COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE EVALUATION Ex-post Evaluation for the Internal Security Fund - Borders and Visa (ISF-BV) for the 2014-2020 programming period
Date: 2026-03-03
Institutions: Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs, European Commission
Subjects: EU migration policy, EU visa policy, Schengen Agreement, external border of the EU, fund (EU), migration control, project evaluation, public safety

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 3.3.2026  SWD(2026) 76 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE EVALUATION  Ex-post Evaluation for the Internal Security Fund - Borders and Visa (ISF-BV) for the 2014-2020 programming period  {SWD(2026) 75 final}  
 
 
BACKGROUND TO THE EVALUATION 

The Regulation (1) establishing the Internal Security Fund – Borders and Visa (henceforward 
“the ISF-BV” or “the Instrument”) for the 2014-2020 programming period, was adopted on 16 
April 2014. 

The Instrument was allocated an initial budget of EUR 2 760 million for all management modes. 
At the end of the programming period the total allocation had been EUR 2 900 million. The 
biggest share of funding (about 83% in the final total allocation) went to national programmes 
in shared management. 

ISF-BV  is  implemented  under  shared,  direct  and  indirect  management.  The  programming 
occurs either at the Member State level through the national programmes or at the Commission 
level,  via  Annual  Work  Programmes  (Union  Actions,  Specific  Actions  and  Emergency 
Assistance).  

During the 2014-2020 programming period, the Home Affairs Funds are governed by a separate 
legal act, i.e., the Horizontal Regulation2, with the rationale to ensure a better coordination and 
management between them.  

The ISF-BV has the general objective to contribute to ensuring a high level of security in the 
Union while facilitating legitimate travel, through a uniform and high level of control of the 
external borders and the effective processing of Schengen visas, in compliance with the Union’s 
commitment to fundamental rights and freedoms. Within this general objective, the Instrument 
pursued two specific objectives (SO):  

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

2.  Supporting integrated border management, including promoting further harmonisation 
of border management-related measures in accordance with common Union standards 
and through the sharing of information between Member States and between Member 
States and the Frontex Agency. It  aims to ensure, on one hand, a uniform and high 
level  of control  and protection of the  external borders, including by the tackling of 
illegal immigration and, on the other hand, the smooth crossing of the external borders 
in  conformity  with  the  Schengen  acquis,  while  guaranteeing  access  to  international 
protection for those needing it, in accordance with the obligations of  Member States 
with regard to the respect for human rights, as enshrined in relevant national, EU and 
international laws, including the principle of non-refoulement.  

1 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. 
2 Regulation (EU) No 514/2014 (OJ L 150, 20.5.2014, p. 112, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2014/514/oj 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
The purpose of this document is set out in Article 57(2)(b) of the Horizontal Regulation which 
requires  the  Commission  to  carry  out  an  ex-post  evaluation  by  30  June  20253 to  assess  the 
effects of the ISF-BV following the closure of the national programmes.  

The temporal scope of this ex-post evaluation of the ISF-BV covers the period 1 January 2014 
to  30  June  2024.  Initially,  funded  activities  were  meant  to  end  by  30  June  2023.  However, 
following the Russian war of aggression towards Ukraine, an extension of the implementation 
of the funds by one year was agreed, so that Member States might make full use of still available 
funding to face the consequences of the war (4). Consequently, the deadline for the Commission 
to carry out an ex-post evaluation was also extended by one year, to 30 June 2025. 

The  geographical  scope  includes  all  ISF-BV  participating  countries,  i.e.  all  Member  States, 
except  for  Ireland  and  the  United  Kingdom,  as  well  as  the  Schengen  Associated  Countries 
(Norway,  Iceland,  Switzerland,  and  Liechtenstein).  The  evaluation  relied  on  qualitative  and 
quantitative  methods,  including  the  consultation  of  Member  States,  Commission  officials, 
implementing partners and beneficiaries.  

MAIN FINDINGS AND LESSONS LEARNED 

Effectiveness 

The  ISF-BV  proved  effective  in  supporting  Member  States  in  progressing  towards  the  two 
objectives in the areas of visa policy and external border management. National programmes 
were largely completed, with high absorption rates and delivery against targets. Despite major 
challenges - including the COVID-19 pandemic, Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, 
and shifting national priorities in migration and border policy - ISF-BV activities remained on 
track.  The  one-year  extension  introduced  by  the  Commission  was  acknowledged  as 
instrumental in ensuring the continuation and finalisation of key actions. 

The ISF-BV supported a range of activities designed to strengthen border surveillance, enhance 
risk  analysis  capabilities,  and  modernise  information-sharing  mechanisms.  Funding  was 
allocated to the development and maintenance of large-scale EU security systems, including 
the  Schengen  Information  System  and  the  Visa  Information  System.  Investments  were  also 
made  in  border  control  equipment,  ICT  infrastructure,  and  personnel  training  to  ensure 
harmonised and efficient border management across Member States. Additionally, the ISF-BV 
sought  to  improve  cooperation  between  border  authorities,  foster  intelligence-sharing,  and 
enhance operational coordination with Frontex. These measures were expected to lead to more 
effective border controls, a more efficient and harmonised visa policy, and an overall reduction 
in security vulnerabilities at the EU’s external borders. 

3 The implementation period of the Home Affairs Funds 2014-2020 (including of the ISF-BV) was extended in 
2022 by 1 year (from 30 June 2023 to 30 June 2024) to allow the Member States to fully use any unspent amounts 
from those programmes, and, where necessary, to swiftly revise the implementation of their programmes to address 
the  challenges  arising  from  the  invasion  of  Ukraine  by  the  Russian  Federation  on  24  February  2022  (See 
Regulation (EU) 2022/585 amending Regulations (EU) No 514/2014). 
4 The implementation period of the Home Affairs Funds 2014-2020 was extended in 2022 by 1 year ( from 30 
June 2023 to 30 June 2024) to allow the Member States to fully use any unspent amounts from those programmes, 
and, where necessary, to swiftly revise the implementation of their programmes to address the challenges arising 
from the invasion of Ukraine by the Russian Federation on 24 February 2022 (See Regulation (EU) 2022/585). 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
The Instrument has contributed effectively to the harmonisation of the EU visa policy and to 
the more effective and uniform application of the Union acquis on visas. However, the depth 
of implementation varied between Member States. On the other side, the role of the Fund in 
expanding the geographical coverage of consular services remained limited. 

As  regards  border  management,  the  ISF-BV  played  an  important  role  in  strengthening  the 
monitoring  of  borders  across  Member  States,  notably  by  supporting  investments  in 
infrastructure, biometric verification tools, and border guard training. These efforts resulted in 
tangible improvements to the effectiveness of border controls.  In this regard, the support in the 
preparation of EES and ETIAS was essential. 

Emergency Assistance under the ISF-BV played a targeted and timely role in addressing acute 
migration and border management crises between 2014 and 2020, especially during the peak of 
irregular migration flows in 2015-2017. Most actions were aimed at border surveillance and 
control,  migratory  pressure  management,  strengthening  first  reception  services,  operational 
support,  search  and  rescue  operations,  infrastructure  development  and  provision  for  legal 
information/interpretation for the effective management of immigration flows particularly in 
Greece, Italy and Bulgaria. 

The quantitative regression analysis indicates that ISF-BV funding has had a significant impact 
on the effectiveness of integrated border management, even if the scale of such an impact was 
limited  given  the  volume  of  funding.  Specifically,  a  statistically  significant  correlation  was 
observed  between  expenditure  under  Specific  Objective  2  and  an  increase  in  the  number  of 
detections of fraudulent travel at border crossing points. 

Efficiency 

The  analysis  identified  varying  degrees  of  efficiency  among  Member  States,  with  top-
performing  countries  achieving  substantial  outcomes  at  lower  costs,  while  mid-tier  and  low 
performers  varied  in  efficiency.  The  analysis,  conducted  for  Specific  Objectives  1  and  2, 
revealed that efficiency is influenced not only by the type of intervention but also by the specific 
contexts and needs of each Member State. 

In  general,  there  was  a  positive  perception  of  the  cost-effectiveness  of  the  funding  amongst 
stakeholders. Moreover, mechanisms such as rigorous cost control, lean project management, 
and comprehensive risk assessments were implemented at the Member State level to enhance 
cost-effectiveness.  Yet,  systematic  data  collection  needed  for  this  calculation  was  lacking. 
Hence, a comprehensive analysis of efficiency was not possible. 

The  efficiency  of  the  interventions  was  influenced  by  a  series  of  factors.  The  COVID-19 
pandemic  significantly  impacted  project  timelines  and  indicator  achievements,  prompting 
adjustments in project management and monitoring practices; limited staff supply often caused 
project  delays  and  increased  the  burden  on  existing  staff;  price  surges  due  to  inflation  also 
affected cost-effectiveness; compliance with public procurement, which is itself an element of 
cost-effectiveness,  sometimes  posed  challenges,  leading  to  project  delays  in  some  Member 
States. 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Simplification and reduction of administrative burden 

The  Instrument introduced significant  provisions to  simplify funding procedures and  reduce 
administrative burden. However, their implementation and impact were uneven.  

The introduction of the Multi-Annual Programming is widely considered the most successful 
simplification measure. It has significantly reduced administrative burden by allowing long-
term  planning  and  resource  allocation,  thus  ensuring  a  stable  and  predictable  funding 
framework.  

Responsive  and  adaptive  national  eligibility  rules  ensured  that  funds  remained  flexible  and 
aligned with national needs, fostering greater agility in project implementation. Despite these 
benefits, challenges remain, such as the need to balance flexibility with EU compliance, as well 
as misalignments between national and EU rules that still contribute to bureaucratic complexity.  

Several  Member  States  successfully  applied  simplified  cost  options  during  the  2014-2020 
programming  period.  Their  use  has  indeed  proven  to  be  an  effective  tool  in  reducing 
administrative burden for both Member States and beneficiaries. However, despite their widely 
recognised benefits, simplified cost options were not universally adopted. 

Procurement  remains  a  significant  challenge  due  to  lengthy  procedures,  substantial 
documentation requirements, and rules which continue to slow project implementation in some 
Member States. In addition, public procurement rules are supplemented by national regulations 
tailored  to  the  specific  context  of  each  Member  State,  with  a  corresponding  impact  on 
administrative burden. 

Operating  support  has  proven  effective  in  streamlining  fund  management  by  allowing 
authorities to focus on essential tasks, such as maintaining systems and ensuring operational 
stability without the complexity of project-based funding procedures. This support has reduced 
the administrative burden and simplified processes. 

Coherence and complementarity 

The ISF-BV was considered internally coherent, as different components serve to meet specific, 
differentiated needs. There are formal and informal mechanisms in place at the EU and national 
levels  to  ensure  complementarities  and,  where  relevant,  synergies  across  the  different 
components of the ISF-BV. Union Actions provided an added value as it financed transnational 
actions or actions of particular interest to the EU. Nonetheless, given that they were directly or 
indirectly managed by the Commission, it was harder to ensure synergies with national level 
funding during the implementation stage.  

In terms of external coherence, coordination mechanisms between the ISF-BV and other EU 
funds exist at the programming stage, inside the Commission and through the Home Affairs 
Committee. However, this is less clear at the implementation stage.  

While  the  study  identified  that  different  examples  of  mechanisms  were  in  place  to  ensure 
complementarity with national initiatives, the evaluation could not confirm formal mechanisms 
existed  across  all  Member  States.  In  general,  the  stakeholders  consulted  considered  that  the 
ISF-BV is complementary to national-level policies and funding instruments. The stakeholder 

4 

 
 
 
 
consultations  did  not  identify  cases  of  duplication  or  overlap  between  the  Instrument  and 
national funding instruments.  

The  ISF-BV  is  coherent  with  the  objectives  and  activities  of  the  other  Home  Affairs  Funds 
(AMIF  and  ISF-Police),  as  well  as  other  EU  funds.  An  area  seen  to  be  important  was  the 
coherence between ISF-BV and the Horizon 2020 programme, as no other funding mechanism 
existed  to  further  build  on  the  pipeline  of  border  management  related  innovation  developed 
under the Horizon 2020 programme. Yet, stakeholders were often unaware of the relevant R&D 
projects funded in their country. As a result, Member States did not generally prioritise follow 
up to Horizon 2020 under the ISF-BV as they tended to focus on addressing more immediate 
needs.  

With regard to the ISF-BV funding in relation to third countries, no overlaps were identified 
with other EU funding in third countries. Coordination between the participating countries and 
DG HOME has become much closer and more institutionalised since the migration crisis of 
2015 which made the topic a political priority.  

As  far  as  coherence  with  external  spending  programmes  is  concerned,  notably  the  NDICI, 
enhanced  cooperation  and  coordination  on  programming  both  between  the  Commission 
services and with EU Member States are needed. There are several challenges in the current 
funding architecture that should be addressed, including notably: the insufficient alignment of 
the Union’s external migration and security funding with the Union policies in these areas; the 
persistent challenge to use all existing (policy, funding, investment and other) tools, both at the 
disposal  of the EU and its Member States, in  a Team  Europe spirit, to  use strategically and 
timely  leverage in relation to partner countries in order to improve cooperation on migration 
and  security;  the  limitations  for  funding  migration-  and  security-related  actions  in  third 
countries, given that most of spending in the external dimension must comply with the criteria 
for development assistance (5) eligibility. 

Finally, the ISF-BV is coherent with Frontex activities due to the involvement of Frontex at 
planning  stage.  The  implementation  of  national  capability  planning  is  expected  to  further 
increase the alignment of DG Home funding and Frontex activities. 

EU added value 

The ISF-BV’s support increased the overall resources available for border control and migration 
management. Without the support of the Instrument, several Member States reported that they 
would have struggled to  implement  essential EU policies effectively.  An interruption of the 
Instrument would pose challenges for most participating countries, risking setbacks in critical 
operations.  

Sustainability 

Many ISF-BV-supported infrastructure and IT investments are expected to remain in use well 
beyond the funding period, particularly where national budgets or strategic frameworks ensured 
their integration into core operations. However, reliance on EU funding of some Member States 

5  Official  development  assistance  eligibility  criteria  is  set  by  the  Organisation  for  Economic  Cooperation  and 
Development. 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
remains  a  concern  for  high-maintenance  assets,  particularly  in  those  Member  States  with 
budgetary constraints. 

Relevance 

The evaluation  confirmed that the objectives and actions funded under  ISF-BV were highly 
relevant  to  the  identified  needs  of  Member  States.  The  design  of  national  programmes  was 
informed by an assessment of national  strategic documents defining long-term  goals  and by 
stakeholder consultations, ensuring that priorities reflect their needs. Policy dialogue between 
the Commission and the Member States allowed for addressing challenges encountered during 
the previous funding period. 

ISF-BV  demonstrated  significant  flexibility,  allowing  Member  States  to  adapt  their  national 
programmes in  response to evolving needs and emerging challenges in border management. 
This  adaptability  was  crucial  to  maintaining  the  relevance  of  the  programme  throughout  its 
implementation  period  (2014-2020),  particularly  in  light  of  unforeseen  events  such  as  the 
COVID-19 pandemic and shifting migratory patterns. 

Union Actions under ISF-BV were found to be relevant in addressing transnational needs that 
are  of  particular  interest  to  the  EU  as  a  whole  and  funding  through  Emergency  Assistance 
effectively addressed urgent needs arising from crises at the external borders, providing timely 
and tailored support to Member States facing disproportionate migratory pressures. 

6