Trakia Universityuni-sz.bg/truni11/wp-content/uploads/biblioteka/file/TUNI10043025.pdfEurope Direct is a service that answers your questions about the “This document has been prepared

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

Documents

Trakia Universityuni-sz.bg/truni11/wp-content/uploads/biblioteka/file/TUNI10043025.pdfEurope Direct is a service that answers your questions about the “This document has been prepared