Explanatory Memorandum to COM(2018)472 - Internal Security Fund - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | COM(2018)472 - Internal Security Fund. |
|---|---|
| source | COM(2018)472  |
| date | 13-06-2018 |
1. CONTEXTOFTHEPROPOSAL
• Reasons for and objectives of the proposal
Over recent years, security threats have intensified and diversified in Europe. They have come in the form of terrorist attacks, new types of organised crime, as well as cybercrime. Security has an inherently cross-border dimension and therefore a strong, coordinated EU response is required. Beyond internal security challenges, Europe faces complex external threats that no Member State can meet on its own. EU action has provided a comprehensive and swift reaction which was formulated in the 2015 Agenda on Security. Security will remain a defining issue for the EU for years to come and Europe's citizens expect their Union and national governments to deliver security in a fast-changing and uncertain world.
The challenges the Union is facing, notably from international terrorism, cannot be managed by individual Member States alone and without the financial and technical support of the EU. In an era where terrorism and other serious crime operate across border, its Member States remain with a responsibility towards their citizens to deliver public security, in full compliance with EU fundamental rights, but the EU can support these actions. In this regard, the Treaties envisage the need to ensure a high level of security, including through preventive measure and through coordination and cooperation between police, judicial and other competent authorities.
The decentralised Agencies, European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol), the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Training (CEPOL) and the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) play key operational, coordination and supporting roles in the implementation of the EU priorities, objectives and activities in the security area.
The Internal Security Fund is set up to facilitate cross border cooperation and exchange of information between Member State law enforcement officials and other relevant authorities, in particular by enabling the interoperability of the different EU information systems for security making borders and migration management more effective and efficient and by facilitating joint operational actions as well as by providing support for training, for the construction of essential security-relevant facilities, for the setting up the collection and for processing of passenger name records in-line with the relevant EU acquis and the purchase of necessary technical equipment. It aims at intensifying cross-border operational cooperation in relation to the prevention, detection and investigation of cross-border crime and at supporting efforts aimed at strengthening the capabilities to prevent such crime including terrorism in particular through increased cooperation between public authorities, civil society and private partners from across the Member States.
In its Communication on A Modern Budget for a Union that Protects, Empowers and Defends1, the Commission proposes to multiply the Union funding to internal security by factor 1.8 as compared to the current period 2014-2020 to ensure a high level of security in the Union and at same time to reinforce the role of the decentralised Agencies in this area. This proposal however does not cover the funding allocated to the Agencies and regulates only the Internal Security Fund that will contribute to ensuring a high level of security in the
COM(2018) 321 final of 2 May 2018.
Union. The financial envelope for the Internal Security Fund in the period 2021-2027 will be EUR 2.5 billion (in current prices).
The main challenge the proposal aims to address is the need for greater flexibility in managing the future Fund, as compared with the current programming period, but also tools to ensure that funding is steered towards EU priorities and actions with a significant added value to the Union. New mechanisms for the allocation of funding between shared, direct and indirect management are needed to address new challenges and priorities.
The funding is implemented though shared management by the Member States and direct/indirect management by the Commission.
The key for the distribution of funding is flexibility in determining the right delivery mode and the themes to which funding needs to be allocated, while maintaining a critical mass of upfront funding for structural and large, multiannual investments in line with Member States’ needs for the further development of their security systems. The allocation of funding will also take fully into account the need for Member States to be fully compliant with the Union acquis and the need to focus investments on key EU priorities.
The allocation of the funding to the programmes of the Member States will be based on a distribution key of three criteria 1) the gross domestic product, 2) size of the territory and 3) population of the state. It is proposed to weigh the different criteria as follows: 45% to inverse proportion to the gross domestic product, 40% to proportion to the size of population and 15% to proportion to the size of the territory of the Member State.
The share for Member States’ programmes is 60 % of the total envelope of the Fund. It is proposed that Member States be provided with 50 % of the envelope at the beginning of the programming period, while retaining the possibility of topping up the envelope periodically. It is envisaged that one fixed top-up of 10 % of the funding envelope will be made at mid-term (technical adjustment of the distribution key subject to financial performance, according to which a Member State should have submitted payment claims covering at least 10 % of the initial amount of payment appropriations).
The remaining 40 % of the overall financial envelope should be managed through the thematic facility, which will periodically provide funding for a number of priorities defined in the Commission financing decisions. This facility offers flexibility in the management of the Fund by disbursing funds to the technical assistance at the initiative of the Commission and to the following components:
– support for specific actions, providing additional funding for dedicated actions with high EU added value, through the Member States’ national programmes;
– support for Union actions, managed through direct and indirect management; and
– emergency assistance.
The programming of the actions under the thematic facility would be implemented through annual and multiannual work programmes adopted by Commission Implementing Decision. The facility will make it possible to address new priorities or take urgent action and to implement them through the delivery mode that is best placed to achieve the policy objective.
Further simplification is needed in the implementation of the instrument, in particular by ensuring a coherent approach with rules applicable to the management of other Union Funds
(‘single rule book’), providing better guidance on the management and control systems and audit requirements, and ensuring that the eligibility rules under shared management make full use of simplified cost options (SCOs). It is also important to maximise EU added value in the areas of intervention and to implement an improved monitoring and evaluation framework so as to strengthen the performance-based management of the funds.
This proposal provides for a date of application as of 1 January 2021 and is presented for a Union of 27 Member States, in line with the notification of the United Kingdom of its intention to withdraw from the European Union and Euratom based on Article 50 of the Treaty on the European Union received by the European Council on 29 March 2017.
• Consistency with existing policy provisions in the policy area
The Internal Security Fund builds on the investments and achievements of its predecessor instruments:
(i) the ‘security and safeguarding liberties’ programme, which consisted of
specific programmes for the ‘prevention of and fight against organised crime’ (ISEC) and for the ‘prevention, preparedness and consequence management of terrorism and other security-related risks’ (CIPS) in the period 2007-2013;
(ii) the instrument for police cooperation, preventing and combating crime and crisis management (ISF-P), which was established by Regulation (EU) No 513/20142 and formed part of the Internal Security Fund in the period 2014-2020 and
(iii) the drugs policy part of the Justice programme established by Regulation (EU) No 1382/20133 in the period 2014-2020.
The above instruments have supported overall EU policies in the area of internal security, e.g. on police cooperation, preventing and combating crime (including counterterrorism, reinforcing coordination and cooperation between Member States’ law enforcement authorities and Europol), and crisis management (protection of people and critical infrastructure) and combatting smuggling of drugs.
Work under the Internal Security Fund will need to be consistent with that of the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol), the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Training (CEPOL) and the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA). The Fund will work in full complementarity with these agencies. In its Communication A Modern Budget for a Union that Protects, Empowers and Defends4, the Commission proposes to allocate an amount of EUR 1 128 000 000 (in current prices) to Union agencies in the area of security. This Regulation does not cover the funding for these agencies. Their funding is determined in the regular annual budgetary procedure.
establishing, as part of the Internal Security Fund, the instrument for financial support for police
cooperation, preventing and combating crime, and crisis management and repealing Council
Decision 2007/125/JHA (OJ L 150, 20.5.2014, p. 93).
establishing a Justice Programme for the period 2014 to 2020.
COM(2018) 321 final (2.5.2018).
2
3
4
• Consistency with other Union policies
The scale and importance as well as the evolving and crosscutting nature of security threats requires a coordinated EU response and intervention of all EU instruments. Security is a cross-cutting issue and the Internal Security Fund without synergies with other funding instruments cannot provide an effective EU response. Security is therefore addressed in several Union programmes. In the first place, security will be addressed in synergy and coherence with the Asylum and Migration Fund and the Integrated Border Management Fund (consisting of the instrument for border management and visa and the customs control equipment instrument). Surveillance i.e. detection of smuggling of illegal goods, explosives, precursors, illegal migration and security screenings at the external borders are key to maintaining the EU's overall security. Another key element of synergy with migration and border policies will come with the major scaling up of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency to fully operational status, with a standing corps of around 10,000 border guards.5
Furthermore synergy and coherence is important with Cohesion Policy Funds, with the security research part of Horizon Europe, the Digital Europe programme, the Justice programme and the Rights and Values programme. Given the intrinsic connections between security and justice on the ground, there will also be particular synergies between the Internal Security Fund and the Justice programme in terms of providing adequate protection to crime victims, funding joint investigation teams and judicial training, ensuring interoperability with the European criminal records information system, improving detention conditions and inter-agency cooperation in the fields of justice and security, including via justice-related agencies such as Eurojust and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office. In the area of drugs policy there are synergies with the European Social Fund+ in particular its health component. Synergies will be sought also in the area of security of infrastructure and public spaces, cybersecurity and the prevention of radicalisation. ESF+ can play an important role in preventing radicalisation through better integration and ERDF as well as InvestEU can play a key role in increasing the security of investments in infrastructure throughout the Union and cybersecurity can be addressed through increasing the security of IT systems. This issue is like security a cross-border and cross-sectoral phenomena and an important element of the Digital Europe programme and therefore synergies with the Internal Security Fund need to be ensured.
Security in global issues and actions beyond the borders of the Union can have a significant impact on the internal security of the Union. Therefore measures in and in relation to third countries will continue to be supported through the Fund but should be implemented in full synergy and coherence with and should complement other actions outside the Union supported through the Union's external financing instruments including the instrument for pre-accession assistance. In particular, in implementing such actions, full coherence should be sought with the principles and general objectives of the Union’s external action and foreign policy related to the country or region in question. In relation to the external dimension, the Fund should enhance cooperation with third countries in areas of interest to the Union’s internal security, such as countering terrorism and radicalisation, cooperation with third country law enforcement authorities in the fight against terrorism (including detachments and joint investigation teams), serious and organised crime and corruption, trafficking in human beings and migrant smuggling. Security is also closely linked to defence and in the area of
"A Modern Budget for a Union that Protects, Empowers and Defends: The Multiannual Financial Framework for 2021-2027", COM(2018) 321, 2.5.2018.
5
defence the Union has to take greater responsibility for protecting its interest, values and the European way of life.
2. LEGALBASIS, SUBSIDIARITYAND PROPORTIONALITY
• Legal basis
The EU’s right to act in the area of home affairs derives in particular from Article 3(2) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), which states that ‘the Union shall offer its citizens an area of freedom, security and justice without internal frontiers, in which the free movement of persons is ensured in conjunction with appropriate measures with respect to external border controls, asylum, immigration and the prevention and combating of crime’.
Union action is justified on the grounds of the objectives referred to in Article 67 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), which sets out the means to constitute an area of freedom, security and justice. Attention is also drawn to Article 80 TFEU, which underlines that these Union policies and their implementation are to be governed by the principle of solidarity and fair sharing of responsibility, including its financial implications, between the Member States.
This Regulation is based on Articles 82(1), 84 and 87(2) TFEU, which constitute compatible legal bases in the light of the specific legal circumstances that apply to decision-making under Title V of the TFEU.
This Regulation will provide financial support on the basis of common Union policies (strategies, programmes and action plans), legislation, practical cooperation, and threat and risk assessments. Consequently, the programme that currently provides financial support in this policy area (ISF-Police) should be repealed with effect from 1 January 2021, subject to transitional rules.
Additionally, the Commission adopted on 29 May 2018 a proposal for a Common Provisions Regulation6 in order to improve the coordination and harmonise the implementation of support under shared management, with the main aim of simplifying policy delivery. The shared management part of ISF is covered by these common provisions.
The different Funds in shared management pursue complementary objectives and share the same management mode, therefore Regulation (EU) No [CPR] sets out a series of common principles such as partnership. That Regulation also contains the common elements of strategic planning and programming, including provisions on the Partnership Agreement to be concluded with each Member State, and sets out a common approach to the performance orientation of the Funds. Accordingly, it includes enabling conditions and arrangements for monitoring, reporting and evaluation. Common provisions are also set out with regard to eligibility rules, financial management and management and control arrangements.
• Subsidiarity (for non-exclusive competence)
The management of security threats presents challenges that cannot be dealt with by the Member States acting alone. Overall, this is an area where there is clear added value in Union intervention and in mobilising the EU budget.
COM(2018) 375 of 29 May 2018.
6
In the area of security, serious and organised crime, terrorism and other security-related threats are increasingly cross-border in nature. Transnational cooperation and coordination between law enforcement authorities is essential if these threats are to be prevented and addressed, for example through the exchange of information, joint investigations, interoperable technologies and common threat and risk assessments. Financial support under this Regulation will help to strengthen national and European capabilities in those policy areas, facilitating the establishment of a Union framework for expressing solidarity and a platform for the development of common IT systems underpinning these policies.
Dealing with the security of the EU requires substantial resources and capabilities from the Member States. Improved operational cooperation and coordination involving the pooling of Member States’ resources creates economies of scale and synergies, thereby ensuring more efficient use of public funds and reinforcing solidarity, mutual trust and responsibility-sharing for common EU policies. This is particularly relevant in the area of security, where financial support for all forms of cross-border joint operation is essential to improve cooperation between police, customs, border guards and judicial authorities.
In relation to the external dimension of home affairs, it is clear that the adoption of measures and the pooling of resources at EU level will increase significantly the leverage that the EU needs to persuade other countries to engage with it on those security-related issues that are primarily in the interest of the EU and the Member States.
This proposal respects the principle of subsidiarity, as most of the funding will be implemented under shared management in line with the institutional competencies of the Member States, while fully acknowledging that intervention should take place at an appropriate level and the role of the Union should not go beyond what is necessary.
Proportionality
The proposal complies with the proportionality principle, and falls within the scope for action in the area of freedom, security and justice, as defined in Title V of the TFEU. The objectives and corresponding funding levels are proportional to what the Fund aims to achieve. The actions envisaged by this proposal address the European dimension of police cooperation.
Choice
of instrument
Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council to establish an Internal Security Fund.
3. RESULTS OF EX POST EVALUATIONS, STAKEHOLDER
Contents
- CONSULTATIONS
- Further simplification is needed in the implementation of the instrument, in particular by ensuring a coherent approach with rules applicable to the management of other Union Funds
- Regulation (EU) No 513/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014
- Regulation (EU) No 1382/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013
- The
- The monitoring and evaluation framework, including an improved tracking methodology for investments across relevant EU funds, will be improved to stimulate timely performance and
ANDIMPACTASSESSMENTS
• Ex post evaluations/fitness checks of existing legislation
The proposal takes into account the results of evaluations of the previous funding instruments for police cooperation. It builds on the ex post evaluation of CIPS and ISEC, which were the instruments in the 2007-2013 programming period, and the interim evaluation of the Internal Security Fund, the instrument for police cooperation, preventing and combating crime, and crisis management, which is the Fund in the current (2014-2020) period. In terms of the different evaluation criteria, the findings were as follows:
The police instrument (ISF-P) has been mainly effective and has contributed to a high level of security in the Union by preventing and combating cross-border, serious and organised crime, including terrorism, and reinforcing coordination and cooperation between law-enforcement authorities. It has also helped to improve Member States’ ability to manage security-related risks and crises effectively and, to a lesser extent, to protect people and critical infrastructures against terrorist attacks and other security-related incidents. The evidence indicates that it has helped to enhance cooperation and coordination among Member States and European bodies, and to improve Member States’ ability to develop comprehensive threat and risk assessments, although it has funded relatively few projects at national and Union level. Several Union actions have been funded in the area of early warning and cooperation on crisis prevention (e.g. the ATLAS network).
However, to date the ISF-P has made limited progress in reinforcing Member States’ administrative and operational ability to protect critical infrastructure, protecting victims, developing training schemes and exchange programmes, and taking action with non-EU countries and international organisations, although most projects relating to these operational objectives are still ongoing.
Concerning efficiency, overall, within the limits of available data, the evaluation indicated that the results of the instrument were achieved at reasonable costs in terms of both human and financial resources. Some Member States have put in place national efficiency measures. However, most Member States face problems with the EU guidance, common indicators and reporting/monitoring calendar. Despite simplification improvements, the perceived administrative burden can be considered to have undermined efficiency.
The single set of procedures for the three funds (Internal Security Fund-Police, Internal Security Fund - Borders and Visa instrument (ISF-BV) and the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF)) was found to lead to simplification. The few Member States that used the simplified cost option acknowledged its efficiency in reducing the administrative burden. However, the simplification measures and measures to reduce administrative burden have only partially achieved their intended goals. In spite of simplification improvements, there is little evidence, at this stage, of a significant reduction in the administrative burden. Monitoring, reporting and control measures are still perceived as burdensome and Member States have asked for further guidance to comply with EU requirements. The reporting requirements and the irrelevance of some indicators were also reported as adding to the administrative burden.
The instrument’s original rationale and objectives are still relevant in the aftermath of the migratory and security crisis. Appropriate mechanisms have been put in place to address the changing needs at both the programming and the implementation stages. The flexibility offered by the instrument (possibility of transferring funding between objectives) helped in addressing the changing needs; however, Member States would appreciate the even greater flexibility that would come from reducing the number of national objectives and abandoning minimum allocation levels per objective.
The instrument is considered to be coherent and its objectives complementary to those of other national policies. Coherence and complementarity with other EU financing instruments were ensured at the design, programming and implementation stages. Coordinating mechanisms have been put in place to ensure coherence and complementarity at the implementation stage. The monitoring committee and the responsible authorities play key roles in ensuring coherence. Different implementation modes have been mutually
complementary. However, there appears to be some room for improvement in relation to EU agencies and to internal coherence, as there is little awareness among beneficiaries about actions and projects in the ISF framework.
Overall, the instrument has ensured EU added value in terms of improving cross-border cooperation, exchange of knowledge and best practices, trust among Member States’ law enforcement authorities and the application and implementation of key EU policies (process effects). It has also helped to broaden the scope and improve the quality of the actions in terms of investment in under-prioritised or highly specialised areas. The purchase of state-of-the-art equipment has enhanced the national authorities’ ability to perform specialised interventions with a wider scope. The instrument has also led to a broadening of the types of knowledge-exchange and law-enforcement training (scope effects). It has contributed to the harmonisation of EU-level research on crime prevention, facilitated increased investments and focused on long-term measures in this area. It has also enabled high-volume investments, especially in IT systems, training and specialised equipment (volume effects). The absence of ISF-P funding would have been detrimental to the quality of the EU response to cross-border cooperation and to Member States’ ability to implement innovative solutions (role effects).
The instrument’s sustainability has been ensured through the alignment and complementarity of its actions with actions developed in response to national priorities or EU requirements. Comprehensive measures and mechanisms ensuring sustainability were put in place at the programming and implementation stages, under both shared and direct management. However, the ongoing implementation of most projects makes it difficult to establish whether the effects on the target groups and on specific areas will continue to last.
Stakeholder
consultations
Two dedicated open public consultations on EU funds in the areas of migration and security ran from 10 January to 9 March 2018. Overall, respondents strongly emphasised the need for simplification in the delivery of home affairs funding instruments, greater flexibility (specifically in relation to the ability to respond to migration and security-related crises) and increased funding and support in areas with high levels of responsibility-sharing (asylum and border management) and/or cooperation between Member States and with home affairs agencies. Responses demonstrate that these measures can improve the effectiveness and efficiency of instruments, and EU added value. Stakeholders also pointed to the need for greater home affairs policy leverage in third countries.
Member States’ responsible authorities were consulted in the framework of the AMIF-ISF Committee. Member States provided input on the main funding priorities, problems, the architecture of the funds and delivery modes. Other key stakeholders and beneficiaries of AMIF and ISF funding through direct and indirect management, such as international organisations and civil society organisations, were also consulted, as were home affairs agencies.
Stakeholders concurred that in order to maximise EU added value, EU spending should reflect EU-level priorities and policy commitments and support the implementation of the EU home affairs acquis. They called for sufficient funding to be made available to face current and newly emerging challenges. Sufficient funding should also be made available for home affairs agencies, in line with their increasing activities. Stakeholders agreed on the need for more flexibility to be built into the structure of the funds. They found that, in order to retain sufficient flexibility to be able to react to changing circumstances, the multiannual national
programmes should be maintained. Non-governmental organisations were of the view that direct management should also be continued.
These consultations confirmed an overall consensus among key stakeholders on the need to retain a wide scope of action for EU funding, including as regards its external dimension, enhancing the impact of home affairs policies, more simplification in delivery mechanisms and greater flexibility, in particular to respond to emergencies.
Collection
and use of expertise
Work on the preparation of the future financial instruments for home affairs started in 2016 and continued into 2017 and 2018. As part of this work, MFF studies were carried out in 2017 to support the impact assessment which was launched in September 2017. These studies brought together available results from evaluations of the existing financial instruments and from the stakeholder consultations, and explored the problems, objectives and policy options, including their likely impact, as examined in the impact assessment.
Impact
assessment
An
impact assessment has been carried out for the proposal.
impact assessment covered
the following: the Asylum and Migration Fund, Internal Security Fund and the Integrated Border Management Fund, which is composed of the Instrument for Border Management and Visa and the Instrument for Customs Control Equipment. The summary sheet of the impact assessment and the positive opinion of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board can be found on the following website ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/?fuseaction=ia.
The impact assessment report analyses different policy options in terms of how the funding will be delivered, addressing the coherence and complementarities with other EU funding instruments, the external dimension of the migration and security funding, flexibility in a stable financial environment (including thematic facility), implementation modalities (shared, direct and indirect management), the possibility to provide emergency assistance as well as the mid-term review mechanism. The preferred option is a mix of options building on results and recommendations of the ex-post evaluation of the previous Funds (2007-2013 programming period) and the interim evaluations of the current Funds (2014-2020 programming period).
The impact assessment addresses the recommendations made by the Regulatory Scrutiny Board. The table below outlines the main considerations and recommendations for improvement received for the Asylum and Migration Fund, the Border Management and Visa Instrument (as part of the Integrated Border Management Fund) and the Internal Security Fund and how the impact assessment report was amended to reflect these.
| Main considerations Regulatory Scrutiny Board | Modifications impact assessment report |
| The report does not explain how increasing EU competence in these areas [of home affairs] and expanded role of agencies will affect the overall system. | For the Asylum and Migration Fund, the Border Management and Visa Instrument (as part of the Integrated Border Management Fund) and the Internal Security Fund, the report has been revised to explain how the extension of EU competence and larger role of Agencies affects the roles of the respective Funds (section 3.2). Having a key role in the implementation |
| of Union migration and security policies, Home Affairs Agencies will have an important role during the programming phase of national programmes while their monitoring activities would feed into the midterm review. An expanded mandate of the Agencies would not have as purpose to substitute the current tasks performed by Member States but rather to enhance and upgrade actions of the Union and its Member States in the area of migration, border management and security | |
| Further considerations and recommendations for improvement | Modifications impact assessment report |
| (1) The report should present the main changes in the programme structure and the priorities compared to the current programming period. Moreover, the report should clarify the scope of the external component of the programme, i.e. its complementarity with the external instruments. | The report has been revised to present the main changes to the programme structure compared to the current programming period (section 3.2) and to clarify the scope of the external component and its complementarity with the external instruments (section 3.3). The objectives of the Funds are based on the scope of their predecessors which, in general, were considered sufficiently broad to support the implementation of EU policy priorities, providing EU added value. Adaptations to priorities and actions reflect policy developments and the need for synergies with other EU Funds. Interventions in the external dimension will be designed and implemented in coherence with EU external action and foreign policy, in particular with the EU’s external Instrument. |
| (2) The report should also explain how the extension of EU competence and larger role for agencies affects the roles of the respective programmes. Does it increase the need for actions at national level, for delegation to the agencies, or reduce the priority of some interventions? | Please see the modifications made to the report accommodating the main consideration by the Regulatory Scrutiny Board presented above. |
| (3) The Board understands that the new mechanism for performance reserves was still under development when drafting the report. Its final version should however update and clarify the chosen mechanism and justify it in the light of experience from other EU funds (as orally explained to the Board). | The report has been revised to update and clarify the preferred mechanism, taking into account experience from other EU Funds and developments in the framework of preparing the future Common Provisions Regulation for shared management (section 4.1.4). No dedicated performance reserve is presented in the preferred option. A minimum level of financial implementation is included for allocating top-up funding in the technical adjustment at mid-term while performance elements would be taken into account when providing additional funds via the thematic facility. |
| (4) The report should clarify how the new emergency mechanism will function within the envelopes of each of the three funds for migration and security, and that the use of emergency assistance should be limited due to the new flexibility provided by the thematic facility. It should explain the advantage of this mechanism over emergency funding in the previous programming period. | The report has been revised to provide clarifications on how the new emergency mechanism will function (section 4.1.3). Emergency assistance provided through the Funds should be complementary to the Emergency Aid Reserve (at the level of the EU budget) and be used in clearly defined situations. Due to the flexibility embedded in the thematic facility, the use of emergency assistance is expected to be more limited than in the current programming period. Emergency assistance may be implemented through shared, direct or indirect management. |
The monitoring arrangements are not well developed. The report should clarify how the programmes’ success will be defined and measured.
The report has been revised (section 5.1) to present the measurement of the success of the programmes. This will be based on objectives set between Commission and Member States, to be agreed in the national programmes, and the subsequent measurement of achievements towards those objectives, through output and result indicators included in the legal proposals. Reporting requirements for shared management are laid down in the Common Provisions Regulation.
Regulatory
fitness and simplification
The Common Provisions Regulation7 (common to all shared management policy areas) will ensure simplification of the Fund through the use, as far as possible, of common rules for the implementation of programmes. Furthermore, Member States will be encouraged to increase the use of simplified cost options. The audit approach will be streamlined to focus more on risk-based audit sampling and to follow the ‘single audit’ principle in order to reduce
administrative burden.
Further simplification under direct management will be achieved through the use of common Commission-wide IT tools (e-Grants management system).
Fundamental
rights
Financial support from the Union budget is indispensable to the implementation of the ISF to support Member States in their efforts to ensure a high level of security in the Union, in particular by tackling terrorism and radicalisation, serious and organised crime and cybercrime and by assisting and protecting victims of crime while acting in full respect of fundamental rights. These objectives will be pursued in full compliance with the Union’s commitments on fundamental rights. This will be monitored closely during the implementation of the Fund.
4. BUDGETARYIMPLICATIONS
The Commission’s proposal for a multiannual financial framework includes EUR 2 500 000 000 (in current prices) for the Internal Security Fund for the 2021-2027 period.
Implementation will be by means of shared or direct/indirect management. The financial envelope shall be used as follows: 60% will be allocated to the Member States’ programmes to be implemented under shared management, while 40% will be allocated to the thematic facility and used for specific actions at national or transnational level, Union actions and emergency assistance. The thematic facility envelope will be used also for the technical assistance at the initiative of the Commission.
5. OTHERELEMENTS
• Implementation plans and monitoring, evaluation and reporting arrangements
The monitoring and evaluation framework, including an improved tracking methodology for investments across relevant EU funds, will be improved to stimulate timely performance and
Regulation (EU) X
to ensure that evaluations can provide effective input for any future revisions of policy interventions. This will be done through better indicators, closer cooperation with relevant partners and mechanisms to incentivise performance. A mid-term evaluation and a retrospective evaluation will be carried out by the Commission. These will be carried out in line with paragraph 22 and 23 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 13 April 2016, where the three institutions confirmed that evaluations of existing legislation and policy should provide the basis for impact assessment of options for further action. The evaluations will assess the Fund’s effects on the ground based on indicators and targets and on a detailed analysis of the degree to which the fund can be deemed relevant, effective, efficient, provides enough EU added value and is coherent with other EU policies. They will include lessons learnt to identify any lacks, problems or any potential to further improve the actions or their results and to help maximise their impact.
In term of reporting, the Member States are expected to report on the implementation of their programmes in accordance with the modalities set out in this Regulation and in the Common Provisions Regulation.
Detailed
explanation of the specific provisions of the proposal
Chapter I — General provisions of the proposed Regulation sets out its purpose, scope and key definitions. It also sets out the objectives of the Regulation and the scope of the support to be provided. The proposed scope of these Articles builds largely on the current Regulation for the Internal Security Fund-Police, while taking into account new policy developments, such as the European agenda on security, the fight against terrorism, serious and organised crime and cybercrime, and the new interoperability agenda.
Chapter II — Financial and implementation framework sets out general principles for the support provided under the Regulation and conveys the importance of consistency and complementarity with relevant EU funding instruments. The chapter furthermore stipulates the delivery modes for the actions supported under the Regulation: shared, direct and indirect management. The proposed mix of delivery modes is based on the positive experience with this combination in the implementation of the current funding instrument.
The first section of the chapter lays down the financial framework. The proposal indicates an amount for the financial envelope for the Fund and its use through various implementation arrangements.
The second, third and fourth sections describe the implementation framework for the Fund, such as programmes from the Commission and the Member States. The conditions applying to actions supported under the Regulation are also set out, such as those relating to the purchase of equipment and training activities. The section sets out detailed arrangements for the mid-term review of Member States’ programmes and for the implementation of specific actions, Union actions, emergency assistance, technical assistance, blending operations, and operating support.
The fifth and final section sets out the necessary provisions on annual performance reports by Member States, monitoring and evaluation.
Chapter III — Transitional and final provisions contains provisions on the delegation of power to the Commission to adopt delegated acts, and on the Committee procedure. The date of entry into force of the proposed Regulation is set and it is stipulated that the Regulation
will be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States in accordance with the Treaties, from 1 January 2021.