EUROPEAN TRAINING SCHEME Mapping of Law ... › ... › LETS_Management_Summary.pdfEuropean Training Scheme by delivering a comprehensive picture (who is doing what) on the current

ETS Mapping Exercise – Management Summary

EUROPEAN TRAINING SCHEME

Mapping of Law Enforcement Training in the

European Union

MANAGEMENT SUMMARY


INDEX

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 1

1. CONTRIBUTORS TO THE SURVEY ............................................................................................. 2

2. MAIN FINDINGS ON THE LAW ENFORCEMENT STRUCTURES IN THE MEMBER

STATES .................................................................................................................................................. 3

3. MAIN FINDINGS ON STRAND 1 ................................................................................................ 3

3.1 Strand description ...................................................................................................................... 3

3.2 Law enforcement training as provided within the European Union .................................. 3

3.2.1 Training on national level .................................................................................................. 3

3.2.2 Training on international level .......................................................................................... 4

3.3. Law enforcement training needs ............................................................................................. 5


4.1 Strand Description ...................................................................................................................... 6

4.2 Law enforcement training as provided within the European Union .................................. 6

4.2.1 Training on national level .................................................................................................. 6

4.2.2 Training on international level .......................................................................................... 7

4.3 Law enforcement training needs .............................................................................................. 8


5.1 Strand Description ...................................................................................................................... 9

5.2 Specialised training as provided within the European Union ............................................. 9

5.2.1 Training on a national level ............................................................................................... 9

5.2.2 Training on international level ........................................................................................ 11

5.3 Specialised training needs .......................................................................................................12

6. MAIN FINDINGS ON STRAND 4 ..............................................................................................13

6.1 Strand description ....................................................................................................................13

6.2 Training for missions in third countries as provided within the European Union ........14

6.2.1 Training on national level ................................................................................................ 14


6.2.2 Training on international level ........................................................................................ 15

6.3 Need for mission training .......................................................................................................15

6.4 Transfer of knowledge to third countries .............................................................................15

7. COMPARISON OF EU AGENCIES OPERATING IN THE JHA AREA ................................16

8. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................17

8.1 Conclusions ...............................................................................................................................17

8.2 Recommendations ....................................................................................................................19

9. ANNEX - ACRONYMS .................................................................................................................21

ETS Mapping Exercise – Management Summary 1

INTRODUCTION

In the Stockholm Programme1 the European Council identifies training as one of the key

elements in achieving a Europe that protects as training fosters a genuine European judicial

and law enforcement culture. The political goal is that a substantial number of law

enforcement officers have access to systematic training through the European Training

Scheme (ETS). The ETS is foreseen as a predefined set of harmonised training and learning

opportunities that are implemented in a coordinated manner in order to prepare law

enforcement officers for effective cross-border cooperation, thereby strengthening the

internal security of the EU and its external aspects. While Member States have the main

responsibility in training law enforcement personnel, the Stockholm Programme calls for

Europe, as a whole, to step up its efforts in this area, continuing to make use of existing

structures. The European Council also underlines that the design of the training at the EU

level shall be competence-based and task-driven, not specifically sector-related.

In this context, in June 2011, the European Commission asked the European Police College

(CEPOL)2 to conduct, on its behalf, a mapping (ETS Mapping Exercise) of existing law

enforcement training delivered within the EU Member States or by other parties in the EU.

The purpose of the ETS Mapping Exercise was to provide support for the need for a

European Training Scheme by delivering a comprehensive picture (who is doing what) on

the current situation on law enforcement training on cross-border matters and identifying

gaps and overlaps.

The ETS Mapping Exercise was conducted through a survey addressed to law enforcement

agencies, EU bodies and agencies and international organisations operating in the law

enforcement area. The project started in September 2011; the data collection took place

between December 2011 and February 2012. This summary provides the main findings of the

European Training Scheme Mapping Survey and they are based on the data supplied by

respondents. The data may be subject to interpretation of questions by respondents.

The ETS Mapping Exercise focused on four strands:

� Strand 1: Basic (initial3 and promotion4) training

1 The Stockholm Programme – An open and secure Europe serving and protecting citizens, OJ C115,

4.5.2010, p.1-38 2 CEPOL is an EU agency dedicated to developing and delivering training to police services across the

EU and, with its network of training institutions, has accumulated considerable experience in training

law enforcement personnel. Since 2010, CEPOL has significantly enhanced its role in contributing to

the EU internal security policy.

3 For those entering for the first time and in the lowest rank of a law enforcement function


� Strand 2: Bilateral/regional cooperation training

� Strand 3: Specialised training

� Strand 4: Training of MS officials in preparation for the EU missions in third countries

The ETS Mapping Exercise clearly identifies the need for additional EU-related training

content across all four strands. Specifically, this entails the provision of learning materials,

training on cross-border topics, the organisation of EU-level courses and seminars, train-the-

trainer and provision of trained EU trainers, regional exchange programmes and a platform

for the exchange of knowledge and best practice.

Further, the ETS Mapping Exercise identifies the need a more coordinated EU response to

training needs of law enforcement agencies, to avoid a duplication of efforts by EU agencies

in the field of Justice and Home Affairs.

Finally, it appears that EU bodies/international organisations provide little training for

customs authorities, with the risk that customs officials are not adequately prepared to deal

with cross-border crime.

Note that these findings and conclusions represent the general state of play in the EU; they

are not precise data on the level of individual law enforcement agencies.

1. CONTRIBUTORS TO THE SURVEY

The survey was addressed to law enforcement agencies (LEA) in the EU Member States,

including police, border guard / border police and customs with investigative powers.

A total of 87 agencies from all EU Member States contributed to the survey, one of them sent

a descriptive summary instead of a completed survey. They include 34 national police LEA

from 27 MS; 24 customs LEA (one per MS); 14 border guard / police LEA from 24 MS; 10

state (regional) police LEA from one MS (Germany); and 5 specialised departments /

agencies devoted to special missions or law enforcement training, from 5 Member States.

A total of 20 EU agencies and international organisations, operating to some degree in the

area of law enforcement training, responded to the survey, corresponding to 62.5% of those

addressed; two of them responded in form of a descriptive summary. Directorates-General

of the European Commission with relevant mandates were also involved in the survey.

4 Promotional training refers to further training that is related to the career development of law

enforcement officers; it can be done as a preparation for (applying for) a promotion or also after

obtaining a higher rank, depending on the practice of the individual country.


2. MAIN FINDINGS ON THE LAW ENFORCEMENT STRUCTURES

IN THE MEMBER STATES

• While the law enforcement structure in the EU is generally quite homogeneous, there are

some specificities across the EU, which have had an impact on the design of the survey

and data interpretation. 21 EU Member State reported having one national police

agency. Six Member States (France, Germany, Italy, Portugal, Spain and the United

Kingdom) have more than one police service with varying tasks. The UK law

enforcement arena consists of territorial and specialised police agencies while Germany

has both state (Landes) police agencies, and also two central federal police agencies.

• Border management duties were reported by 18 Member States as being carried out by

the police or by a department within the police; a separate border agency operates in 9

Member States (Bulgaria, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal,

Sweden and the United Kingdom).

• In all but one Member State customs duties are performed by a separate agency. In

Portugal customs investigations are conducted by a police agency.

3. MAIN FINDINGS ON STRAND 1

3.1 Strand description

Strand 1 deals with basic knowledge of EU content as required for all law enforcement

officials in initial training and in promotion training provided to officials either in need of

further education due to change of position (for instance transfer from public order to

investigation) or due to a promotion. The Stockholm Programme in particular refers to the

need to include EU relevant content in national training curricula. Specifically, any law

enforcement official performing functions which may bring them in contact with the cross-

border dimension must be made aware of the cooperation opportunities and tools offered by

and across the EU.

3.2 Law enforcement training as provided within the European Union

3.2.1 Training on national level

The survey demonstrates that relevant knowledge concerning European cross-border law

enforcement cooperation is already largely included in the curricula of initial and promotion

training of police and border guards in most Member States. However, services performing

customs tasks seem to require further development.

• Concerning the curricula of initial training all except four EU Member States already

include European cross-border law enforcement cooperation content (see Graph 1a).


Graph 1a: Does your initial training cover

European cross-border law enforcement

cooperation?

Graph 1b: Does your promotion training

cover European cross-border law

enforcement cooperation?

• Concerning the curricula of promotion training in police agencies, three quarters of all EU

Members States report that at least one agency includes European cross-border law

enforcement cooperation content.

• Promotion training in customs agencies does not include European cross-border law

enforcement cooperation contents in two thirds of EU Member States.

• The opposite situation occurs in border management units or agencies, where less than

one fifth of the EU Member States do not include European content in promotion training.

3.2.2 Training on international level

The survey demonstrates that the involvement of international players in basic training is not

widespread. Out of the 21 EU agencies and International Organisations (IO) that responded

to the survey, 12 reported to be involved in basic law enforcement training: 8 in the

development of training; 9 in organisation of training; 9 through contributing expertise; 3

through funding training, 3 by other means. These organisations include CEPOL, Frontex,

Europol, Interpol, the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), the

European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA), European Network of Forensic

Science Institutes (ENFSI), Academy of European Law (ERA), and the United Nations

Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute (UNICRI), Aquapol and the European

Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) as well as DG Mare and DG Justice.

Of the 8 Directorates-General (DG) of the European Commission that responded, 2

contribute through funding and 2 indicated that they contribute in other ways: DG Justice

(Unit B2) by building synergies with existing judiciary training; DG Mare (Direction D/Unit


D1) by fostering cooperation and training between the coast guard services and functions of

the MS regarding the maritime surveillance.

3.3. Law enforcement training needs

Most of the LEA surveyed indicated that an EU contribution is required for further training

in European cross-border law enforcement cooperation content, especially for promotion

training: although the training curricula of most law enforcement agencies already include

European cross-border law enforcement cooperation content in initial and promotion

training, an EU contribution to the development of training on European content was

welcomed by at least one agency in all Member States..

The most preferred (> 60%) EU contribution for further training in European cross-border

law enforcement cooperation content (Graph 2) is the provision of learning materials –

individual examples mentioned are Common Curricula and e-Learning modules; training

manuals and a vocabulary on the terminology of European Law Enforcement Cooperation .

This is followed by the provision of financial resources and the provision of specialised

trainers – both mentioned by half of the LEA. Although bearing in mind that initial training

is generally the Member States’ responsibility, one third of the respondents would appreciate

training delivered by a European agency.

Graph 2: Which type of support should be given to the MS by EU bodies / agencies?

Initial Training Promotion Training

Table 1 shows those European contents or topics for which the responding LEA consider

more training to be required both on the initial as well as on the promotional level.

All

Only Material

None

Material and Funding

Only Funding

Material and Agency

Trainers and Material

Trainers, Material and Agency

Material , Funding and Agency


Table 1 – European contents or topics requiring further development (as indicated by LEA)


4.1 Strand Description

The ETS Mapping Exercise looks into the development of EU regional or bilateral training

initiatives fostering cooperation, for example, police and customs cooperation centres,

common patrols, cooperation on mass events, cross-border pursuit etc. In order to perform

these tasks professionally, law enforcement officers require training on specificities of

neighbouring countries or neighbouring regions as well as those partners, which are most

affected by concrete bilateral/multilateral criminal links.

4.2 Law enforcement training as provided within the European Union


The survey demonstrates that bilateral/regional training is high on the training agenda of

LEA in all Member States except four (see Graph 3). Regarding bilateral training, 44% is

developed in a project framework, and in 59% of these cases the projects are described as

directly or indirectly funded by the EU.


Graph 3: In what way are LEA involved in bilateral/regional training?

The majority of LEA surveyed, in particular those with police and border management

duties, are involved in on-going joint training on a bilateral or regional level for personnel

with law enforcement functions. Strikingly, customs agencies are least involved.

• Almost three quarters of the police agencies surveyed are involved in joint training on a

bilateral or regional level for personnel with law enforcement functions.

• The same tendency applies to border law enforcement departments, units or agencies.

Joint training does not exist in only three of the fourteen surveyed;

• Joint training activities exist in less than half of the customs law enforcement agencies

surveyed.


At least 14 international or European agencies or European Commission DGs (involved

solely through funding) are involved in joint training on a bilateral / regional level for

personnel with law enforcement functions. 33% of involved agencies indicate that bilateral

training is implemented through projects and 50% that these are funded by the European

Commission.

12 international organisations and agencies contribute by means of expertise for this type of

training; 11 are involved in the organisation of training; 8 are involved in the development of

training; 7 in the funding of the training activities; and 1 in organising conferences on

training in the ENP countries and in the Western Balkans).


There are a number of serious international actors active in the provision of bilateral/regional

training even if in specific areas. This calls for coordination, enhanced cooperation and a

concerted approach between the EU agencies and international partners in order to optimise

the efforts and avoid duplication.

4.3 Law enforcement training needs

The EU contribution to Member States for further joint training on a bilateral or regional

level was mentioned as being necessary (or welcomed) by only a few LEA (<32%), possibly

because the European Commission was mentioned in close to 60% of cases as funding on-

going joint project based training activities.

Table 2 below demonstrates the need for additional training and for EU support for such as

indicated. There is a training gap in existing bilateral training on civilian crisis management

and LEA indicate that additional training would be required in this area. Although such

topics as cross-border organised crime, investigation techniques, legal aspects and others are

already included in the bilateral training, LEA call for more training on these topics thus

confirming the relevance of these areas in facilitating bilateral/regional cooperation.

Table 2 - Comparison of existing and required training

Content Training exists Additional

training needed

additional EU

support needed

Cross-border organised crime 32 27 14

Investigation techniques 31 23 9

Legal Aspects 30 25 10

Crime Prevention 27 15 7

Organisation of national LEA 26 12 5

Language 25 22 13

Leadership and Management 22 14 7

Public order/mass events 17 7 2

Cross-cultural awareness 16 10 5

Prevention of traffic accidents 11 3 1

Management of diversity 8 5 1

Civilian crisis management 0 10 7

EU support is mainly required in form of courses, training material and specialised trainers.

One suggestion is to develop a European Leadership qualification for managing cross-border

operations.



5.1 Strand Description

One of the key aspects of the European Training Scheme will be specialised training on

selected priority topics derived from the EU policies (Internal Security Strategy, Organised

Crime Threat Assessment5 and EU Policy Cycle priorities). This will include training on

topics such as tackling and preventing technology based criminal activities, drug and arms

trafficking, financial investigations and cross-border asset recovery, EU law enforcement

cooperation tools and mechanisms; forensics; investigation; and prevention methods. In

order to align expertise across the EU, training shall be offered at the European level to

ensure international/European dimension, access to specific expertise and knowledge.

5.2 Specialised training as provided within the European Union

5.2.1 Training on a national level

While some of the selected 15 priority topics can usually be assigned to specific LEA, others

can be seen as cross-cutting, i.e. Leadership and Management, Fundamental Rights etc. For

this reason, a topic can be covered by more than one LEA in a MS.

• Specialised training for law enforcement officials for at least one of the main topics in

question is offered by one or more LEA in all EU Member States. However, there is

quite a difference in the coverage of these main topics by LEA across Europe: in some

countries LEA provide training on all main topics while in others only three to five main

topics seem to be covered (see Table 3);

• Of the four types of LEA, police and border guard indicate such coverage most frequently,

except for Counterfeit Goods and Customs Fraud where customs score highest;

At LEA level, the following pattern (Table 3) emerges indicating coverage of priority topics

by target groups.

Table 3 - Involvement of the LEA in training on priority topics

Topic Covered Police Border

Guards

Customs % of responding

LEAs

Drug Trafficking 35 6 21 72.9%

Financial crime including Money Laundering 34 4 11 57.6%

Leadership and Management / Strategic

Planning

29 7 4 48.2%

Trafficking in Human Beings 31 6 1 44.7%

Cybercrime 33 2 2 43.5%

5 In future SOCTA


Irregular Immigration 24 10 3 43.5%

Counterfeit Goods 14 2 19 41.2%

Fundamental Rights 24 5 6 41.2%

Fraud with Cross-border Impact 24 3 7 40.0%

Border Management Issues 14 12 7 38.8%

Trafficking in Illicit Commodities 15 3 13 36.5%

Asset Recovery 28 2 1 36.5%

Customs Fraud 7 0 20 31.8%

Itinerant Crime Groups 18 4 2 28.2%

Combating Organised Crime in Western Balkan 13 0 3 18.8%

The usage of EU directives, structures or instruments in Member States seems to a large

extent to be absent from the curricula of the available specialised training in more than half

of the cases. Only for seven topics are they indicated as included in training provided in 50%

or more MS (Table 4).

Table 4 – EU directives, structures or instruments included in specialised training (as

mentioned by at least one agency in each Member State)

SUBJECT OR TOPIC Nº of Member States

Leadership and Management 16

Asset Recovery 15

Drug Trafficking 14

Cybercrime 14

Counterfeit Goods 14

Financial Crime 13

Irregular Immigration 13

On the other hand, where it concerns European Strategy Documents (ESD), most of those are

already included in the curricula of the majority of the available specialised training (Table 5).

Table 5 – ESD included in the curricula of specialised training (as mentioned by at least one

agency in each Member State)

ESD on: Nº of Member

States

Drugs 21

Trafficking Human Beings 21


Terrorism 18

Money Laundering 18

Promotion and protection of the rights of vulnerable groups (including children) 17


Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 16

Counterfeiting and Piracy 16

Sexual exploitation of women 15

Sexual exploitation of children and child abuse on the internet 15

There are, however, also some European Strategy Documents in particular in the area of

fundamental rights that are used in specialised training in only half or less than half of the

Member States – but never in less than one third.

In order to have an insight into coverage of various priority topics, LEA were asked to

indicate sub-topics. The number of sub-topics for each of the fifteen main items ranged from

5 to 11 – resulting in an overall array of 126 subtopics. Analysis shows that in some

countries with more than one police force the turnout of the coverage across all subtopics is

particularly high, as specialised training is offered in multiple institutional settings. But also

countries with a single structure police force obviously cover a high percentage of specialised

training sub-themes. The majority of the MS with a lower percentage are the smaller

countries.


Of the 38 organisations and units that were approached with the questionnaire, 21

international/European agencies and 7 Directorates-General of the Commission provided

responses for Strand 3. The majority of international or European agencies or units are

involved in specialised training for law enforcement officers, mostly by developing and

organising the training activities, and to a lesser extent by contributing with expertise or by

funding training.

Applying the same list of main topics which was provided to the EU Member States and

their law enforcement agencies, the response returned the following outcome:

Table 6 – Coverage of main topics by international organisations / EU agencies involved in

specialised training for law enforcement officers

SUBJECT OR TOPIC Nº of agencies

Fundamental Rights 13

Trafficking in Human Beings 12


Counterfeit Goods 9

Border Management Issues 9

Fraud with Cross-border Impact 8

Combating Organised Crime in the Western Balkans 8

Drug Trafficking 7


Cybercrime 6

Trafficking in Illicit Commodities 6

Financial Crime (including Money Laundering) 5


Asset Recovery 5

Itinerant Crime Groups 5

Customs Fraud 4

On the other hand, an analysis of the coverage of the 126 sub-topics behind these general

themes reveals that 19 of the responding entities indicate 501 times that they include these in

specialised training, which gives an average of 28; CEPOL (109), MEPA (68), Frontex (53),

OSCE (50), and DCAF (45) are leading here. No coverage at all is claimed by 9 of the

responding organisations.

5.3 Specialised training needs

For training on the 126 specialised sub-topics there is a demand for support by EU agencies:

while some countries declare demand for support for the highest number of sub-topics, the

average declaration figure for all Member States is 37 and per agency just 26.

Note: neither for the coverage of subtopics nor for the demand for EU support for specialised

training topics, the figures show a correlation in view of a North / South or West / East

differences.

When we compare the frequency of sub-topics within the priority topics being mentioned as

covered of those indicated as requiring training support by EU bodies or agencies, the

following turnout is found:

Graph 4: Comparison of amount of sub-topics covered in training and of sub-topics for

which EU support is considered required (n=indications)


Here it is interesting to see that although many of these sub-topics are covered, there is still a

need for EU support for these topics, - specifically for those topics that are covered already,

with the exception of Leadership and Management / Strategic Planning which does not seem

to be covered that much and for which more training with EU support is required.

A slightly different angle on the issue of law enforcement is taken with the question if more

training in general is thought to be required from LEA perspective. Only 16 LEA from 8 MS

do not think training on any of the topics on the list must be intensified. With those who do

express such a need Financial Crime/Money Laundering, Drug Trafficking,

Leadership/Management, Strategic Planning and (Tactical) Analysis are in highest demand.

An interesting view into the overlapping and differing needs and priorities of the three types

of LEA is provided by a breakdown of the top four topics being: for police forces –

Trafficking in Human Beings, Drug Trafficking, Terrorism, and Financial Crime and Money

Laundering; for border guards / police: Irregular Immigration, Trafficking in Human Beings,

Drug Trafficking, and Protection of Human rights and Fundamental freedoms; for customs

agencies: Drug Trafficking, Counterfeit and Piracy, Financial Crime and Money Laundering,

and Terrorism.

The majority of LEA (approx. 80%) indicated that support from EU agencies is required in

delivery of specialised training. In summary the efforts and added value of EU agencies in

the area of law enforcement training are acknowledged and the involvement is appreciated.

The most frequently mentioned ways how this shall be achieved were through providing

• specialised trainers/experts

• learning/training materials/manuals

• financial funds

• e-learning tools

• support for train-the-trainer lessons

• European Police Exchange Programmes

One of the more innovative suggestions is to create mobile “assistance teams” consisting of

national and EU trainers or experts, who will be “deployed” for targeted temporary training

interventions.


6.1 Strand description

The external aspect of the EU internal security shall become an integral part of law

enforcement training. This strand mainly deals with pre-deployment and operational

training for missions in order to ensure that law enforcement officials operating under the


EU framework have common competencies and bring aligned, common EU content and

values to the countries where the EU sends missions. Interoperability of EU missions with

NATO shall be taken into account. It is the ambition of the EU that this type of training is

organised primarily at EU level and is well coordinated across all involved sectors. Another

aspect of the external dimension is knowledge transfer to third countries and how efforts in

this area can be coordinated at EU level.

6.2 Training for missions in third countries as provided within the

European Union


Two thirds (66%) of Member States have agencies that are engaged in generic or operation-

specific training for personnel involved in missions in third countries.

Graph 5: Is your organisation engaged in generic or operation-specific training for personnel

involved in peace operations in third countries?

• In 16 Member States training is delivered for police missions; in 9 for border management

missions; in 8 for justice-related mission; and in 6 for customs-related missions.

• 17 Member States deliver the training for EU-led missions; 14 for UN-led missions; 11 for

OSCE-led missions; and 7 for missions of another nature.

24 LEA (75% of those involved in pre-deployment training) in 15 MS stated that the EU

commonly agreed curriculum (Council doc. 16849/06) is implemented.



Only 5 international or European agencies reported being engaged in generic or operation-

specific training for personnel involved in missions in third countries.

• 5 agencies train for police missions, 4 also for justice-related missions; 2 for customs-

related missions; and 1 for border management missions. 2 of the 5 agencies are also

support SSR missions.

• Of the 5 agencies, 3 deliver training for EU-led missions; and 2 for UN-led missions.

3 of the 5 agencies stated that the EU commonly agreed curricula (Council doc. 16849/06) is

used for training.

6.3 Need for mission training

EU-level training for personnel involved in missions in third countries was considered

useful by between 40% and 56% (18 out of 32) of the responding LEA for management and

operational staff (Table 7).

Table 7 – LEA considering EU level generic / operation specific training necessary

Senior

management

staff

Middle-rank

management

staff

Operational

staff

Technical

staff

Other staff

Generic 18 13 13 8 2

Operation specific 15 13 13 8 3

On the international level, 2 out of 5 agencies considered it useful if generic training would

be offered at EU level for senior management staff; 3 for middle-rank management staff; 3 for

operational staff; and 1 for technical staff; for operation-specific training these figures were 3

out of 5 for senior management staff; the 4 for middle-rank management staff and

operational staff; and 2 for technical staff.

The ways the EU could contribute include mostly the provision of training and preparing

trainers / experts; making training material available in a centralised way as well as

centralised coordination is mentioned as well.

6.4 Transfer of knowledge to third countries

50 law enforcement agencies, from 23 Member States, are engaged in transferring knowledge

or in exchanging best practices with third countries. Topics subject to such knowledge

transfer are shown in Table 8.


Table 8 – Transfer of knowledge or exchange of best practices (by topic)

TOPICS Nº of Agencies

International law enforcement Cooperation 26


Human Rights 21

Combating Organised Crime 20

Prevention of Corruption 20

Ethics 19

Public Order, Crowd Control and Riot Control 18

Public Security 18

Police and Custom Cooperation Centres 16

Joint Investigations Teams 10

Of the international organisations, EU agencies and Directorates-General, 14 reported being

engaged in transferring knowledge or in exchanging best practices with third countries,

primarily where it concerns International law enforcement cooperation and Prevention of

corruption.

7. COMPARISON OF EU AGENCIES OPERATING IN THE

JHA AREA

Of the EU agencies operating in the field of Justice and Home Affairs, CEPOL, Europol and

Frontex are the agencies active in training of law enforcement officials. Each agency’s

mandate specifies the extent to which training is a part of their responsibilities. As an EU

agency dedicated to training, CEPOL is naturally engaged in the most systematic training,

covering most areas of all strands. For Europol and Frontex, while prominent, training is

closely linked to their operational mandates.

However, a more in-depth analysis reveals similarities / overlaps in these agencies’ training

activities. The data analysis clearly demonstrates that there are areas where all two or three

agencies are involved, e.g. training on EU law enforcement cooperation mechanisms;

specialised topics as listed under Strand 3 like Trafficking Human Beings, Leadership and

Management and some others. Although the JHA scorecard monitors these overlapping

areas and some activities are delivered in cross-agency cooperation, it seems that the

production of training and learning material or course curricula is not fully coordinated. The

risks this entails are duplication of resources and incoherency of content.

The survey also shows that there are some priority areas where training is only delivered by

CEPOL, e.g. Public Order, Civilian Crisis Management and training for missions. This gives

evidence that there is also some clear sole responsibility without duplication of resources.


8. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

8.1 Conclusions

GENERAL

�� EU support is required for all four strands, even for strand 1 where training is usually of

national responsibility and for strand 2 where a lot so training is already funded by the

EU.

�� Further coordination of the current EU response to training needs of law enforcement

agencies is needed to avoid duplication of efforts by EU Agencies in the field of JHA in

specific areas of training.

�� Most of the responding EU bodies / international organisations do not provide training

for customs authorities. This leads to gaps where it concerns EU content and some

significant areas of specialised training and entails the risk that customs officials are not

adequately prepared to deal with cross-border crime.

STRAND 1

�� Relevant basic knowledge concerning European cross-border law enforcement

cooperation is already largely included in initial and promotion training of police and

border guards in most Member States; less so for customs services (see graph 1a and 1b).

�� The role of EU / international organisations in conveying basic knowledge is not

widespread. In relation to funding of training on EU content, there are currently very

few international actors involved. Coordination of actions is often lacking across the EU

law enforcement forums.

�� There is an evident need for EU support for EU content, in particular for promotion

training, as in all MS at least one LEA indicates this (see table 1). MS feel that the EU

should provide national training with EU content and with funding.

�� The most preferred EU contribution is the provision of learning materials (Common

Curricula; e-Learning modules; training manuals) followed by financial resources and

the provision of specialised trainers. Exchange programmes and the creation of an

independent subject called European Cooperation are also mentioned (see graph 2).

STRAND 2

�� The survey demonstrates that LEA in most MS are involved in bilateral training, by

means of development and organisation of training as well as by contributing expertise,

and to a lesser extent by funding such training (see graph 3). Customs agencies are least

involved.


�� A large number of training activities are implemented within project frameworks, hence

of an ad hoc character.

�� Half of the surveyed international or European agencies are involved in joint training on

a bilateral / regional level for personnel with law enforcement functions by contributing

expertise or organising such training. DGs are involved solely through funding.

�� Although only a few LEA consider EU support necessary, some gaps can still be

identified in bilateral/regional training, e.g. for civilian crisis management, organised

crime, language, investigation techniques, legal aspects (table 2).

�� Some topics like cross-border organised crime, investigation techniques, legal aspects

and language are covered in bilateral / regional training but are still mentioned as

requiring more training.

STRAND 3

�� Specialised training for law enforcement officials on at least one of the priority topics in

question is offered by one or more LEA in all Member States (see table 3).

�� Police and border guard LEA indicate most frequently that training on specialised topics

is provided, except for topics like Counterfeit Goods and Customs Fraud where customs

score highest.

�� Most of the international or EU agencies are involved in specialised training (see table 6)

by developing and organising training; to a lesser extent they provide expertise or

funding.

�� The use of EU content in form of EU directives, structures or instruments (less than 50%)

is not satisfying (see table 4); the situation is better where it concerns European Strategic

Documents which are included in the majority of the available specialised training

curricula (see table 5).

�� The specialised topics analysed by the ETS Mapping Survey are of high relevance for the

training needs of LEA in the context of cross-border cooperation and they represent

pressing operational issues. The applied approach of selecting these priority topics

therefore seems to be adequate and can be used in the future.

�� Even though many of the sub-topics under the priority topics are covered in national

training, a large majority of LEA still indicate that support from EU agencies is required

in delivery of the training (See graph 4). Financial Crime/Money Laundering, Drug

Trafficking, Leadership / Management and Strategic Planning are in highest demand.

�� Overlapping needs between three different LEA types in training on the most frequently

mentioned topics concern Drug Trafficking, Trafficking in Human beings, Terrorism and

Financial Crime including Money Laundering. Differences exist in the need for training


on Fundamental Rights and Irregular Immigration (BLEA) and Counterfeit and Piracy

(CLEA).

�� Particularly in the area of specialised training, quite a few overlaps exist in training

delivered by EU agencies and international organisations.

STRAND 4

�� Two thirds of the Member States have LEA engaged in training for personnel involved

in missions in third countries (graph 5), the majority of which are police-related EU-led

missions.

�� Only 5 international or European agencies reported being engaged in generic or

operation-specific training for personnel involved in missions in third countries, again

mainly in EU-led missions involving police officers.

�� The EU commonly agreed curriculum (Council doc. 16849/06) is implemented by 75% of

LEA in MS and by 60% of the EU Agencies / international organisations involved in this

kind of training.

�� Half of the Law Enforcement Agencies consider there to be a need for EU support, in

particular for providing standardised training for senior and middle management and

operational staff and for train specialised trainers (See table 7).

�� EU support should consist mainly in the provision of training and preparing trainers /

experts, and a centralised approach to making training material available and to

coordination of activities.

�� In 85% of the Member States LEA are involved in transfer of knowledge (See table 8). The

main needs are coordination of knowledge transfer efforts and training for officials of

third countries on EU level.

8.2 Recommendations

(1) Support for EU-related training content should be provided for all four strands. More in

detail the provision of:

o Strand 1: learning materials (Common Curricula; e-Learning modules; training

manuals); introduction of an independent subject called “European Cooperation”;

o Strand 2: training on topics like cross-border organised crime, investigation

techniques, legal aspects and language civilian crisis management and management

of diversity; train-the-trainers courses; regional exchange programmes; platform for

the exchange of knowledge and best practice;

o Strand 3: EU-level courses and seminars; training material; specially trained EU

trainers; funding; opportunities for exchange of best practice; an enhanced focus on

EU directives, structures or instruments;


o Strand 4: generic and operational training in particular for senior and middle ranking

management staff; training of trainers / experts; centralised access to EU

experts/trainers/ lecturers and training material.

(2) There is a need for centralised access to a training and learning materials depository in

order for MS and agencies to benefit from the necessary expertise/ knowledge.

(3) There is also a need for a pool of trainers / experts / lecturers for the same purpose.

(4) EU support should focus on all surveyed priority topics and fine-tuned in line with the

sub-topics.

(5) Centralised coordination, in particular of the activities of EU agencies involved in law

enforcement training, should be established in order to avoid the duplication of

resources and possible risk of incoherent content, in particular in strand 2, 3 and 4.

(6) On the level of funding of training, the present situation, which currently includes very

few international actors, calls for the EU to develop a strong policy.

(7) Training of customs officers on EU content requires specific attention by the EU as does

the combined training of customs, border guards and police officers in order to increase

common understanding and multi-disciplinary cooperation.


9. ANNEX - ACRONYMS

CEPOL European Police College

DG TAXUD The Directorate-General for Taxation and Customs Union

EASO The European Asylum Support Office

EMCDDA European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction

ETS European Training Scheme

EUROPOL European Police Office

EUROJUST The European Union’s Judicial Cooperation Unit

FRA European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights

FRONTEX European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the

External Borders of the Member States of the European Union

JIT Joint Investigation Team

LEA Law Enforcement Agency/ies

MS Member States (of the European Union)

OLAF European Anti-Fraud Office

OSCE Organisation for Security and Cooperation

SIENA Secure Information Exchange Network Application (Europol)

SIRENE Supplementary Information Request at the National Entries

SIS Schengen Information System

SSR Security Sector Reform

VIS Visa Information System