Annexes to SEC(2011)1537 - Executive Summary of the Impact Assessment - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | SEC(2011)1537 - Executive Summary of the Impact Assessment. |
|---|---|
| document | SEC(2011)1537  |
| date | December 12, 2011 |
6.3.2. Consistency
Options 3.1 and 3.2 build largely on existing capabilities, allowing Member States and third countries to take into account regional priorities and specificities. Option 3.3 is not in line with the EUROSUR approach of making best use of existing infrastructures and systems.
6.3.3. Costs
There is no cost related to Option 3.1, because a connection from all three regional networks to their respective NCCs was established before the end of 2011. Concerning Option 3.2, the costs for establishing and maintaining the SEAHORSE Mediterraneo in 2011-2020 are estimated at M€ 5,37. With regard to Option 3.3, the costs for replacing the three regional networks by the EUROSUR network are around M€ 25,29.
6.3.4. Fundamental rights
Cooperating with third countries in order to prevent irregular migration could have a significant negative impact on fundamental rights in case the third country authorities use such information to identify persons or groups of persons which are likely to be subject to torture, inhuman and degrading treatment. The legislative proposal on EUROSUR must therefore provide the appropriate safeguards in order to prevent such a situation.
6.4. Sub-options 4.1 to 4.3 for the common application of surveillance tools
6.4.1. Effectiveness
Option 4.1 would envisage that Member States use individually existing capabilities established by the EU Satellite Centre (EUSC) and the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA). Option 4.2 would be more efficient than Option 4.1, because Frontex would coordinate the requests coming from the national coordination centres. In Option 4.3 Frontex would establish such a service on its own, which would be difficult to achieve in the mid-term.
6.4.2. Consistency
Option 4.2 would be more consistent with the objective of promoting interagency cooperation than Options 4.1 and 4.3. Due to its multi-purpose and cross-sectoral approach, EU funding provided by the GMES programme for such a service can be justified.
6.4.3. Costs
The total costs in 2012-2020 for Option 4.1 are estimated at M€ 80, with almost similar amounts for Option 4.2 (M€ 62,1) and Option 4.3 (M€ 62,3).
6.4.4. Fundamental rights
Option 4.1 would have the disadvantage that legal frameworks may not be established to enable commercial operators to monitor activities in third countries and store information in line with data protection laws.
7.Comparison of options and identification of preferred policy option
In line with the assessment in section 6, the following options would be the preferred ones:
With regard to the establishment of NCCs, Option 1.1 is the preferred option, because it does not require Member States to restructure their national administrations and thus could be easily implemented.
Following the decentralised approach for setting up EUROSUR, the preferred policy option for the EUROSUR network is Option 2.2.
Taking into account the urgent need for enhancing border control in the Mediterranean region, Option 3.2 provides the best answer on how to promote the cooperation with neighbouring third countries. However, the willingness of northern African countries to cooperate is a pre-condition for the implementation of Option 3.2.
For the common application of surveillance tools, Option 4.2 is the option providing most added value.
Costs, responsibility and source of funding for the preferred option
Step | Component | PO x.1 | PO x.2 | PO x.3 | Preferred option | |
| Decentralised approach | Partly centralised approach | Centralised approach | To be set up by | Funding via | ||
| 1 | NCCs | M€ 99,6 | M€ 271,6 | M€ 610 | Member States | EBF |
| 1 | FSC | M€ 95,6 | M€ 129,8 | M€ 137 | Frontex | Frontex |
| 2, 7 | Network | M€ 42,4 | M€ 46,7 | M€ 49,3 | Frontex | Frontex |
| 6 | CPIP (RAU) | € 0,0 | M€ 29,3 | M€ 29,2 | Frontex | Frontex |
| 3 | 3rd countries | € 0,0 | M€ 5,4 | M€ 25,3 | Member States | DCI, EBF |
| 5 | Common application of surveillance tools | M€ 80,5 | M€ 62,1 | M€ 62,3 | Frontex EUSC EMSA | Frontex and FP7/ GMES |
| Total | M€ 318,1 | M€ 544,9 | M€ 913 | |||
| Preferred Option | M€ 338,7 |
Combining the preferred options, the costs of EUROSUR would amount to M€ 338,7.
8.Monitoring and evaluation
Frontex shall ensure that methods are in place to monitor the functioning of EUROSUR against the main policy objectives. Two years after EUROSUR is fully operational and every year thereafter, Frontex shall submit to the European Parliament, the Council and the Comission a report on the functioning of EUROSUR.
Moreover three years after the EUROSUR system would have started all its operations and every four years thereafter, the Commission shall produce an overall evaluation of EUROSUR, accompanied, where necessary, by appropriate proposals to amend the Regulation establishing EUROSUR.
1 COM(2008) 68 final of 13.2.2008 (‘EUROSUR roadmap’).
2 Surveillance of land, maritime and air borders and border checks at border crossing points.
3 EU Satellite Centre.
4 European Maritime Safety Agency.
5 EU programme for Global Monitoring for Environment and Security.