Written by Ecorys and Center for the Study of Democracy July 2019
Justice
and Consumers
Evaluation of
measures/actions implemented under the
Schengen Facility in Croatia
Final report
Evaluation of measures/actions implemented under the Schengen Facility in Croatia
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs Directorate E - Migration and Security Funds; Financial Resources
Unit E2 - National programmes for South and East Europe; AMIF/ISF Committee
Contact: Gabriel Moisic Barbatei
E-mail: [email protected]
European Commission
B-1049 Brussels
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs Evaluation of measures/actions implemented under the Schengen Facility in Croatia
Evaluation of measures/actions
implemented under the Schengen Facility in Croatia
Final Report
“This document has been prepared for the European Commission however it
reflects the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held
responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained
therein.”
Europe Direct is a service that answers your questions about the
European Union.
By freephone (*):
00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11
(*) certain operators may charge for these calls
http://europa.eu.int/citizensrights/signpost/about/index_en.htm#note1#note1
Information about the European Union is available on the website at: (http://europa.eu).
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2019
Print ISBN 978-92-76-09715-0 doi: 10.2837/22236 DR-01-19-667-EN-C
PDF ISBN 978-92-76-01791-2 doi:10.2837/339796 DR-01-19-667-EN-N
© European Union, 2019
Reuse is authorised provided the source is acknowledged
Printed in Belgium
PRINTED ON ELEMENTAL CHLORINE-FREE BLEACHED PAPER (ECF)
Table of contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................. 1
INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 9
1. OVERVIEW OF THE SCHENGEN FACILITY IN CROATIA AND BASELINE .. 11
1.1 Overview of the SF, main objectives, financial implementation, and management ........................................................................ 11
1.2 Baseline .................................................................................. 25
2. METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH AND DATA COLLECTION TOOLS ........... 31
2.1 Desk research .......................................................................... 32
2.2 Interviews ............................................................................... 32
2.3 Survey for end users ................................................................. 33
2.4 Case studies ......................................................................... 34
2.5 Public consultation ................................................................ 34
2.6 Limitations and robustness of findings ..................................... 35
3. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS PER EVALUATION CRITERION AND QUESTION .................................................................................... 39
3.1. Relevance ............................................................................ 39
3.2. Effectiveness ........................................................................ 48
3.3. Efficiency ............................................................................. 67
3.4. Coherence............................................................................ 73
3.5. Sustainability ....................................................................... 81
3.6. EU added value..................................................................... 89
4. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................... 93
ANNEX 1 - BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................... 101
ANNEX 2 - INTERVIEW GUIDES ............................................................. 105
ANNEX 3 - SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE ..................................................... 117
Type of stakeholder ...................................................................... 117
Introduction ................................................................................ 117
Questionnaire .............................................................................. 117
ANNEX 4 - LIST OF INTERVIEWS ........................................................... 123
ANNEX 5 - CASE STUDIES .................................................................... 125
Case study 1: Acquisition of vehicles for Border Police ...................... 125
Case study 2: Acquisition of helicopters .......................................... 129
Case study 3: Surveillance system at green border .......................... 133
Case study 4: Surveillance system at blue border ............................ 137
Case study 5: Development of information systems .......................... 144
Case study 6: Construction and reconstruction of border infrastructure ..................................................................... 150
Case study 7: Development of the Croatian VIS ............................... 157
Case study 8: Training, operational support, additional staff .............. 162
ANNEX 6 - SYNOPSIS REPORT ............................................................... 169
1. Introduction ....................................................................... 169
2. Approach ........................................................................... 170
3. Interviews .......................................................................... 170
4. Survey with end recipients ................................................... 173
5. Online Public Consultation .................................................... 177
ANNEX 7 - COMPLEMENTARITY OF SF WITH OTHER EU FUNDED ACTIONS .. 181
ANNEX 8 - MAJOR TYPES OF INVESTMENT IN BULGARIA, ROMANIA AND CROATIA UNDER THE RESPECTIVE SCHENGEN FACILITY .................. 185
ANNEX 9 - ADDITIONAL TABLES ............................................................ 187
List of tables
Table 1 Financial allocation of the Schengen Facility per objective in euro ................ 18
Table 2 Financial allocation of the Schengen Facility per activity type in euro ........... 20
Table 3 Beneficiaries and objectives of the Schengen Facility ................................. 23
Table 4 Number of employees of the Independent Sector for Schengen coordination and EU funds .................................................................................................. 24
Table 5 Assessment of the robustness of the findings per evaluation criterion .......... 36
Table 6 Categorisation of needs .......................................................................... 40
Table 7 Assessment of the achievement of targets ................................................ 50
Table 8 Detection of illegal crossings of the state borders in Croatia ........................ 85
Table 9 Place of occurrence of the detection of illegal border crossings .................... 86
Table 10 Third country nationals found to be illegally present in Croatia - annual data (rounded) ................................................................................................ 86
Table 11 Planned financing for the management of state borders per year (in HRK/EUR*) .............................................................................................................. 91
List of figures
Figure 1 Intervention logic of the Schengen Facility in Croatia ................................ 15
Figure 2 Overview of the work programme .......................................................... 31
Figure 3 Distribution of respondents .................................................................... 33
Figure 4 Opinion of end recipients on the contribution of the SF to simplification in the
control of external borders ......................................................................... 72
Figure 5 Results from the online survey on changes in waiting times ....................... 87
Figure 6 Perception of maintenance of equipment ............................................... 177
List of abbreviations
AMIF Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund
API Application Programme Interface
ARPA The Agency for the Audit of EU Programmes
Implementation System
BC Border Crossing
BCP Border Crossing Point
CARDS Community Assistance for Reconstruction,
Development and Stabilisation
CEF Connecting Europe Facility
COM European Commission
CP Consular Post
CS Case Study
DG HOME Directorate General Migration and Home Affairs
DM Diplomatic Mission
EAW European Arrest Warrants
EC European Commission
EBF External Borders Fund
ECRIS-TCN The European Criminal Records Information System
(Third Country Nationals)
EES Entry-Exit System
EOD/IED Explosive Ordnance Disposal/Improvised Explosive
Devices
EQ Evaluation Question
ERDF European Regional Development Fund
ESF European Social Fund
ESIF European Structural and Investment Funds
ETIAS European Travel Information and Authorisation
System
eu-LISA
European Union Agency for the Operational
Management of Large-Scale IT Systems in the Area
of Freedom, Security and Justice
Frontex The European Border and Coast Guard Agency
GIS Geographic Information System
HR VIS Croatian Visa Information System
IBM Integrated Border Management
IBM AP Integrated Border Management Action Plan
IPA Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance
ISF Internal Security Fund
MFEA Croatian Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs
MIS Management Information System
MoI Croatian Ministry of Interior
N.SIS National component of the Schengen Information
System
NBMIS National Border Management Information System
PHARE Poland and Hungary: Assistance for Restructuring
their Economies
PPF Project Preparation Facility
RA Responsible Authority
SAP Schengen Action Plan
SF Schengen Facility
SOLID Programme ‘Solidarity and Management of
Migration Flows’
SIRENE Supplementary Information Request at the National
Entries
SIS II Schengen Information System
ToR Terms of Reference
VIS Visa Information system
VTMIS Vessel Traffic Monitoring and Information System
1
Evaluation of measures/actions implemented under the Schengen Facility in Croatia
Executive summary
Introduction to the evaluation and the Schengen Facility
The Evaluation of the measures/actions implemented under the Schengen
Facility (SF) for Croatia was performed by Ecorys in collaboration with the
Centre for the Study of Democracy for DG HOME.
The main objective of this evaluation is to examine all outcomes, including
outputs, results and impacts resulting from the implementation of actions and
measures under the Schengen Facility in Croatia, in the period between 01 July
2013 and 21 January 2017. The objectives of this evaluation are twofold. On
the one hand, the evaluation sought to examine the functioning of the
intervention and if the implementation of measures financed under the
Schengen Facility are in line with Article 21(3) of Commission Regulation (EC,
Euratom) No 2342/2002. Based on the examinations of implemented
measures, the evaluation provides recommendations in view of implementation
of future EU funded interventions with similar features.
The evaluation was launched on 6 April 2018 with the publication of the
Roadmap that describes the context, purpose and scope of the evaluation as
well as its main evaluation criteria: (1) effectiveness of the intervention; (2)
efficiency in relation to resources used; (3) relevance in relation to identified
needs and problems; (4) coherence; (5) sustainability; and (6) EU added value
compared to what could have been achieved at Member State or international
level.
As a temporary financing instrument, the Schengen Facility ensured EUR 120
million to finance actions at the new external borders of the Union for the
implementation of the Schengen acquis and external border control. The types
of actions that were eligible for financing under the Schengen Facility included:
investments in border crossing infrastructure, investments in operating
equipment and IT systems needed to implement the Schengen acquis, training
of border guards, and support to costs for logistics and operations.
Approach and methodology of the evaluation
The approach to the study followed the typical four evaluation stages:
structuring (evaluation matrix, intervention logic, inception), observing (data
collection), analysis, judging and reporting. In terms of timelines: Step 1 -
Structuring was implemented in November 2018; Step 2 - Observing from
December 2018 until March 2019, Step 3 - Analysing from end of January until
end of March 2019, and Step 4 - Judging and reporting has started from the
end of February and was completed with the finalisation of the Final report.
2
Evaluation of measures/actions implemented under the Schengen Facility in Croatia
The methodology included:
Desk research - Information was gathered from Indicative Programmes, the
Comprehensive Report, annual reports as well as audit and monitoring
reports. Furthermore, relevant legislation, national strategies and action
plans were reviewed. Statistical and administrative data were gathered from
public sources such as the Croatian Ministry of Interior’s website, the
European Border and Coast Guard Agency and Eurostat;
Interviews - Semi-structured interviews were conducted with
representatives of different institutions, including senior public officers able
to respond to general issues and strategic level questions as well as those
responsible for implementation, beneficiaries, and NGOs. Interviews carried
out during site visits enabled reaching respondents who were directly
benefiting from implementation of Schengen Facility, such as users of
equipment and infrastructure;
Survey - The online survey was set up to gather additional information from
end users benefiting from SF funding. The survey was performed in parallel
with the field visits, as it was seen as an effective way in reaching the
stakeholders. The distribution was done online via beneficiaries. The total
number of responses was 232;
Case studies - The evaluation was supported by eight case studies. The
selected case studies covered 75% of all expenses eligible under the
Schengen Facility for Croatia. They covered a variety of objectives and
measures set out in the Indicative Programme. The topics selected for the
case studies included: acquisition of new technical equipment for
surveillance and control (vehicles, helicopters and special equipment);
development of information systems (development of the national SIS II);
(re)construction of border infrastructure; development of the national VIS;
trainings for border guards and consular officers; costs for management of
the Schengen Facility; and salaries for additional border police officers;
Public consultation - Even though the Roadmap announced the forthcoming
online public consultation and its due publishing in the ‘Have your say’ space,
there were only two responses to the consultation. Due to the small number
of responses, it is not possible to include results of the closed-end questions,
but open-end responses provided by respondents were taken into account
when answering evaluation questions.
Conclusions and recommendations
The Schengen Facility (SF) had a significant positive impact on strengthening
the control at the external borders by providing the necessary equipment,
information systems, and trainings to prepare Croatia for joining the Schengen
area. This strengthening and upgrading of the external border control could not
have been achieved to the same extent and the same timeline only with national
financing, which is marginal as compared to the size of the SF. Even though the
SF effects are likely to be sustainable in the long-run, the decreasing national
funding may result in inability to maintain and upgrade the acquired equipment.
The objectives of the Schengen Facility were relevant to the EU and Croatian
needs and relevance was constantly reinforced via the flexible approach of the
SF. The targets of the SF have been largely met and the results were achieved
3
Evaluation of measures/actions implemented under the Schengen Facility in Croatia
at a reasonable cost through competitive procedures, but monitoring was not
adequate.
Relevance
To a large extent the objectives of the Schengen Facility were relevant
both to the needs of the EU and Croatia. There was a strong link between
the needs identified in national strategic documents and through stakeholder
consultation, and the objectives of the Indicative Programme 2013-2014.
Relevance was ensured by having beneficiaries drafting the Indicative
Programme by taking into account existing national strategies related to
external border control and surveillance. The objectives setting of the SF
showed flexibility in light of newly identified needs. Thus, the original objectives
were supplemented, which was considered as one of its advantages compared
to other EU assistance programs that offer less opportunities for adding and
changing objectives. Furthermore, financial resources under the SF were
provided before the commencement of the project, whereas for post SF funds
the means are usually given post hoc based on fulfilment of criteria given by
the European Commission, which is another factor that contributed to the high
relevance of the SF.
At the same time, the Schengen Facility did not address needs related to
trainings for border police in human rights protection and interactions
with immigrants, which were highlighted by NGOs and the Ombudsman of
the Republic of Croatia. In spite of the high relevance of the SF, there are
current outstanding needs, identified by the Council and stakeholders
consulted during the evaluation: land border surveillance of the green
border with BiH and Montenegro, further trainings on how to use the equipment
and infrastructure needs at BCPs.
Recommendations on Relevance:
For similar interventions in the future, keep open the opportunity to add
objectives in order to better adjust the instrument to achieve national / EU
priorities;
Envisage support costs for logistics and operations for managing similar
instruments from the start of their implementation;
Consider more trainings of border guards on human rights issues and
interactions with immigrants and more consideration of refugee needs
(especially children) in the investment in transit centres.
Effectiveness
The implementation of the Schengen Facility can overall be considered
as effective. At the level of 11 objectives defined in the Indicative Programme,
5 have been fully achieved (100% achieved), 4 have been achieved to a large
extent (more than 90%) and 2 have been partially achieved (between 50% and
90%). While some modifications did not necessarily have a negative impact on
the effectiveness of the SF (e.g. acquisition of helicopter instead of aircraft
under Objective 1), equipment and services that were planned but not
4
Evaluation of measures/actions implemented under the Schengen Facility in Croatia
procured/delivered have hampered effectiveness (most notably Objective 5 and
8). Consequently, the operational objectives of the Schengen Facility1 were
achieved to a large extent, with two operational objectives fully achieved, two
achieved to a large extent and one operational objective partially achieved.
Both internal (limited administrative capacity and insufficient guidance in the
beginning of the implementation of the SF) and external factors (complex
procurement procedures and time required to acquire permits) have influenced
the implementation of the SF. The negative effects are not judged to be
significant, but should be considered in similar future operations.
The Schengen Facility for Croatia has been designed and contributed to the
broad European Union priorities on border and internal security. As
expected considering the objectives of the SF, its measures are aligned and
contributed to all specific areas of the Schengen acquis, in particular external
borders policy. The SF did not directly affect only issues related to police
cooperation, but objectives 5 (Increase of the qualification of the border police)
and 7 (Improvement of Schengen related knowledge and skills of the consular
staff) contributed to the implementation of this part of the Schengen acquis.
In the beginning of the implementation, the monitoring of the SF was not
adequate and only partially supported the achievements of the SF due to limited
administrative capacity and lack of monitoring indicators. Nevertheless, the
review of the monitoring arrangement shows a system with clear
responsibilities and extensive checks (including on-the-spot). After the
problems with SF implementation in the first two years caused by the lack of
sufficient number of people to implement tasks related to the implementation
and monitoring of SF, monitoring functioned well. The annual reports were
comprehensive and of good quality, but did not contain monitoring
indicators that can present results of the measures, which was a deficiency in
the monitoring system.
Recommendations on Effectiveness:
Consider introducing specific indicators (at output and result level) in the
Indicative programmes and annual reporting on the achievement of the
target values;
When considering the planning of the training activities for employees,
workload and peak periods should be considered in order to ensure
maximum participation from the target participants;
Consider in advance if it is possible to perform the adaptations needed as
per the Schengen requirements ahead of planning investments in diplomatic
missions and consular offices;
Provide clear guidelines on procedures from the very start of the
implementation of actions/measures.
1 See Intervention Logic (Fig. 1, p. 13)
5
Evaluation of measures/actions implemented under the Schengen Facility in Croatia
Efficiency
The results of the Schengen Facility were achieved at a reasonable cost due
to the conducting of competitive procurement procedures, which guaranteed
fair prices for the goods and services procured. The eligible costs represent
95.2% of the programmed allocations, while the contracted projects amount to
97.3% of the programmed allocations, which suggests a reasonably high
absorption rate.
Most of the expected benefits of the Schengen Facility were achieved at a cost
below the allocated funds, while a comparison with similar (SF) investments in
Bulgaria and Romania indicated that costs of acquisition were in line with
prevailing market prices.
Considering the achieved savings and future cost reductions (e.g. surveillance
systems at the green border reduced the need for border patrols) the outcomes
of the Schengen Facility for Croatia represent good value for money. The
management costs are very low (representing about 0.2% of the total
eligible cost of the SF) compared with management costs of other EU funds.
While certain areas benefited from improved productivity (communications,
exchange of information, mobility in surveillance), other areas, such as border
checks, management of BCPs or use of acquired equipment had to comply with
additional operational and reporting requirements which slowed down the
work and created new administrative tasks.
Recommendations on Efficiency:
Beneficiaries should be encouraged to use a variety of selection criteria in
procurement procedures, rather than lowest price across the board;
Actions/measures could consider providing resources for building project
management capacities at the level of beneficiaries, and funding for
managing the projects (e.g. funding for additional staff supporting the
implementation of the funded projects);
(as an alternative to the above recommendation) Consider centralised
project management units taking care of the planning, procurement and
reporting.
Coherence
The implementation of the SF has been to a large extent complementary to the
overall border control measures in Croatia. The SF has been complementary
with national actions, when it comes to investments in police infrastructure
(for example national budget was used for facilities of the regular and special
police, while SF was used for facilities for the border police, within the same
police station building), but also access roads and other communal
infrastructure near the border crossing points. Since 2009, Croatia has a well
elaborated Strategy and Action plan for Integrated Border Management
(significantly revised and re-adopted in 2014), managed by an inter-ministerial
steering group, which ensures complementarity and coherence of measures and
sources of funding used to improve its border management.
6
Evaluation of measures/actions implemented under the Schengen Facility in Croatia
The implementation of the SF was to a large extent complementary and
consistent with measures financed by other EU instruments. High
coherence and complementarity has been identified in particular for
investments starting from CARDS and PHARE programmes (e.g. in the field of
institutional capacity building, strengthening of the border police, NBMIS,
modernization of surveillance system on blue and green border). Currently
there is good complementarity with the ISF (on IT equipment and vehicles,
vessels, trainings and operational costs) and with the AMIF (on migrants and
asylum seekers).
The measures/actions implemented under the Schengen Facility were
internally coherent (i.e. without overlapping and very often with significant
synergies). As mentioned in the analysis on Relevance, differences between the
initial and final version of Indicative programme should be considered as fast
adaptation to changing needs.
Recommendations on Coherence:
For future similar interventions, consider the availability of a Strategy and
Action plan for Integrated Border Management as precondition for SF
measures/actions;
Ensure the establishment of an inter-ministerial steering group with clear
mandate and strong role on monitoring, management, and coordination.
Sustainability
The overall effects achieved under the Schengen Facility are likely to be
sustainable in the long-run. At the same time, problems have been
identified due to decreasing national funding resulting in inability to
maintain and upgrade the acquired equipment and the need for continuation of
training (in particular on using BCP equipment). Due to intensive use of some
equipment and vehicles, they already needed to be replaced by new ones earlier
than planned, which reduced the sustainability of the SF actions. The ISF is
often used as a way of ensuring the sustainability of the SF actions (e.g. for
purchase of vehicles, helicopter equipment, and trainings).
The actions funded by the Schengen Facility had a significant positive impact
on strengthening the control at the external borders by providing the
necessary equipment, information systems and skills to prepare
Croatia for joining the Schengen area. There was a decreased number and
share of detections of illegal crossings close to the border as a consequence of
using the thermal imaging cameras and ground surveillance systems. The
maritime surveillance systems now have the capacity to detect smaller vessels
and therefore avoidance of border controls at the blue borders has been
decreased.
There is no available hard data on the actual waiting times at borders, which is
why it is not possible to verify whether waiting time increased, or decreased.
Based on results of the survey with border police staff, it can be concluded that
7
Evaluation of measures/actions implemented under the Schengen Facility in Croatia
in some cases the SF contributed to decreasing waiting time at BCPs thanks to
technological improvements. However, in other cases the waiting time
increased due to insufficient trainings on the operation of the equipment, as
well as due to insufficient internet connection and staffing.
Access to SIS II and the national information systems enhanced interoperability
and increased the productivity of border officers performing border checks. The
Schengen Facility contributed to enhancing the skills and knowledge of the
Croatian Border Police and employees at consular and diplomatic mission by
financing training courses on the Schengen acquis.
Recommendations on Sustainability:
For future interventions, ensuring national financing for maintenance costs
for acquisitions should be considered as a prerequisite for approval of
spending;
Inclusion of training courses related to acquisitions in the curriculum of police
academies and also continuous on-the-job trainings on how to operate the
equipment.
EU added value
There is a very small likelihood that outcomes (in terms of both scope
and speed) similar to the SF achievements would have occurred
without the EU support. In terms of scope, one of the major advantages of
the SF was that it allowed for a wide scope of actions that could be financed
under a single programme (for example not only building of centres, but also
buying furniture, clothes, salaries of border police, etc.). As concerns speed,
the EU added value rests in the fact that a quality foundation is created for
integration with EU IT systems as well as for their interoperability, which would
not have been a priority for non-EU financing measures.
The strengthening and upgrading of the external border control
achieved through the SF could not have been achieved to the same
extent and the same timeline only with national financing. The national
financing (excluding salaries) was rather small as compared to the SF financing
- 23% of the SF financing in 2014 and just 3% in 2015. The SF also dwarfs
other EU support meaning that after the completion of the SF, no financing is
matching its scale.
Recommendation on EU added value:
As a way of ensuring high EU added value in future similar interventions,
envisage a wide variety of eligible actions (for example not only building of
transit centres, but also buying furniture, clothes, salaries of border police,
etc.).
9
Evaluation of measures/actions implemented under the Schengen Facility in Croatia
Introduction
The Final Report for the Evaluation of the measures/actions implemented under
the Schengen Facility for Croatia has been drafted by Ecorys in collaboration
with the Centre for the Study of Democracy under a contract for DG HOME
signed on 14 November 2018 (following a public procurement procedure - Call
ID No. HOME/2015/EVAL/02).
The Report consists of four main sections:
Section 1 presents the overview of the Schengen Facility in Croatia and the
baseline for the study – this chapter was developed as a part of the Interim
report of the study;
Section 2 outlines the methodological approach and data collection tools;
Section 3 provides answers to the 15 evaluation questions and is divided into
six sections organised per evaluation criterion;
Section 4 outlines the conclusions and recommendations of this study.
Purpose of the Schengen Facility
The Schengen Facility (SF) for Croatia was created under Article 31 of the
Treaty of Accession of Croatia to the European Union2. The SF was a temporary
instrument that was set out to help Croatia finance measures and actions at
the new external borders of the Union as well as to implement the Schengen
acquis and external border control. To fulfil its obligation of joining the
Schengen area and completely abolish controls on its internal borders with
other Member States, Croatia implemented measures and actions under 11
objectives of the SF in the period 23 July 2013 until 21 January 2017.
Objectives and scope of the evaluation
The main objective of this evaluation was to examine all outcomes, including
outputs, results and impacts resulting from the implementation of actions and
measures under the Schengen Facility in Croatia, in the period between 01 July
2013 and 21 January 2017. The objectives of this evaluation are twofold. On
the one hand, the evaluation sought to examine the functioning of the
intervention and if the implementation of measures financed under the
Schengen Facility are in line with Article 21(3) of Commission Regulation (EC,
Euratom) No 2342/2002. Based on the examinations of implemented
measures, the evaluation provides recommendations in view of implementation
of future EU funded interventions with similar features.
2 OJ L 300, available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A12012J%2FTXT [02.04.2019]
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A12012J%2FTXThttps://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A12012J%2FTXT
10
Evaluation of measures/actions implemented under the Schengen Facility in Croatia
The evaluation of measures and actions implemented under the Schengen
Facility for Croatia was launched on the 6th of April 2018 with the publication
of the Roadmap that describes the context, purpose and scope of the evaluation
as well as its main evaluation criteria3. The evaluation assessed six evaluation
criteria: (1) effectiveness of the intervention; (2) efficiency in relation to
resources used; (3) relevance in relation to identified needs and problems; (4)
coherence; (5) sustainability; and (6) EU added value compared to what could
have been achieved at Member State or international level. The evaluation
included a set of 15 questions related to the above evaluation criteria. It
assessed all measures and actions of the Schengen Facility, but as required by
the Terms of Reference it did not cover the cash-flow, as this was already done
through an internal audit by DG HOME.
3 Available here: https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/initiative/1692/publication/222299/attachment/090166e5b9c67102_en [02/04/2019]
https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/initiative/1692/publication/222299/attachment/090166e5b9c67102_enhttps://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/initiative/1692/publication/222299/attachment/090166e5b9c67102_en
11
Evaluation of measures/actions implemented under the Schengen Facility in Croatia
1. Overview of the Schengen Facility in Croatia and baseline
This chapter provides an overall description of the Schengen Facility in Croatia
(objectives; intervention logic; timing; a comparison of the programmed
financial allocations for each measure and amounts actually paid; and roles
fulfilled by Croatian authorities).
1.1 Overview of the SF, main objectives, financial implementation, and
management
The section starts with providing the context of the Schengen Facility as a
temporary financing instrument. What follows is an overview of the SF for
Croatia, including a presentation of the objectives of the SF, intervention logic,
comparisons of programmed financial allocations with costs incurred as
indicated in the ToR, and management of the Facility.
Context
Croatia joined the European Union as the 28th Member State on 1st July 2013.
As of the accession date, the provisions of the original Treaties and the acts
adopted by the institutions before accession were binding on Croatia and
applied in Croatia under the conditions laid down in those Treaties and the Act
of Accession4. Article 31 of the Act of Accession entailed the creation of a
temporary financing instrument (i.e. Schengen Facility) for the period 1st July
2013 to 31st December 2014, whose objective was to help Croatia finance
actions at the new external borders of the Union for the implementation of the
Schengen acquis and external border control.
The Schengen Facility for Croatia (final cost5 of 116.9 million EUR) is the third
such instrument for new EU Member States. The first one (Schengen Facility I),
in the period 2004-2006, helped seven6 new Central and East European Member
States to get prepared for accession to the Schengen area. All beneficiary
countries became part of the Schengen area in 2007. The second Schengen
Facility (Schengen Facility II) was set up for Bulgaria (final cost of 125.5 million
EUR) and Romania (final cost of 351.1 million EUR) for the period 2007-2009.
Its main objective was to prepare the two countries for accession to the
Schengen Area by strengthening and upgrading their external border controls.
While the implementation of this instrument was assessed as overall successful
by the Council of the EU, Bulgaria and Romania have still not accessed the
Schengen area.
4 Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of Croatia (L 112/21), Council of the European Union.
5 Declared by Croatia. 6 Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, the Slovak Republic and Slovenia.
12
Evaluation of measures/actions implemented under the Schengen Facility in Croatia
The implementation of the Schengen Facility for Croatia was finalised in January
2017, however Croatia has not yet entered the Schengen area. Once all
Schengen evaluations related to a correct and full application of the Schengen
acquis and in all areas concerned (external borders, police cooperation, data
protection, visa policy and the Schengen Information System/SIRENE return,
firearms and judicial cooperation in criminal matters) are positively finalised,
the European Commission will conclude that Croatia is ready to join the
Schengen area. The Council of the European Union will then take a decision on
Croatia’s accession (by unanimity).
The Schengen Facility helped Croatia in securing border management that
would help it with tackling the complexities of the border and allow it to join
the Schengen area. The needs of Croatia in relation to border surveillance and
control are strongly influenced by the specificities of the Croatian border line.
Croatia’s border is relatively long given the size of the country. The total border
length is 3.318,6 km. The external border is 2.304,3 km, while the internal
border is 1.014,3 km long7. As described in the baseline, a high volume of cross
border traffic and large number of traffic routes (roads, railways, etc.) makes
the surveillance and control of the border challenging. In addition, other
challenges include a lack of natural barriers (e.g. mountain chains) in some
regions of the country; remaining potential mine fields in the vicinity of borders
with Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) and Montenegro, and the
discontinuity of the land border between Dubrovnik and the rest of the Croatian
territory8.
Objectives and intervention logic
In order to meet the general objective of the Schengen Facility (Contributing
to compliance with the Schengen acquis), Croatia drafted an Indicative
Programme, which described its needs related to the implementation of the
Schengen acquis and border management as well as a strategy to address these
needs. Based on this programme, the following specific objectives can be
identified:
Enhance control and surveillance of the borders;
Implement the principle of integrated border management at national and
international level;
Enhance the skills and knowledge of the Croatian Border Police and
employees at consular and diplomatic mission in relation to the Schengen
acquis.
7 According to the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement, internal borders means the common land borders of the Contracting Parties (EU Member States), their airports for internal flights and their sea ports for regular ferry connections exclusively from or to other ports within the territories of the Contracting Parties. External borders shall mean the Contracting Parties’ land and sea borders and their airports and sea ports, provided that they are not internal borders. 8 Integrated Border Management Strategy, Croatian Official Gazette 92/2014.
13
Evaluation of measures/actions implemented under the Schengen Facility in Croatia
As a way of contributing to the above objectives, the Indicative Programme
defined the following objectives:
Objective 1: Acquisition of new technical equipment for surveillance and
control of external borders;
Objective 2: Modernization and development of radio communication system
necessary for surveillance and control of external borders;
Objective 3: Development and upgrading of information systems and
computer networks related to the implementation of the Schengen acquis;
Objective 4: Construction of new and renovation and modernization of the
existing border infrastructure;
Objective 5: Increase of the qualification of the border police;
Objective 6: Development of the Croatian Visa Information System and
connection to the EU Visa Information System (VIS);
Objective 7: Improvement of Schengen related knowledge and skills of the
consular staff;
Objective 8. Providing Croatian diplomatic missions and consular offices with
additional security equipment;
Objective 9: Support costs for logistics and operations for managing the
Instrument;
Objective 10: Increasing the number of police officers for border control and
police officers for state border protection, and
Objective 11: Equipment for border police.
The first Indicative Programme drafted by the Responsible Authority defined 7
objectives (objectives number 1 to 7)9. Throughout the implementation
process, the Indicative Programme had been amended and four additional
objectives were added (objectives 8 to 11). There have been three amendments
of the Indicative Programme. The first Indicative Programme was prepared in
May 201310 following the requirement outlined under Article 9 of C(2013) 2159
on submitting to the Commission an Indicative Programme within 15 days after
the entry into force of the Decision. The first amendment of the Indicative
Programme is recorded in October 2014, when two objectives were added
(Objective 8 and 9)11. A second amendment occurred in January 2016 when an
additional objective was added (Objective 10)12. The last change occurred in
June 2016 when one objective was added (Objective 11)13.
9 Provided to the contractor by the European Commission upon award of the contract. This version is not publicly available. 10 According to Article 9 of C(2013) 2159, an Indicative Programme was to be provided within 15 days after the entry into force of the Decision. 11 As identified in the Annual Report 2014 that lists 9 objectives. 12 The Indicative Programme containing 10 objectives is published on the website of the Ministry of Interior, available only in Croatian at http://eufondovi.mup.hr/UserDocsImages/dokumenti/Indikativni%20program%20Schengenskog%20instrumenta.pdf 13 The latest version of the Indicative Programme containing 11 objectives was provided to the contractor by the Responsible Authority in private correspondence.
http://eufondovi.mup.hr/UserDocsImages/dokumenti/Indikativni%20program%20Schengenskog%20instrumenta.pdfhttp://eufondovi.mup.hr/UserDocsImages/dokumenti/Indikativni%20program%20Schengenskog%20instrumenta.pdf
14
Evaluation of measures/actions implemented under the Schengen Facility in Croatia
As this was an indicative document, it allowed for changes, albeit these had to
be approved by the European Commission14. The Croatian government issued
a decision in November 2015 adopting the initial Indicative Programme and
allowing for changes to the Indicative Programme of up to 10% of total
allocated funds15. Therefore, all changes were adopted when approved by the
Minister of Interior and subsequently by the European Commission. The aim of
allowing such changes was to ensure high absorption rates, while taking into
account evolving needs on the ground.
The objectives of the Schengen Facility in Croatia and their links to all other
elements of the intervention logic of the Facility are presented on the graph
below.
14 Interview with Responsible Authority, 20/12/2018, Zagreb. 15 Decision on the Indicative Programme of the Schengen Facility, Number (Ur. Broj): 50301-09/09-15-2. Available in Croatian at http://eufondovi.mup.hr/UserDocsImages/dokumenti/Odluka%20Vlade%20o%20dono%C5%A1enju%20Indikativnog%20programa%20Schengenskog%20instrumenta.pdf [20.03.2019]
http://eufondovi.mup.hr/UserDocsImages/dokumenti/Odluka%20Vlade%20o%20dono%C5%A1enju%20Indikativnog%20programa%20Schengenskog%20instrumenta.pdfhttp://eufondovi.mup.hr/UserDocsImages/dokumenti/Odluka%20Vlade%20o%20dono%C5%A1enju%20Indikativnog%20programa%20Schengenskog%20instrumenta.pdf
15
Evaluation of measures/actions implemented under the Schengen Facility in Croatia
Figure 1 Intervention logic of the Schengen Facility in Croatia
Objectives
Inputs
Activities
Outputs
Results
Impacts
Needs
Op
era
tio
na
l
Contribute to compliance with the Schengen acquis
Financial
resources
Management
resources
Enhance
control and
surveillance of
the borders
Implement the
principle of
integrated border
management at
national and
international level
Support the acquisition of new
technical equipment for border
control of the external borders and at
diplomatic missions/consular posts
(Objectives 1, 2, 8, 11)
General need: Full compliance with the Schengen acquis, including improved
external borders control, surveillance, and interoperability
Insufficient / outdated operating
equipment
Equipment
procured
Infrastructure
renovated /
modernised /
constructed
Trainings
provided
Costs and
logistics covered
Outcomes
Procure
technical
equipment
Construction /
renovation of
existing
infrastructure
Trainings of
border police
and consular
staff
Coverage of costs and logistics
of the SF and police officers for
border control and police
officers for border protection
IT
development
and upgrading
IT systems
developed /
upgraded
Strengthened
external
borders
control and
surveillance
Increased
interoperability
of the IT
systems
Enhanced
skills and
knowledge
Increased compliance with the Schengen acquis
External Factors
Traffic at the borders
National measures
Ensuring sustainability
Spec
ific
Gen
era
l
Inadequate border crossing
infrastructure and related buildings
Non-interoperable ITInsufficient qualification of border
police and consular staff
Support costs for logistics and operations, including payment of the salaries of the
personnel required to fulfil the obligations of Croatia in respect of Schengen acquis
Enhance the skills and
knowledge of the Border
Police and employees at
consular and diplomatic
mission in relation to the
Schengen acquis
Support the construction
of new and renovation
and modernization of the
existing border
infrastructure (Objective
4)
Provide support for
the development
and upgrading of
IT systems
(Objectives 3 and
6)
Increase the
qualification of border
police and consular
staff (Objectives 5
and 7)
Support costs and
logistics
(Objectives 9 and
10)
Complexity of the
procurement procedures
16
Evaluation of measures/actions implemented under the Schengen Facility in Croatia
The needs that the Schengen Facility was addressing can be divided into a
general need (Full compliance with the Schengen acquis, including improved
external borders control, surveillance, and interoperability) and specific ones:
Insufficient / outdated operating equipment;
Inadequate border crossing infrastructure and related buildings;
Non-interoperable IT;
Insufficient qualification of border police and consular staff.
Furthermore, there was a horizontal need that was linked to the functioning of
the Schengen Facility and staffing – need to support costs for logistics and
operations, including payment of the salaries of the personnel required to fulfil
the obligations of Croatia in respect of Schengen acquis. Further details on the
needs and the way they are addressed are presented in the Baseline and
Relevance sections of this report.
The inputs (financial and management resources) for the implementation of
the SF are described in the following sub-sections of this section.
The activities and outputs are closely linked to the operational objectives of
the SF and their performance was assessed as a part of the evaluation of
Effectiveness. There was a specific question under the Sustainability criterion,
which was about the achievement of the general/specific objectives and the
analysis on results and impacts is presented there.
The external factors were analysed in the sections on Effectiveness,
Sustainability, and EU added value depending on whether they affected the
achievement of outputs (complexity of the procurement procedures),
results/impact (traffic at the border, necessary sustainability measures), or the
EU added value (national measures)..
Timing and financial allocations of the Schengen Facility
As a temporary financing instrument, the Schengen Facility ensured EUR 120
million to finance actions at the new external borders of the Union for the
implementation of the Schengen acquis and external border control. The
implementation period of the Schengen Facility was scheduled from 1st July
2013 until 31st December 2014. The types of actions that were eligible for
financing under the Schengen Facility included: investments in border crossing
infrastructure, investments in operating equipment and IT systems needed to
implement the Schengen acquis, training of border guards, and support to costs
for logistics and operations.
For the period 1st July 2013 to 31st December 2014, two lump sums were made
available to Croatia, one of 40 million EUR for 2013, and one of 80 million EUR
for 201416, which were supposed to be used within three years from the first
16 See Article 31 of Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of Croatia (L 112/21), available at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ:JOL_2012_112_R_0006_01
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ:JOL_2012_112_R_0006_01
17
Evaluation of measures/actions implemented under the Schengen Facility in Croatia
payment. According to Decision C(2016) 465617, the first expenditure was
executed on the 24th July 2013, setting the end of the expenditure admissibility
period to 23rd July 2016. Due to low absorption rates, the Croatian Ministry of
the Interior requested a six-month delay in implementation, which the
European Commission approved. Article 1 of C(2016) 4656 allowed for approval
of expenditures until the 23rd September 2016 and the deadline for payments
on contracts was extended until 21st January 2017.
The eligible cost incurred in the implementation period amounted to
116.861.415,77 EUR18 as per the Comprehensive Report19, i.e. Croatia did not
use the whole allocated amount (end balance of 3.138.584,23 EUR not used).
Nevertheless, with an absorption rate of 97,3%, Croatia ranks as 5th out of 10
Member States when compared to absorption rates of the Schengen Facility I
and II20.
The breakdown of programmed Schengen Facility allocations per objective (and
the actual declared expenditure) is presented in the table below (Table 1). For
some objectives discrepancies between the programmed amount and the
eligible cost incurred are substantial. In the case of Objective 4, this is related
to the fact that some border police stations are of a mixed type, meaning they
are used both by regular and border police. The SF could only be used for
reconstructing or equipping the part of the facility used for border security
purposes (i.e. by the border police). In some cases where the infrastructure
that was to be reconstructed was small, the beneficiaries decided to use
national funds for the entire facility rather than undergoing to different
procedures of document preparation. The lower amount of costs incurred as
compared to the programmed amount for Objectives 1, 2, 6, and 8 were due
to lower than planned financial proposals of bidders in the procurement
procedures.
Objective 7 had the biggest difference between programmed (81.000,00 EUR)
and incurred costs (5.461,75 EUR). The trainings were held as planned, albeit
with a lower number of participants than was suggested in the Indicative
Programme, which accounted for the low spending. The trainings were
performed by Slovenian and Austrian experts whose travel costs were low. In
the cases of objectives 9, 10, and 11 more eligible costs were incurred than
originally planned. The main reason is that even though these objectives were
added last, they offered the opportunity to quickly re-allocate financing, which
was not utilised for the other objectives.
17 Decision C(2016) 4656 amending C(2013) 9257; English version available upon request at http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/?fuseaction=list&coteId=3&year=2016&number=4656&version=ALL&language=en 18 Declared by Croatia. 19 Comprehensive Report on the implementation of measures and the execution of the payments under the Schengen Facility for Croatia with a statement justifying the expenditure. 20 Ministry of Interior presentation on the implementation of the Schengen Facility, available at https://vlada.gov.hr/UserDocsImages//Vijesti/2017/02%20velja%C4%8Da/9%20sije%C4%8Dnja//Prezentacija_Schengenski%20instrument.pdf [28.03.2019]
http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/?fuseaction=list&coteId=3&year=2016&number=4656&version=ALL&language=enhttp://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/?fuseaction=list&coteId=3&year=2016&number=4656&version=ALL&language=enhttps://vlada.gov.hr/UserDocsImages/Vijesti/2017/02%20velja%C4%8Da/9%20sije%C4%8Dnja/Prezentacija_Schengenski%20instrument.pdfhttps://vlada.gov.hr/UserDocsImages/Vijesti/2017/02%20velja%C4%8Da/9%20sije%C4%8Dnja/Prezentacija_Schengenski%20instrument.pdf
18
Evaluation of measures/actions implemented under the Schengen Facility in Croatia
Table 1 Financial allocation of the Schengen Facility per objective in euro
Objectives Programmed Eligible cost21 incurred
Percentage point
difference between
the share of
programmed and
incurred cost Amount (EUR)
% out of
total
Amount (EUR)
22
% out of
total
1 2 3 4 5 6 (3-5)
Objective 1 Acquisition of new technical equipment for border control of the
external borders
71.146.051,41 57,96 66.983.911,67 57,31 -0,64
Objective 2 Modernization and development of radio communication system
necessary for surveillance and control of external borders
8.668.534,08 7,06 8.263.138,31 7,07 0,008
Objective 3 Development and upgrading of information systems and computer
networks related to the implementation of the Schengen acquis
14.129.107,07 11,51 14.279.507,45 12,21 0,70
Objective 4 Construction of new and renovation and modernization of the existing
border infrastructure
20.328.700,93 16,51 19.610.964,31 16,78 0,22
Objective 5 Increase of the qualification of the border police 300.000,00 0,24 207.031,70 0,17 -0,067
Objective 6 Development of the Croatian Visa Information System and connection
to the EU Visa Information System (VIS)
1.560.000,00 1,27 1.053.480,13 0,90 -0,36
Objective 7 Improvement of Schengen related knowledge and skills of the
consular staff
81.000,00 0,06 5.461,75 0,004 -0,061
Objective 8 Investment in security equipment at diplomatic missions/consular
posts according to the Schengen standards
2.109.000,00 1,71 958.387,27 0,82 -0,89
21 Eligible cost are defined under Article 2 of C(2013) 2159 and include types of actions that fall wihtin the following categories: (a) investment in construction, renovation or upgrading of border crossing infrastructure and related buildings; (b) investments in any kind of operating equipment, such as laboratory equipment, detection tools, Schengen Information System (SIS 2), hardware and software, the creation of the IT systems needed to implement the Schengen acquis, means of transport; (c) training of border guards; and (d) support to costs for logistics and operations, including payment of the salaries of the personnel required to fulfil the obligations of Croatia in respect of Schengen acquis.
22 Amount declared by Croatia.
19
Evaluation of measures/actions implemented under the Schengen Facility in Croatia
Objectives Programmed Eligible cost21 incurred
Percentage point
difference between
the share of
programmed and
incurred cost Amount (EUR)
% out of
total
Amount (EUR)
22
% out of
total
Objective 9 Support costs for logistic and operations for managing the Instrument 170.000,00 0,13 227.980,10 0,19 0,056
Objective 10 Increasing the number of police officers for border control and police
officers for state border protection
350.000,00 0,28 887.532,61 0,75 0,47
Objective 11 Equipment for border police 3.905.472,00 3,18 4.384.020,48 3,75 0,56
Grand Total 122.747.865,4923 100,00 116.861.415,78 100,00 -
Source: Comprehensive Report for Croatia (2017)
23 According to the Comprehensive Report, the RA assessed in 2016 that a share of contracted amounts would not be payed as some of the planned actions may not be implemented within the eligibility period. In order to increase the absorption rate and utilise as much funds as possible within the eligibility period, the RA exceeded the available SF funding in procurement plans.
20
Evaluation of measures/actions implemented under the Schengen Facility in Croatia
More than 50% of the Schengen Facility funding was programmed and spent
under Objective 1. Under Objective 1, funds were allocated to 12 measures.
The majority of these resources were programmed and spent on the
procurement of two helicopters (Measure 1.6) and on the implementation of
border surveillance system at the external EU green border (Measure 1.7). A
full overview of the financial allocation per measure is provided in Annex 9.
The investments under objective 4 were the second largest allocation. With 4
measures implemented under this objective, the allocation counted for about
16% of the incurred costs. This allocation concerned the construction of new
and renovation and modernization of the existing border infrastructure. This
included construction of transit centres for foreigners, constructions and
reconstructions of border police facilities, as well as procurement of furniture
and equipment.
The 11 objectives of the Schengen Facility are further broken down to
measures, which provide more detail on the acquisitions financed under each
objective. A breakdown of allocation at the level of measures is presented in
Annex 9 - Additional tables. Looking at the allocation of the Schengen Facility
funding according to type of activities financed presented in Table 2, three types
of activities stand out. Equipment and means of transport accounted for the
highest financial allocations, with slightly over 30% of allocated funds, followed
closely by infrastructure (more than 28%).
Table 2 Financial allocation of the Schengen Facility per activity type in euro
Activity type Programmed Eligible cost incurred
Amount (EUR) % out of
total
Amount (EUR)24 % out of total
Equipment 41.027.079,26 33,42% 38.207.321,79 32,69%
Infrastructure 34.224.523,71 27,88% 33.747.343,85 28,87%
IT solutions 8.841.599,15 7,20% 8.303.506,91 7,10%
Means of
transport
37.583.663,37 30,62% 35.274.952,97 30,18%
Operations 340.000,00 0,28% 228.264,20 0,19%
Salaries 350.000,00 0,29% 887.532,61 0,75%
Training 381.000,00 0,31% 212.493,45 0,18%
Grand Total 122.747.865,49 100 % 116.861.415,78 100 %
Source: Comprehensive report for Croatia (2017)
Croatia initially experienced a significant delay in implementing projects
financed through the Schengen facility due to lack of human resources
and lack of familiarity with procedures and rules of implementation25.
The financing did not commence until the fourth quarter of 2013, when several
24 Amount declared by Croatia. 25 Interview with Responsible Authority, Ministry of Interior, Zagreb, 20/12/2018
21
Evaluation of measures/actions implemented under the Schengen Facility in Croatia
construction projects had started. According to the quarterly reports submitted
to the European Commission by the Responsible Authority, the majority of
projects were in early development stages. The construction of Crossing point
Kamensko and Ilok were the first projects that started under the SF. A total of
44 projects were reported in the annual report for the year 2013. Three
construction projects were being designed, 19 were undergoing the preparation
of technical design, while for 20 the tender documentation was being prepared.
Management of SF and roles of authorities
As per Article 13 of the Commission Decision C(2013) 2159, Croatia was
required to designate a Responsible, Certifying and Audit authority that would
be overseeing different aspects of the implementation of the SF, i.e. they would
be in charge of the management and control system of the Schengen Facility.
With the decision on the management and coordination of the Schengen
Facility26, the Croatian Government appointed the Responsible, Certifying and
Audit authorities, as well as a coordinating body and beneficiaries of the
Schengen Facility.
Responsible authority
The Independent Sector for Schengen coordination and EU Funds of the Ministry
of Interior was set up as the Responsible Authority, whose role was the
management of the Schengen Facility and the implementation of actions under
the defined objectives. It provided technical assistance to the Board for
coordination and monitoring of the Schengen Facility, coordinated activities
between all parties involved in the monitoring, control and implementation of
projects. It was responsible for all activities listed under Article 14 of
Commission Decision C(2013) 2159. More on the tasks related to monitoring
activities that were executed by the Responsible Authority are presented under
EQ 2.4 in Section 3.
The Responsible Authority was furthermore responsible for verifying that the
declared expenditure is real and justified for the purpose of projects, approving
transactions, managing accounting and bookkeeping, and ensuring that double
financing is avoided27. The Independent Sector for Schengen coordination and
EU Funds is the responsible authority devoted to the implementation of other
EU Funds (Return Fund, ISF, and AMIF). As it was managing pre Schengen
Facility EU funds (IPA, Transition Facility, CARDS, PHARE) it was selected as
the Responsible Authority for the management of the SF.
26 Croatian Government Decision of 28th November 2013 (Class:022-03/13-04/493) available in Croatian at http://eufondovi.mup.hr/UserDocsImages/dokumenti/Odluka%20Vlade%20RH%20-%20sustav%20upravljanja%20i%20kontrole%20Schengenskog%20instrumenta.pdf [28.03.2019] 27 This specific task was executed by the Material and Financial Affairs Directorate of the Ministry of Interior . Based on the MoI's guidance document for the implementation of the SF (Priručnik za provedbu Schengenskim instrumentom), available in Croatian at http://eufondovi.mup.hr/UserDocsImages/dokumenti/Prirucnik%20za%20provedbu%20Schengenskog%20instrumenta.pdf [28.03.2019]
http://eufondovi.mup.hr/UserDocsImages/dokumenti/Odluka%20Vlade%20RH%20-%20sustav%20upravljanja%20i%20kontrole%20Schengenskog%20instrumenta.pdfhttp://eufondovi.mup.hr/UserDocsImages/dokumenti/Odluka%20Vlade%20RH%20-%20sustav%20upravljanja%20i%20kontrole%20Schengenskog%20instrumenta.pdfhttp://eufondovi.mup.hr/UserDocsImages/dokumenti/Prirucnik%20za%20provedbu%20Schengenskog%20instrumenta.pdfhttp://eufondovi.mup.hr/UserDocsImages/dokumenti/Prirucnik%20za%20provedbu%20Schengenskog%20instrumenta.pdf
22
Evaluation of measures/actions implemented under the Schengen Facility in Croatia
Audit authority
The Agency for the Audit of EU Programmes Implementation System (ARPA)
was designated as the Audit Authority, whose main duty was to ensure that
independent verifications on the effective functioning of the management and
control system are performed. It was designated to perform verifications on a
representative sample of actions ensuring at the same time that the bodies
involved in the management and implementation of actions are verified. ARPA
had been the designated audit authority for other EU funds implemented prior
to Schengen Facility (IPA, CARDS program, PHARE program, Transition
Facility), and has thus built its expertise and capacity in auditing EU funds.
Certifying authority
The Sector for National Fund Affairs of the State Treasury in the Ministry of
Finance was appointed as the Certifying Authority and performed tasks related
to the certification of the declared expenditure. It was in charge of processing
the receipts for services procured under the SF and paying contractors. It
executed its tasks as envisaged in the SF guidelines. The Sector for National
Fund Affairs was involved in the certification of EU funding in Croatia for IPA,
CARDS program, PHARE program, Transition Facility and it is currently
performing this function for SOLID, AMIF, and ISF.
Coordinating body
The Board for coordination and monitoring of the Schengen Facility was the
designated Coordination body that consisted of the following positions: Minister
of the Interior, deputy ministers of several relevant Ministries28, the
representative of the State Commission for Supervision of Public Procurement
Procedures, Chief of Police, Head of the Border Police Directorate, Head of the
Independent Sector for Schengen Coordination and EU funds, and a
representative of the Agency for the Audit of EU Programmes Implementation
System (in an observing function).
The Board was set up with the Government’s Decision on the management and
coordination of the Schengen Facility29. The Board gave recommendations
related to the Indicative programme and its possible changes, assessed the
overall implementation of the SF, and advised the responsible authority in cases
where obstacles are encountered. Upon the implementation of the Schengen
Facility for Croatia, the work of the Board was discontinued.
28 Ministry of Regional Development and EU funds, Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Construction and Spatial Planning, and Ministry of Foreign and EU affairs. 29 Croatian Government Decision of 28th November 2013 (Class:022-03/13-04/493) available in Croatian at http://eufondovi.mup.hr/UserDocsImages/dokumenti/Odluka%20Vlade%20RH%20-%20sustav%20upravljanja%20i%20kontrole%20Schengenskog%20instrumenta.pdf
http://eufondovi.mup.hr/UserDocsImages/dokumenti/Odluka%20Vlade%20RH%20-%20sustav%20upravljanja%20i%20kontrole%20Schengenskog%20instrumenta.pdfhttp://eufondovi.mup.hr/UserDocsImages/dokumenti/Odluka%20Vlade%20RH%20-%20sustav%20upravljanja%20i%20kontrole%20Schengenskog%20instrumenta.pdf
23
Evaluation of measures/actions implemented under the Schengen Facility in Croatia
Beneficiaries
The Croatian Government Decision of 28th November 2013 specified five
beneficiaries30. Beneficiaries of the Schengen Facility were chosen based on
their administrative jurisdictions and legal status related to project
implementation31, keeping in mind the needs of Croatia with regards to border
surveillance and control. The Indicative Programme and its objectives were
designed based on suggestions from beneficiaries. The beneficiaries defined
main priorities according to their needs and the related projects that would fall
under the financing scope of the SF.
The beneficiaries of the Schengen Facility were the Border Police Directorate
and the IT and telecommunications Sector of the Ministry of the Interior; the
Service for Construction and Maintenance of Border Crossings of the Ministry of
Finance (only measure 4 under objective 4); and the Consular Affairs Sector
and the Sector for Informatics, Distribution of Data and Protection of the
Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs. The table below shows the allocation
of objectives and financial means per beneficiary.
Table 3 Beneficiaries and objectives of the Schengen Facility
Source: Ecorys calculation based on the Comprehensive Report
30 Ibid. 31 Annex I of the Indicative Programme [In Croatian - “Schengenski instrument” (Čl. 31. Akta o uvjetima pristupanja 2011.) Indikativni program, Prilog 1 ‘ Opis sustava upravljanja I kontrole].
Beneficiary Responsible for
objective
Total financial
spending per
beneficiary (in EUR)
The Border Police Directorate of the Ministry of
Interior
Objective 1
Objective 4
Objective 5
Objective 10
Objective 11
91.508.447,8
The IT and telecommunications sector of the
Ministry of Interior
Objective 2
Objective 3
Objective 6
(Measure 3.2)
22.542.645,76
The Consular Affairs Sector of the Ministry of
Foreign and European Affairs
Objective 7
Objective 8
963.849,02
The Sector for Informatics, Distribution of Data
and Protection of the Ministry of Foreign and
European Affairs
Objective 6
1.053.480,13
Maintenance of Border Crossings of the Ministry
of Finance
Objective 4
(Measure 4.4)
565.012,97
Independent Sector for Schengen coordination
and EU Funds of the Ministry of Interior
Objective 9 227.980,1
24
Evaluation of measures/actions implemented under the Schengen Facility in Croatia
Institutional and organisational changes
The Comprehensive report mentions internal organisational changes within the
Independent Sector of the Ministry of Interior (i.e., the responsible authority)
that occurred throughout the implementation period, whose aim was to
enhance the capacities of the unit. Interviews with staff of the Responsible
Authority (RA) confirmed a relatively high turnover of employees at managerial
level throughout the implementation period.
The Independent Sector for Schengen Coordination and European Union
Projects (RA) started with one employee on the 1st of January 2013. In July
2013, there were four employees managing and monitoring projects. The
Commission reported five employees and two trainees working for the
Responsible Authority in June 201432.
In 2016, the former Department for Implementation and Monitoring of Projects
was restructured and became the Service for European Union Projects. This
change lifted the burden from the Responsible Authority to an extent because
before this structural change, it was in charge of managing projects funded not
just through the Schengen Facility33, but also through other EU funds. The
structural change allowed the RA to focus on managing the SF. More
specifically, the same unit acted as Responsible Authority for the European
Refugee Fund and European Return Fund, the Asylum, Migration and
Integration Fund and the Internal Security Fund; it acted as the Central
Implementation Unit for IPA and Transition Facility projects of the Ministry of
Interior, while at the same time being involved in two AMIF and ISF Borders
Emergency Assistance projects.
The Commission monitoring visit during 2014 referred to the low capacity of
the Responsible Authority and recommended increasing staff numbers. It was
stressed that the Schengen Facility funding was not being utilized to contract
additional staff to manage it as there were doubts about spending resources for
this objective at higher decision making levels. Based on the Commission’s
recommendations, the revised Indicative Programme added an additional
objective on strengthening administrative capacity (Objective 9) and the
additional staff was engaged by fixed term contract – in total 9 employees. A
short overview of the status of employees is given in the table below.
Table 4 Number of employees of the Independent Sector for Schengen coordination and EU funds
January 2013 September 2014 2015 2016
1 5 14 14
Source: Ecorys, based on interviews with the RA, Monitoring report and Comprehensive report
32 COM Report: Schengen Facility for Croatia - Joint monitoring & audit visit 2-6 June 2014. European Commission.
33 Interview with employees of the Independent Sector for Schengen Coordination and EU Funds of the Ministry of Interior, Zagreb, 22/12/2019.
25
Evaluation of measures/actions implemented under the Schengen Facility in Croatia
1.2 Baseline
The purpose of Task 2.2 is to provide the baseline situation concerning border
controls prior to the implementation of the Schengen Facility. Since the
Schengen Facility implementation started in 2014, 2013 is considered as the
baseline year. In the following sections we present the important developments
in the national policies, key issues and statistics on the situation at the Croatian
borders and the identified challenges to effective border control along the needs
identified presented in the intervention logic (equipment, infrastructure, IT
systems, and human resources34).
Important developments in relevant national policies
The preparation for entering the Schengen Area started before Croatia’s
accession to the EU. Croatia introduced the Integrated Border Management
Concept (IBM) in 2005 and has since then continuously been upgrading it to
align it to the acquis communitaire. In 2014, the Croatian government has
defined an Action Plan that accompanied the latest revision of the IBM
Strategy35. Joining the Schengen Area has been defined as the main objective
of the IBM Strategy and the goal of the strategy was to ensure fulfilment of all
criteria necessary for Croatia to enter the Schengen area.
The Schengen Action Plan (SAP) was adopted in 2007 with the goal of aligning
the Croatian national legislation to the Schengen acquis and planning for
activities that would allow strengthening administrative capacity. The SAP
outlines several key areas whose improvement would help to reach those goals.
These overlap largely with the areas that will later on be mentioned in the
Indicative programme: border police management, asylum and migration, visa
management, police cooperation, and fight against crime and terrorism.
A national Schengen Action Plan was drafted to identify areas that needed to
be aligned to the Schengen acquis. The National Schengen Action Plan has been
revised in 2014 to reflect the updated status of actions that still need to be
undertaken in aligning to the Schengen acquis. The revised SAP was
complementary to the Schengen Facility Indicative Programme 2013-2014,
which identified some specific fields related to border control and surveillance
that needed further improvements before accessing the Schengen Area.
The revised Schengen Action Plan mentions that in 2013, the Croatian
government adopted the Law on state border surveillance36 and the Law on
amendments and additions to the Law on foreign nationals, which ensured the
34 Issues related to the need to support costs for logistics and operations, including payment of the salaries of the personnel required to fulfil the obligations of Croatia in respect of Schengen acquis are not presented as they were identified after 2014. 35 Integrated Border Management Strategy (Strategija integriranog upravljanja granicom), Croatian Official Gazette NN 92/2014, available at https://narodne-novine.nn.hr/clanci/sluzbeni/2014_07_92_1864.html [28.03.2019] 36 Croatian Official Gazette NN 83/2013, Zakon o nadzoru državne granice.
https://narodne-novine.nn.hr/clanci/sluzbeni/2014_07_92_1864.htmlhttps://narodne-novine.nn.hr/clanci/sluzbeni/2014_07_92_1864.html
26
Evaluation of measures/actions implemented under the Schengen Facility in Croatia
harmonisation of Croatian law with the Schengen acquis of provisions related
to border police activities. In the same year, the Regulation on border crossings
in the Republic of Croatia37 was adopted, establishing the border crossings,
locations, categories as well as the types of transportation allowed. The
Regulation defining the supervision of border crossings38 was supplemented in
accordance with Council Decision SCH/Com-ex (94) 16 rev. on the acquisition
of common entry and exit stamps.
Overall situation at the external and internal boarder
In 2013, Croatia had 189 border crossing points. The external land border
was supervised by border police distributed across 27 police stations.
In 2013, 136.347.236 passengers crossed the Croatian border. The highest
share of these crossings occurred at the border with Slovenia, where
65.133.886 crossings were registered. The second highest traffic was recorded
at the Bosnian border crossing, amounting to 43,688,380 passengers. The most
frequently used border crossings were at the border with Slovenia: Macelj
(11,632,571), Bregana (11,251,484), and Kaštel (9,157,498). A total number
of 45.866.702 vehicles have crossed the Croatian border in 2013. Out of those,
41.563.900 were personal vehicles, 3.600.212 were cargo vehicles, 568.572
buses, 65.057 airplanes, 18.417 trains and 50.544 ships39. Maritime border
crossings in 2013 amounted to 3.183.408 passengers40.
The number of registered illegal border crossings in 2013 was 4.734
(including EU nationals)41. Looking at illegal crossings according to police
directorates shows that the highest number of illegal crossings (1.091) occurs
in the Zagrebačka police directorate, followed by Vukovarsko-srijemska police
directorate (993) and Primorsko-goranska (874). Out of the registered illegal
border crossings 603 took place at the border crossing and 1.363 close to the
border crossing. According to Eurostat data, the number of third country
nationals found to be illegally present in Croatia in 2013 was 4.15042.
In 2013, reception and accommodation of asylum seekers was organised by
two reception centres, one in Zagreb (Dugave) and the other in Kutina, which
37 Croatian Official Gazette NN 79/2013, Uredba o graničnim prijelazima Republike Hrvatske.
38 Croatian Official Gazette NN 5/2013 and NN 51/2013, Pravilnik o načinu obavljanja nadzora državne granice.
39 Overview of basic safety indicators for 2013 (Pregled sigurnosnih pokazatelja u 2013. godini, Promet vozila) Available at https://www.mup.hr/UserDocsImages/statistika/2014/Statisticki%20preg2013_konacni%20prom_WEB.pdf [28.03.2019] 40 Overview of basic safety indicators for 2013 (Promet vozila, Pregled sigurnosnih pokazatelja u 2013. godini). 41 Ibid., (Nezakoniti prelasci državne granice po državljanstvu). 42 Eurostat. Third country nationals found to be illegally present - annual data (rounded). [migr_eipre], Last update: 22-08-2018
https://www.mup.hr/UserDocsImages/statistika/2014/Statisticki%20preg2013_konacni%20prom_WEB.pdfhttps://www.mup.hr/UserDocsImages/statistika/2014/Statisticki%20preg2013_konacni%20prom_WEB.pdf
27
Evaluation of measures/actions implemented under the Schengen Facility in Croatia
received funding through PHARE and IPA. A reception centre for foreigners43 in
Ježevo was also functional and data on its functioning is provided below:
Number of persons in the centre: 784 (201244);
Number of days spent in the centre: 18,494 (201245).
As mentioned above, the number of apprehended irregular migrants in 2013
was 4.734, which presents a decrease in comparison to the previous year
(6.839). The number of asylum seekers amounted to 1.089 in 2013,
presenting a slight decrease since the year before (1.193)46.
When it comes to the registration of human trafficking cases, according to
a report on data availability47, Croatia was not providing data in 2013 and 2014
on persons coming into formal contact with the police (suspected, arrested, or
cautioned), but the data for 2011 and 2012 is 14 and 11 cases, respectively48.
The number of all valid residence permits in Croatia in 2013 was 12.25949.
According to Eurostat data, the number of immigrants in Croatia in 2013 was
10.37850. No publicly available data was available for the number of visas
issued in 2013, but according to data provided by the Ministry of Foreign and
European Affairs, their number was around 110 000. In 2014, 72 463 visa
applications were processed51.
Technical equipment
Although significant progress was made in providing technical equipment to the
border police even before the Schengen Facility, further modernisation was
needed in order to reach the technical standard of Schengen external
borders. The equipment for border surveillance and checks at border crossing
points did not adequately meet the requirements in order to ensure compliance
with the Schengen acquis. In particular:
43 The reception centre for foreigners (prihvatni centar za strance) is a facility that accommodates migrants who will be deported to their origin countries. 44 MoI, Statistical overview of basic safety indicators and results of work in 2012, 2013, p. 134. 45 Idem, p.134. 46 Data extracted from revised Indicative Programme 2013-2014, Croatian version. 47 Lancaster University (2018). Data collection on trafficking in human beings in the EU Final report – 2018. Table 2.5.2: Member State data provision and gaps on persons coming into formal contact with the police (suspected, arrested, or cautioned), 2008-2016, p. 29. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/sites/homeaffairs/files/what-we-do/policies/european-agenda-security/20181204_data-collection-study.pdf [02.04.2019].
48 Eurostat. Trafficking in Human Beings. 2015 edition. Number of victims (identified and presumed) registered by the police, NGOs and other a