schengen Facility for Croatia, 9 objectives and a 
variety of measures set  out  in  the  IP.  The topics selected  for the case studies included: 
acquisition  of  technical  equipment  (vehicles,  helicopters  and  special  equipment), 
development  of  national  IT  systems  (SIS  II,  VIS),  (re)construction  of  border 
infrastructure, trainings, costs for management of the Schengen Facility and salaries for 
additional border police officers. On site visits were performed at different locations, as 
part of the 8 case studies. 

2. LIMITATIONS 

50 

 
 
 
 
 
Although  the  overall  assessment  of  the  availability  and  robustness  of  data  is  that  they 
provide  sufficient  basis  to  answer  the  evaluation  questions,  the  data  collection  and 
analysis faced some limitations.  

The  desk  research  was  based  on  the  analysis  of  various  documents  in  Croatian  and 
English. Differences in presented measures were identified in the various versions of the 
IP.  The  changes  in  planned  measures  were  justified  by  the  Responsible  Authority, 
however 
they  hampered  a  clear  comparison  between  planned  and  achieved 
measures/allocations.  This  had  an  impact  on  determining  the  effectiveness  of  the 
Schengen  Facility  potentially  anchoring  conclusions  towards  a  more  positive  outcome. 
However, such flexibility allowed for taking into account evolving needs of the country 
with regard to objectives. The review of a large number of strategic documents provided 
sufficient  grounds  for  the  analysis  of  Relevance  and  Coherence.  The  existing  data 
allowed the establishment of a baseline (2013) and for the following of main trends along 
similar indicators: e.g. number of passengers and illegal crossings. Nevertheless, there is 
no hard data available on the waiting time at BCPs for example and the data on the place 
of occurrence of illegal crossings is inconsistent. As pointed out in Table 5, these issues 
affect the robustness of the findings on Sustainability (impact).  

The semi-structured interviews were informative, even though as expected (considering 
the limitations of interviews as a data gathering technique) often presented anecdotal data 
rather  than  hard  numbers  (e.g.  reliance  on  IT  systems  in  border  management  and 
comparisons  with  other  EU  Member  States).  The  lack  of  hard  data  gathered  during 
interviews was filled in via government reports (e.g. on the number of illegal crossings). 
Overall interviewees were very positive concerning the Schengen Facility. The scope of 
information received through interviews was negatively affected due to a high turnover 
within the Responsible Authority. This inevitably led to loss of information, particularly 
information  related  to  management  issues  (e.g.  on  the  preparation  of  implementation 
guidelines). Follow-up interviews were arranged so that the Responsible Authority would 
have enough time to ask for information that was needed for the evaluation.  In spite of 
the limitations, the overall quality of the information from the interviews is satisfactory 
and provided valuable input for all evaluation questions.  

The sample of respondents provided a good geographical coverage of the beneficiaries of 
the Schengen Facility interventions. Even though the outreach amounts to more than 200 
responses,  the  majority  of  respondents  are  border  police  officers  or  staff  otherwise 
involved  in  border  control,  which  indicates  limited  outreach  to  different  types  of  end 
users. However, the respondents were in most cases affected by more than one objective, 
which  ensured  a  broader  coverage  of  issues  that  were  explored  within  the  scope  of  the 
evaluation. The feedback received through the online survey provided valuable input on 
issues like EU added value. 

While  the  field  visits  within  the  scope  of  the  case  studies  have  been  conducted 
successfully  and  provided  insight  into  good  practices  and  lessons  learned,  beneficiaries 
did  not  always  have  sufficient  knowledge  to  provide  all  the  information  that  was 
requested  such  as  data  on  waiting  time  at  BCPs,  life-cycle  costs  and  requirements  for 
maintenance of acquired infrastructure, equipment, information systems etc. 

The  Public  Consultation  provided  only  two  responses,  which  does  not  allow  for  a 
comprehensive analysis and input of the closed questions. Still, the open-ended responses 
were included in the analysis of the consultant. 

51 

 
Considering the above limitations of the data collection process, the consultant provided 
an assessment of their effects on the robustness of the findings, presented below (Table 
5). 

Table 5 

Assessment of the robustness of the findings per evaluation 
criterion 

Evaluation 
criterion 
Relevance 

Effectiveness 

Assessment of the robustness of the findings 

  No issues have been identified with the availability of information 
as  the  analysis  of  this  criterion  relies  mostly  on  strategic 
documents. 

  Given 

  Participants  in  the  interviews,  field  visits,  and  online  survey 
respondents  provided  coherent  answers  that  confirmed  the 
findings on relevance 
that 

the 
IP  has  been  changed 
implementation  period,  the  planned  outcomes  have  continuously 
been  updated,  which  did  not  allow  for  a  classical  analysis  on 
effectiveness – in terms of comparing targets to achievements.  
  The  lack  of  a  structured  indicator  system  also  hampered  the 

throughout 

the 

 

analysis of effectiveness. 
In  spite  of  the  above  difficulties,  the  CR  provided  sufficient 
grounds  for  analysing  effectiveness  (at  the  level  of  procurement 
targets in EQ2.1) 

  Case studies provided useful insight into practical elements of the 

implementation of the Schengen Facility (EQ2.2) 

  The  review  of  EU  priorities  and  their  juxtaposition  with  the 
Schengen  Facility  actions/measures  contributed  the  most  for 
EQ2.3 

  The  review  of  monitoring  arrangements  and  feedback  gathered 

through interviews were a good basis for answering EQ2.4 

Efficiency 

  No  issues  were  identified  with  the  financial  data  on  the 

implementation of the Schengen Facility (EQ3.1 and EQ3.2) 

  Although  not  very  detailed, 

information  on 
procurement  procedures  was  enough  for  the  conclusion  on  the 
performance  and  achievements  of  competitive  bids,  while  the 
comparison  with  the  efficiency  of  the  BG/RO  Schengen  Facility 
was useful in answering EQ3.1 

the  available 

Coherence 

  The  available  data  on  the  management  costs  gives  enough 

grounds for the findings on their efficiency 

  The most useful input for EQ3.3 was provided by the respondents 

to the online questionnaire and case studies (8 in particular) 

  Similarly to the findings on Relevance, no issues were identified 
with regards to the availability of strategic documents at EU and 
national level (EQ4.1 and EQ4.2) 

  Case  studies  were  also  useful  in  responding  to  the  evaluation 

questions (in particular EQ4.2 and EQ4.3) 

Sustainability 

  Considering  that  the  Sustainability  evaluation  criterion  relies 
mostly  on  information  acquired  through  field  work  and  the  fact 

52 

 
 
 
Evaluation 
criterion 

Assessment of the robustness of the findings 

that  it  also  included  the  impact  dimension  of  the  Schengen 
Facility,  answering  questions  5.1  and  5.2  proved  the  most 
challenging 

  The  variety  of  sources  (desk  research,  case  studies,  interviews, 
and  online  questionnaire)  used  for  the  assessment  on  whether 
Schengen  Facility  effects  can  be  expected  to  be  long-lasting 
(EQ5.1) provided consistent information, which was sufficient for 
robust findings on sustainability 

  For  EQ5.2  the  findings  can  be  considered  robust  in  terms  of 
qualitative  assessment  of  the  impact  of  Schengen  Facility 
actions/measures.  However,  quantifying  the  impact  of  these 
actions/measures  proved  very  difficult  due  to  the  interplay  of 
external  factors  (e.g.  the  introduction  of  systematic  checks,  the 
changes  in  passenger  and  migration  flows)  and  data  that  is  not 
specific  enough  (e.g.  on  BCP  waiting  times  and  the  place  of 
occurrence of illegal crossings). This is why, the evaluation of the 
impact  relies  mostly  on  qualitative  information  gathered  via 
different sources. 

  No  additional  issues  were  identified  with  the  assessment  of  EU 
added  value,  considering  that  it  relies  mostly  on  the  assessment 
along  the  above  criteria  and  includes  data  on  the  planned 
financing  for  the  management  of  state  borders  per  year,  which 
was readily available. 

EU added value 

53