Explanatory Memorandum to COM(2011)752 - General provisions on the Asylum and Migration Fund and on the instrument for financial support for police cooperation, preventing and combating crime, and crisis management - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | COM(2011)752 - General provisions on the Asylum and Migration Fund and on the instrument for financial support for police cooperation, ... |
|---|---|
| source | COM(2011)752  |
| date | 15-11-2011 |
Home affairs policies have been steadily growing in importance over the last years. These policies are at the heart of the European project to create an area without internal borders where EU citizens and third-country nationals may enter, circulate, live and work, bringing new ideas, capital, knowledge and innovation or filling gaps in the national labour markets, confident that their rights are fully respected and their security assured. The growing importance of home affairs policies has been confirmed by the Stockholm Programme. It is also one of the areas which have seen important changes under the Lisbon Treaty.
On 29 June 2011, the Commission adopted a proposal for the next multi-annual financial framework for the period 2014-2020: a budget for delivering the Europe 2020 strategy. In the area of home affairs policies, covering security, migration and the management of external borders, the Commission proposed to simplify the structure of the expenditure instruments by reducing the number of programmes to a two-Fund structure: an Asylum and Migration Fund and an Internal Security Fund.
Simplification has been defined as a key objective in the EU Budget Review Communication, the Smart Regulation agenda and the aforesaid communication on the next multi-annual financial framework. Experience suggests that in the current programming period, the diversity and fragmentation of rules governing spending programmes are often perceived as unnecessarily complicated and difficult to implement and control. This imposes a heavy administrative burden on beneficiaries as well as on the Commission and Member States, which can have the unintended effect of discouraging participation, increasing error rates and delaying implementation. This means that the potential benefits of Union programmes are not fully realised.
This Regulation is part of a package of four Regulations, jointly establishing the framework for Union funding on home affairs under the two Funds. This Regulation lays down rules on programming, management and control, financial management, clearance of accounts, closure of programmes and reporting and evaluation. Thus, it sets out the delivery mechanisms whereas the purpose and scope of the two Funds, the resources and means of implementation are defined in their respective specific Regulations. This horizontal instrument will ensure a common approach to the implementation of the two Funds and a uniform treatment of beneficiaries in relation to all Union support in the area of home affairs.
This overall structure of four Regulations is necessary in the light of Treaty obligations. Due to different voting rules in the Council stemming from variable geometry pursuant to Protocols 19 (on the Schengen acquis) and 21 (the position of the UK and Ireland in respect of the area of Freedom, Security and Justice) it is not legally possible to draw up one single comprehensive legislative proposal for an Internal Security Fund, despite the coherence of the policy objectives to be addressed. Moreover, it was considered important that, in line with the general objective of simplification and mainstreaming, the two Funds (the Internal Security Fund and the Asylum and Migration Fund) should have to the extent possible identical delivery mechanisms. Finally, by introducing a horizontal Regulation setting out common provisions, the overall number of provisions is reduced considerably than if they were replicated in each act.
This Regulation lays down obligations only of a financial and technical nature and leaves the choices on the definition of policy objectives, eligible actions, the allocation of resources and the scope of the intervention for each specific policy area to the respective legal basis (i.e. in the Specific Regulations).
Its mechanisms aim to cover the principal source of Union funding in the home affairs area. As such, it would then replace the myriad of provisions with varying degrees of detail and complexity currently found in the legal bases of the existing home affairs expenditure instruments: the four instruments of the General Programme 'Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows', the External Borders Fund, European Refugee Fund, the European Fund for the Integration of third-country nationals, the European Return Fund, and the two Specific Programmes of the General Programme 'Security and Safeguarding Liberties', ISEC (Prevention of and the fight against Crime) and CIPS (Prevention, Preparedness, and consequence management of Terrorism and other Security-related Risks).
Contents
- RESULTS OF CONSULTATIONS WITH THE INTERESTED PARTIES AND IMPACT ASSESSMENTS
- LEGAL ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSAL
- BUDGETARY IMPLICATION
- 5. MAIN ELEMENTS
- The Regulation seeks to lay down the conditions for
- 5.1. A policy-driven and results-oriented agenda
- For direct and indirect management
- 5.2. Simplification of delivery mechanisms
- Fordirect and indirect management
- 5.3. Flexibility
- For direct and indirect management
- 5.4. A coherent and efficient reporting, monitoring and evaluation framework
In accordance with the greater emphasis placed on evaluation as a tool to inform policy making, this proposal is informed by evaluation results, stakeholder consultation and impact assessment.
Work on the preparation of the future financial instruments for home affairs started in 2010 and continued into 2011. As part of this preparatory work, an evaluation/impact assessment study was launched in December 2010 with the aid of an external contractor. This study was completed in July 2011 and brought together available evaluation results for the existing financial instruments and informed the problems, objectives and policy options, including their likely impact, examined in the impact assessment. Building upon this study, the Commission prepared an impact assessment report on which the Impact Assessment Board delivered its opinion on 9 September 2011.
The impact assessment identified problems in relation to the scope and priorities of the current home affairs spending programmes on the one hand and the problems regarding the delivery of funding on the other hand. In relation to the latter, the impact assessment examined options in relation to shared management, centralised management and the timely response to emergency situations.
· In relation to shared management, the impact assessment concluded that a multiannual programme preceded by a policy dialogue was the preferred option. Contrary to the status quo, which combines annual programmes within a multiannual framework, it would significantly reduce administrative workload. Although a shift to multiannual programming only would offer increased flexibility, it would not address the continuous need to respond to changing situations in the Member States and third countries, typical of the home affairs area. Multiannual programming combined with a regular policy dialogue, however, would address this need and allow for a more results-driven approach.
· In terms of improving the delivery of funding under centralised management, the status quo was discarded because it offers little or no prospect of simplification or reduction of administrative workload. The move to a procurement only approach was also rejected because it would eliminate completely the possibility of promoting policy-driven actions, stimulating transnational co-operation and supporting civil society through grants. Recourse to a more targeted, less resource-intensive and diversified centralised management is the preferred option because it is expected to improve relations with key stakeholders and to lead to an overall reduction in workload.
· In relation to the emergency response mechanism, the impact assessment concluded that the current mechanism clearly does not meet the need for a quicker and more effective response to crises in the areas of migration and security. An improved mechanism extended to both a wider range of migration-related crises and security-related crises was considered the preferred option.
The impact assessment takes into account the results of a dedicated on-line public consultation on the future of home affairs funding. The consultation ran from 5 January to 20 March 2011 and was open to all stakeholders. A total of 115 responses were received from individuals and on behalf of organisations, including eight position papers. Respondents from all Member States contributed to the consultation as well as respondents from some third countries.
In April 2011, the conference 'The future of EU funding for Home Affairs: A fresh look' brought together key stakeholders (Member States, international organisations, civil society organisations etc) to discuss the future of EU funding for home affairs. The conference was also an occasion to validate the outcome of the stock taking and the public consultation.
The future of EU funding for home affairs was raised and discussed with institutional stakeholders on numerous occasions, including at an informal lunch discussion during the JHA Council on 21 January 2011, an informal breakfast with the political coordinators of the European Parliament on 26 January 2011, at the hearing of Commissioner Malmström before the Parliament's SURE Committee on 10 March 2011 and during an exchange of views between the Director-General of DG Home Affairs and the Parliament's LIBE Committee on 17 March 2011. Specific expert advice was also gathered through discussions with Member States' experts within the framework of the common Committee for the General Programme on Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows.
These consultations, conferences and expert discussions confirmed that there is general agreement among key stakeholders on the need for simplification of delivery mechanisms and greater flexibility, notably to respond to emergencies. Stakeholders supported the idea of reducing the number of financial instruments to a two-Fund structure on the condition that this would actually lead to simplification. They also agreed on the need for a flexible emergency response mechanism to allow the Union to respond quickly and effectively to migration and security-related crises. Shared management with a move to multi-annual programming with the definition of common targets at Union level was generally seen as the appropriate management method for all home affairs spending although non-governmental organisations were of the view that direct management should also be continued. Stakeholders also supported enhancing the role of the home affairs agencies in order to foster cooperation and increase synergies.
The right to act derives from Article 3 of the Treaty on European Union which states that 'the Union shall offer its citizens an area of freedom, security and justice without internal frontiers, in which the free movement of persons is ensured in conjunction with appropriate measures with respect to external border controls, asylum, immigration and the prevention and combating of crime'.
Pursuing simultaneously several objectives which are inseparably linked without each one being secondary and indirect in relation to the others, this Regulation is founded on substantive legal bases in Title V of the Treaty in the area of freedom, security and justice namely on Articles 78, 79(2 and 4), 82, 84 and 87. They constitute the legal bases for Union action in the areas of asylum, immigration, management of migration flows, fair treatment of third-country nationals residing legally in Member States, combating illegal immigration, removal and repatriation of persons residing without authorisation, trafficking in human beings, judicial cooperation in criminal matters, crime prevention, combating crime including terrorism, corruption, organised crime and police cooperation.
They constitute compatible legal bases in the light of the position of the United Kingdom, Ireland [and Denmark] with regard to the areas they cover, thus enabling voting on this text in the Council. As the ordinary legislative procedure applies to each of them, the combination of the legal bases chosen fully respects the prerogatives of the European Parliament.
Attention is also drawn to Article 80 of the TFEU which underlines that certain of these policies of the Union and their implementation shall be governed by the principle of solidarity and fair sharing of responsibility, including its financial implications, between the Member States.
In light of the above decision making procedure, the provisions of this Regulation lay down horizontal common provisions for the implementation of the Asylum and Migration Fund and one component of the Internal Security Fund, namely the instrument for financial support for police co-operation, preventing and combating crime, and crisis management.
For those home affairs policies covered by the Internal Security Fund the legal bases of which are not compatible with the above, this Regulation should become applicable on the basis of a specific clause in one of the specific Regulations, namely the instrument for financial support for external borders and visa based on Article 77 TFEU, as these policies constitute a development of the Schengen acquis in which the United Kingdom and Ireland do not participate.
Consequently, upon the joint adoption of this Regulation and the specific Regulations, the provisions of this Regulation will become equally applicable to all home affairs Union funding.
Overall, the home affairs area is an area where there is an obvious added value in mobilising the Union budget.
Union action is justified on the grounds of the objectives laid out in Article 67 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the Union (TFEU), setting out the means to constitute an area of freedom, security and justice. The implementation of financial assistance in partnership with the Member States through shared management is an important aspect of home affairs Union funding. The shared management method is considered appropriate for all home affairs policy areas and has therefore been extended to the area of internal security where it was not used previously. Centralised management is maintained for policy-driven activities.
Under shared management, the shift from annual programmes towards multiannual programming preceded by a policy dialogue within a strategic framework defined at Union level will ensure that the actions financed from the Union budget meet the needs of individual Member States whilst addressing Union priorities. This proposal lays down the general rules on programming, reporting, financial management, controls and evaluations which are necessary for the proper implementation of Union home affairs funding but -where possible- leaves the Member States the freedom to decide how to implement these rules at national level. For example, the eligibility of expenditure will be determined on the basis of national rules, subject to a limited number of common, simple principles which are laid down in this Regulation.
Thus, interventions take place at the appropriate level and the role of the Union does not go beyond what is necessary. As the Budget Review has highlighted, the 'EU budget should be used to finance EU public goods, actions that Member States and regions cannot finance themselves, or where it can secure better results'.[4]
Detailed justifications for Union action in relation to the various policy areas covered by this Regulation are included in the explanatory memorandum to the Specific Regulations.
The Commission's proposal for the Multi-Annual Financial Framework includes a proposal of EUR 3,869 million for the Asylum and Migration Fund and of EUR 4,648 million for the Internal Security Fund (current prices).
As a new general framework for implementing Union funding in the area of home affairs policies, this Regulation sets outs general rules on the financing of expenditure including rules on partnership, programming, reporting, monitoring and evaluation, the management and control systems to be put in place by the Member States and the clearance of accounts:
– The rules on partnership, programming, monitoring and evaluation have been designed on the basis of lessons learnt with the current four Funds of the General Programme 'Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows';
– The rules on management and control systems, financial management, clearance of accounts and reporting and closure of programmes are inspired by Part II of the Commission proposal for a Regulation common provisions for Funds covered by the Common Strategic Framework ("hereafter CSF Funds Regulation")[5] and the Commission proposal for a Regulation on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy[6], whilst ensuring, where useful, continuity with rules applied for the current four Funds.
a more policy-driven and results-oriented funding, including through reinforced strategic programming;
a significant simplification of the delivery mechanisms compared to the current situation;
more flexibility in financial management and in the implementation, in light of the need to be able to address new and unforeseen circumstances typical of home affairs;
an enhanced monitoring and evaluation framework, ensuring accountability, transparency and informed reflection on future support in the area of home affairs.
For shared management
· At the beginning of the next Multiannual Financial Framework, there will be a single, overarching home affairs policy dialogue with each Member State on their use of the Funds, i.e. how each individual Member State will contribute to achieving the objectives of the area of freedom, security and justice using the Union budget. These dialogues will be preceded by a Communication from the Commission on the overall expectations and framework for the dialogue. This Communication will also present the Commission's intentions for the Union actions and the framework for their implementation (e.g. different management methods to be used).
· Taking into account the outcome of the policy dialogue, the programmes agreed between the Commission and the Member State will describe the baseline situation and lay down the objectives Member States are to achieve in the policy area and the objectives for the use of Union funding. The national programme will identify targets and examples of actions per objective. In addition, a seven-year financial plan will indicate how the allocated resources are to be committed and spent, within the ceilings available. In case of actions to be implemented in and in relation to third countries, such actions should not be directly development-oriented and the policy dialogue should seek full coherence with the principles and general objectives of the Union external action and foreign policy related to the country or region in question.
· While every effort will be made to ensure that the national programmes are adopted in 2014, it is not excluded that some programmes would not be adopted until 2015. In order to avoid the loss of the related commitment appropriations for 2014, the Commission will therefore amend its proposal for a Council Regulation laying down the multiannual financial framework for the years 2014-2020 [COM(2011) 398 of 29.06.2011] in order to extend the provisions of Article 7 of the said Regulation to programmes implemented under shared management uder the Asylum and Migration and Internal Security Funds.
· Member States will report annually on financial management and the results achieved under the programmes.
· There will be a mid-term review in 2017 to re-examine the situation in each Member State. At this occasion, new resources can be allocated for the period 2018-2020.
· The objectives to be achieved under the national programmes will be complemented by 'Union actions' as well as a rapid response mechanism to deal with emergency situations. Union actions will support the implementation of Union policies through grants and procurement. They will include actions in and in relation to third countries as indicated in the Communication on the Multiannual Financial Framework[7]. Such actions shall not be directly development oriented and shall complement, as appropriate, the financial assistance provided through the EU's external aid instruments, which remain the main source of funding to help third countries build their relevant capacities. In implementing such support, full coherence will be sought with the principles and general objectives of the EU external action and foreign policy related to the country or region in question. Complementarity will be ensured through enhanced coordination with the EEAS and the relevant Commission services.
· Union actions and emergency assistance measures may also be carried out by Union Agencies in the area of home affairs (Cepol, Europol, EASO, Frontex and the IT Agency), where this is in the interest of the Union, where the actions are of an ad hoc nature, and where their successful implementation relies on the operational and technical expertise of the Agency concerned. Such actions will be implemented within the framework of their missions, in accordance with their legal bases, in complementarity with their work programmes and without prejudice to the overall staff reductions foreseen.
· Technical assistance at the initiative of the Commission will be used to support Member States and beneficiaries, to encourage mutual learning and improve communication (including corporate communication where appropriate) and evaluation. These appropriations will also support adequate control measures in the Union and in third countries relating to actions funded and run the IT system used for the communication between Member States and the Commission under shared management.
For shared management
· Each Member State will be required to have a single national programme per Fund, thus bringing together various policy areas, resulting in support from the Union budget for respectively an integrated migration policy, including integration, asylum and return as regards the Asylum and Migration Fund, and a comprehensive internal security strategy, including police co-operation, border security, fight against serious cross border crime, document fraud etc, as regards the Internal Security Fund.
· The new framework represents a major simplification and reduction of administrative burden compared to the current four Funds, which work with both a multiannual strategy and annual programmes. The maximum number of programmes will be 26 for the AMF (excluding Denmark, if the United Kingdom and Ireland were to opt in) and 27 for the ISF (all Member States). Moreover, the Schengen associated States will also participate in the ISF as regards the external borders and visa and the police cooperation components.
· A low number of revisions of national programmes are expected: programmes will concentrate on objectives and targets and not on an exhaustive identification of actions. The objective is that, as far as possible, and except for new or unforeseen circumstances, there should be, per Member State and per Fund, one decision to approve the multiannual programme and, if needed, one decision to revise the programme in the context of the mid-term review.
· As under the CSF Funds, the partnership principle should be implemented through a monitoring committee.
· Each Member States will set up a single management and control system per Fund, with the possibility of having one system to cover both Funds. To take into account national institutional particularities, Member States may create delegated authorities, to whom the responsible authorities can delegate particular (programming and implementation) tasks.
· The eligibility of expenditure shall be determined on the basis of national rules, subject to a limited number of common, simple principles. This approach should constitute an important simplification in project management at the level of the beneficiaries. Simplified cost options such as flat rates and lump sums provide the means for Member States to introduce performance-oriented management at the level of beneficiaries.
· Financial assistance will be available in the event of emergency situations, as defined in the relevant provisions of the specific Regulations. The mechanism shall be triggered by the Commission, also following the initiative of Member States, the Article 71 Committee (COSI) represented by the respective Union Presidency or other stakeholders such as international organisations (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, International Organisation for Migration, etc) and Union agencies in home affairs.
· All possible means will be used to avoid fragmentation by concentrating resources on a limited number of Union objectives and using the expertise of key stakeholders, where appropriate, on the basis of partnership agreements and framework agreements.
· For the financial support to the development of new IT systems ("the smart borders package"), the current annual financial decisions enabling the Commission to develop the central parts will be replaced by a multiannual framework.
For shared management
· The impact of the mid-term review will depend on the situation in the Member States. Member States which are deemed to have additional risks or which obtain additional resources to implement Union specific priorities would be invited to revise the amounts in their financial plan and where appropriate to add elements in their programme.
· Financial flexibility is part and parcel of the current Interinstitutional Agreement on Budgetary Discipline and of the Commission proposal for the Regulation on the 2014-2020 MFF. It is also reflected in the proposal for the revision of the Financial Regulation and for its implementing rules. It will therefore be implemented notably through the different mechanisms provided by these proposals, bearing in mind as central phases for their implementation the multiannual financial programing and its annual update, the annual budget allocation and the annual budget implementation.
· The specific Regulations lay down the amounts that will be allocated to the national programmes, Union actions and other activities. However, in the overall package of this Regulation and the specific Regulations, it is foreseen that the Commission can, by delegated acts, change certain amounts in order to ensure optimal use of the Union budget.
· Annual appropriations for Union actions, emergency assistance and, subject to annual ceilings, the technical assistance at the initiative of the Commission, are considered as one 'envelope', thereby allowing maximum flexibility to decide from one financial year to another where the resources will be allocated, depending on the specific needs.
· Union actions are defined very broadly so as to give the Commission all the necessary tools to fulfil its law making and policy coordination tasks.
– They focus on transnational aspects (co-operation, comparative analysis, networks), which require concerted actions across all Member States and actively support collective and mutually reinforcing actions of Member States and other actors which consolidate Union co-operation and bring about mutual learning and innovation.
– They also allow actions that are not transnational but that are of a particular interest for the policy development in these areas for the Union as a whole.
– They can cover actions in and in relation to third countries.
– The specific Regulations foresee implementation in relation to all the policies and objectives supported by the Funds and even financing policy-related aspects of the operation of the Funds. In the case of the borders and visa component of the Internal Security Fund, this could include the implementation of the Schengen evaluation and monitoring mechanism.
· Accordingly, the specific Regulations foresee support to the development of civil society and transnational networks (in particular for the Asylum and Migration Fund) and testing and validating research, e.g. applied research projects to bridge the gap from the Horizon 2020 Programme to operational use (in particular for the Internal Security Fund).
For shared management
· Member States will report annually on the implementation of the multiannual programme, as an integral part of the clearance of accounts' exercise. To feed into the mid term review process, they will be requested in 2017 to provide additional information on the progress made in achieving the objectives. A similar exercise will be undertaken in 2019, to allow, where appropriate, adjustments during the last financial year (2020).
· Supporting the development of a evaluation-based culture in the area of home affairs, the Funds will have a common evaluation and monitoring framework with broad policy related indicators which underline the result-oriented approach to the Funds and the essential role they could play in the policy mix to achieve the objectives towards an area of freedom, security and justice. These indicators relate to the impact the Funds could make: the development of a common culture of border security, police cooperation and crisis management; effective management of migration flows into the Union; fair and equal treatment of third-country nationals; solidarity and co-operation between Member States in addressing migration and internal security issues and a common Union approach on both migration and security towards third countries.
· To ensure adequate application of the principles on evaluation, and bearing in mind the practical experience with evaluation in Member States under the current Union funding on home affairs, the Commission and the Member States will work together to develop through implementing measures the common evaluation and monitoring framework, inter alia by defining templates and common output and result indicators.
· All measures will be established at the beginning of the programming period, thus enabling Member States to set up their reporting and evaluation systems on the basis of the agreed principles and requirements.
· To reduce the administrative burden and ensure synergies between reporting and evaluation, the information required for evaluation reports will build on and complete the information provided by Member States in the annual implementation reports of the national programmes.
· The interim evaluation report is due in 2018 and should feed into the reflection on the subsequent programming period.