EVALUATION REPORT ON IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTIONS CO-FINANCED BY THE EXTERNAL BORDERS FUND Ref. No. A-089-711/10 Prepared by the responsible authority of the EBF in Sweden The National Criminal Police 1
EVALUATION REPORT ON IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTIONS CO-FINANCED BY THE EXTERNAL BORDERS FUND (Report set out in Article 52(2) (a) of Decision No 574/2007/EC) Report submitted by the Responsible Authority of SWEDEN Date: 29 June 2010 Name, Signature (authorised representative of the Responsible Authority): Mr. Tommy Hydfors Acting Head of the National Criminal Police Police Commissioner Name of the contact person (and contact details) for this report in the Member State: Ms. Anna Garphult National Criminal Police Central Border Management Division Box 12256 102 26 Stockholm Sweden anna.garphult@rkp.police.se 2
GENERAL INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED BY THE RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY ON EVALUATION EXPERTISE AND ON METHODOLOGY - Did you have recourse to an evaluation expertise to prepare this report? No 3
EVALUATION REPORT ON THE RESULTS AND IMPACTS OF ACTIONS CO-FINANCED BY THE EXTERNAL BORDERS FUND CONTENTS 1. SUMMARY OF THE MULTIANNUAL PROGRAMME: ANALYSIS OF REQUIREMENTS IN THE MEMBER STATE AND STRATEGY TO ACHIEVE THE OBJECTIVES 2. SUMMARY OF THE ANNUAL PROGRAMMES 2007, 2008 AND 2009 (EXCLUDING TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE MEASURES AND INFORMATION AND PUBLICITY) 3. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROGRAMMES IN THE AWARDING BODY METHOD 4. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROGRAMMES IN THE EXECUTING BODY METHOD 5. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECTS FUNDED IN THE AWARDING BODY METHOD AND IN THE EXECUTING BODY METHOD 6. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE - INFORMATION AND PUBLICITY 7. ASSESSMENT OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ANNUAL PROGRAMMES 2007, 2008 AND 2009 8. OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF THE RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE EBF PROGRAMMES 2007 THROUGH 2009 4
Part I Summary of the Multiannual Programme 2007-2013 ANALYSIS OF REQUIREMENTS IN THE MEMBER STATE AND STRATEGY TO ACHIEVE THE OBJECTIVES 1. ANALYSIS OF REQUIREMENTS IN THE MEMBER STATE - The requirements in the Member State in relation to the baseline situation In chapter 2.1 of the multiannual programme, the national requirements are listed. The requirements include: A common national border control strategy. This strategy should cover the entire inward and outward journey process, including for example application of an entry visa and measures to detect cross-border crime. A national competence development model. This model would ensure that border guards obtain and maintain adequate skills in order to meet national and international demands. More reliable identification with biometric data and more reliable document control. The identification of persons crossing the border must improve and new methods should primarily build on biometric information. A common, multiauthority statistics model. The collecting, processing and presenting of statistical data must be made more efficient. Improved surveillance of the external border at the same time as the border control becomes more effective. New methods and technical tools need to be developed. Exchange of information. The exchange of information must be improved and must cover all authorities involved with border control, including also the foreign missions. Adopting legislation. Swedish national authorities feel that there is a need for better support in the national legislation. Implementation of VIS and SIS II at national level. These systems will help fight illegal immigration. More international cooperation and more involvement with Frontex. Improvements at border crossing points that are not used regularly. This mainly includes purchase of mobile equipment. - The operational objectives of the Member State designed to meet its requirements The operational objectives have been created from the needs described above. Each need has been described in terms of objectives and an indicative time schedule. This means that all 5
needs have been turned into objectives and are included in this part of the programme. The objectives include for example: a common national border control strategy should be implemented and operational by 2012, a national competence development model to be implemented by the end of 2010, a safe, high quality, effective and efficient control and identification of persons crossing the external borders will be achieved by the end of 2012, surveillance of the external border must be performed 24 hours a day as of 2012, exchange of information between border control points and cooperating authorities must be improved by the end of 2012, more effective control flows in border control must be achieved by the end of 2012, implementation of the VIS, implementation of the SIS II, Improvements at border crossing points that are not frequently used. 2. STRATEGY TO ACHIEVE THE OBJECTIVES Priority 1: Support for the gradual establishment of the common integrated border management system as regards checks on persons and the surveillance of the external borders Objective 1:Decrease the number of people entering Sweden illegally by discovering more false passports and other travel documents and improving the surveillance of borders. Example of key action: Purchase of equipment to detect false travel documents, surveillance cameras, epassport readers, fingerprint readers etc. Objective 2: Improved cooperation and exchange of information between different border controlling authorities. Example of key action: Development of a border intranet. Objective 3: A common multiauthority statistics model. Example of key action: Purchase of a statistical data system. Objective 4: A more flexible border control and improvements at border crossing points that are used at an irregular basis. Examples of key actions: Purchase of mobile and portable equipment which can be used at different border crossing points, especially equipment to detect false or falsified travel documents. Improved infrastructure at small airports. 6
Priority 2: Support for the development and implementation of the national components of a European Surveillance System for the external borders and of a permanent European Patrol Network at the southern maritime borders of the EU Member States Objective: Improved surveillance of the maritime borders. Example of key action: Purchase of rigid inflatable boats. Priority 3: Support for the issuing of visas and the tackling of illegal immigration, including the detection of false or falsified documents by enhancing the activities organised by the consular and other services of the Member States in third countries Objective 1: Improved exchange of information and better cooperation between different embassies or consulates and between the foreign missions and border control authorities in Sweden. Example of key action: New methods of exchanging information. Objective 2: Cooperation between Swedish embassies and consulates and foreign missions of other Member States in matters related to issuing of visas. Example of key action: Regional meetings. Objective 3: Purchase and upgrading of equipment to be used at consular offices in order to facilitate the visa issuing process. Examples of key actions: Development of biometric software to integrate with the national VIS. Procurement of the required hardware to enable capturing of biometric data. Priority 4: Support for the establishment of IT systems required for the implementation of the Community legal instruments in the field of external borders and visas Objective 1: Investments linked to establishing an effectively functioning VIS at national level. 7
Examples of key actions: Upgrading of the Wilma system and connect it to VIS. Connect the national VIS to the central VIS. Objective 2: Training of border guards and consular staff to ensure an effective use of VIS. Example of key action: Training of border guards, staff of foreign missions and staff of the Swedish Migration Board in the use of VIS. Objective 3: Investments linked to Schengen Information System II. Example of key action: Connect the national SIS II to the central SIS II. Objective 4: Training of border guards and other staff of authorities responsible for border control to ensure an effective use of SIS II. Example of key action: Training of border guards at airports. Objective 5: Improved access to other databases and IT systems and improved access to information about passengers travelling to Sweden. Examples of key actions: Introduction of a passenger name register. Improved access to ifado at border crossing points. Key actions considered as implementing specific priorities under the chosen priority: actions related to the development and implementation of VIS and SIS II Priority 5: Support for effective and efficient application of relevant Community legal instruments in the field of external borders and visas, in particular the Schengen Borders Code and the European Code on Visas Objective 1: A national competence development model. Examples of key actions: A national competence development model to ensure that all border guards have the same minimum level of training. Training for document experts. Objective 2: Dissemination of and training in community legal instruments. Examples of key actions: Training in the Visa Code. Training on the Border Code. 8
Training for border guards at border crossing points with limited traffic. Objective 3: Exchange and secondment of border guards with other Member States as well as between authorities in Sweden. Example of key action: Training sessions for border guards in other Member States. Objective 4: Improved exchange of information and better cooperation between different embassies or consulates and between the foreign missions and border controlling authorities in Sweden regarding training activities. Examples of key actions: Training sessions for border guards in other Member States. Training of staff at embassies for the purpose of improving their knowledge of false documents. Common training of staff of embassies in the same region of the world. 9
Finally, list the most important indicators set out in Part 3 of the Multiannual Programme 2007-2013 and the corresponding quantified/qualitative targets, broken down by Priority : Priority 1 (Main indicators, targets) Sweden is able to fulfil EU s demands regarding fingerprints in passports. Sweden uses equipment that makes it possible to fully use VIS and SIS II. Swedish authorities are able to deliver statistical data to Frontex and other EU agencies. Assurance that we are able to perform control of external borders at all times when and where it is necessary. Priority 2 (Main indicators, targets) Improved surveillance of the maritime border. A more effective control of maritime external borders. Priority 3 (Main indicators, targets) Greater possibilities for the staff at foreign missions to be able to expose false and falsified identity documents. A decreased number of visas being issued on false grounds or to unauthorised persons. Fair and equal treatment of persons who apply for visas. Improved quality of the visa application process. Equal and fair treatment of visa applicants. Priority 4 (Main indicators, targets) The national VIS project is finished and the national system is connected to the central system. A simplified visa application process. SIS II is used at all border crossing points and by all other actors who can benefit from the system. Responsible and consistent use of VIS. Responsible and consistent use of SIS II. Priority 5 (Main indicators, targets) A common national competence development model has been established. All border guards have the same basic training. 10
More coherent application of EU rules and standards in border control. Better knowledge of Swedish travel documents among border guards of other Member States. Equal and fair treatment of all visa applicants. 11
Part II SUMMARY OF THE ANNUAL PROGRAMMES 2007, 2008 AND 2009 (excluding Technical Assistance measures and Information and Publicity) The annual programme 2009 has been revised and a new version of the programme has been sent to the Commission. Here, only actions that were part of the first version of the programme and approved by the Commission are described. 1. Summary of actions under Priority 1 in the annual programmes, 2007 through 2009 Actions to be implemented under the awarding body method Not applicable. Actions to be implemented under the executing body method The following actions are implementing or have implemented priority one: 1. Purchase of epassport readers. In recent years, electronic passports have been introduced by many countries. These passports have a chip containing biometric information and security details that can help guarantee that the passport is genuine. Passports issued by EU Member States must contain biometric information. In order to read the information stored in the chip, new passport readers were needed. The National Police Board planned to purchase 250 epassport readers and these were to be placed at the Swedish border crossing points. The action covered the stipulation of requirements, the procurement and the integration at airports. 2. Portable equipment for border control. The objective of this action is to procure portable equipment to be used to check travel documents. The project also includes integrating the equipment with relevant IT systems. The equipment will be used at airports and in harbours and the fact that it is portable/mobile makes it possible to use the same equipment at several border crossing points. The equipment will be used to capture biometric information from people crossing the borders. Approximately 200 will be bought. 3. Purchase of fingerprint readers. The objective of the action is procurement of fingerprint readers. The readers will also be integrated with relevant IT systems such as SIS and VIS. Third country nationals who apply for a visa must leave their fingerprints in order to receive the visa. At the border crossing points, fingerprints must be checked in order to compare them to fingerprints taken in the visa application process. The project covers the stipulation of requirements, procurement of fingerprint readers and integration at all border crossing points in Sweden. 12
4. Procurement of surveillance cameras to Arlanda airport. Arlanda is the largest airport in Sweden with more than 90% of the third country traffic. The purpose of this action is to install surveillance cameras near the gates used for third country traffic in order to be able to see what flight a person arrived with. 2. Summary of actions under Priority 2 in the annual programmes, 2007 through 2009 Actions to be implemented under the awarding body method Not applicable. Actions to be implemented under the executing body method 1. Only one action is implementing priority two in the programmes approved by the Commission so far. This action is the procurement of Rigid-inflatable boats. The aim is to enhance the surveillance of the external maritime borders. The boats can be deployed at short notice and will make the border control at sea more effective. 3. Summary of actions under Priority 3 in the annual programmes, 2007 through 2009 Actions to be implemented under the awarding body method Not applicable. Actions to be implemented under the executing body method 1. Only one action is implementing priority three under the programmes 2007-2009. The action contributes to one of our objectives under priority three in the multiannual programme, purchase and upgrading of equipment to be used at consular offices in order to facilitate the visa issuing process. The action consists of one project, which is a subproject of the Swedish VIS project, implementing VIS at national level. In 2007, biometric stations were placed in Swedish consulates. The purpose of this action was then to develop the software of the biometric stations and make it possible to capture photo and signature from visa applicants. 4. Summary of actions under Priority 4 in the annual programmes 2007 through 2009 Actions to be implemented under the awarding body method Not applicable. Actions to be implemented under the executing body method 1. Development of passenger name records. In 2006 the passenger register act entered into forced and it prescribes that passenger airlines must supply a passenger name record 13
electronically once boarding has been completed and that the Swedish Police must maintain passenger name records from which the Police authorities can obtain information. The action was intended to develop an IT system the Swedish passenger name record. The system would include an application for receipt and temporary storage of passenger lists. 2. SIS II 2007. The Swedish SIS II project is developing Sweden s national elements of the European SIS II project. The Fund co-finances parts of this large project. The action includes for example a connection to VIS and epassport readers. 3. VIS. The development of the national elements of the VIS has been implemented by the VIS project run by the Swedish Migration Board. This action includes adjusting the national VIS to the central VIS via the Wilma system, a Swedish system that is used today in consular offices, at border crossing points and by the Swedish Migration Board. An application for handling of visa errands is developed. An application used for taking biometric information according to demands set by the Biometric Matching System is also developed. 4. Included in the Swedish VIS project is also training of staff who will be using the system. This action is addressed at Swedish foreign missions. The trainers are staff members from the Swedish Migration Board. The staff at foreign missions will learn how to use the new VIS application and learn about the central VIS. 5. Summary of actions under Priority 5 in the annual programmes 2007 through 2009 Actions to be implemented under the awarding body method Not applicable. Actions to be implemented under the executing body method Not applicable. 6. Any significant change to the actions of the programmes concerned (revisions of annual programmes and revisions of the financial breakdown lower than 10%) The annual programmes 2007 and 2008 have been fully implemented and follow the content of the annual programmes. The financial breakdowns are fairly accurate in these cases. At the end of the annual programme 2007 it was identified that not all funds had been distributed, due to the fact that some projects used less money than what had been granted to them. The money could not be redistributed and instead there was a lower consumption (underspending) of the AP 2007. The 2009 programme has been revised recently and sent to the Commission, but the revised programme is not yet approved. Some major changes have been introduced. Two actions have been deleted, one under priority one, the surveillance cameras for Arlanda airport, and one under priority four, the training in the use of the VIS. 14
15
Part III IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROGRAMMES IN THE AWARDING BODY METHOD Did you implement the 2007, 2008 and 2009 programmes in the awarding body method (as defined in Article 7 (2) of Commission Decision 2008/456/EC of 5.3.2008 - the External Borders Fund Implementing Rules), at least for part of the programmes? - No 16
Part IV IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROGRAMMES IN THE EXECUTING BODY METHOD Did you implement the 2007, 2008 and 2009 programmes in the executing body method (as defined in Article 8 of Commission Decision 2008/456/EC of 5.3.2008 - the External Borders Fund Implementing Rules), at least for part of the programmes? - Yes IV.1 Share of the overall EU contribution to the programmes granted in the executing body method from 2007 to 2009 For each programme year from 2007 to 2009, enter the share of the overall EU contribution to the programme (excluding the EU contribution for technical assistance) which was granted in the executing body method (in percentage, no decimal). - Programme 2007: 100 % - Programme 2008: 100 % - Programme 2009: 100 % 17
IV.2 Calls for expression of interest or for proposals or similar selection method For each programme year from 2007 to 2009, please provide the number of calls for expression of interest or for proposals or similar organised for the implementation of the EBF annual programmes in the executing body method - Programme 2007: 1 - Programme 2008: 1 - Programme 2009: 3 IV.3 Proposals received, selected and funded after calls for expression of interest, call for proposals or similar selection method in the executing body method Number of Programme 2007 Programme 2008 Programme 2009 Proposals received 5 4 10 19 Projects selected 4 2 8* 14 Projects funded 4 2 3* 9 TOTAL 2007-2009 * The annual programme 2009 has been revised and the revised programme has been sent to the Commission. However, the programme has not yet been approved and we have not made the formal decisions to co-fund the selected projects. Have all projects selected for funding after calls for expression of interest, call for proposals, or similar been funded? No. - If No, explain why : For the 2007 and 2008 annual programmes, all projects that were selected in the first call for interest have been funded and the projects have finished. For the 2009 annual programme the situation is different. A first call for interest was held in the summer of 2008 and five projects 18
were selected. After this, one project asked to withdraw its application already before the agreement had been signed. Four agreements were signed. One of these four projects later realised that it would not be able to implement the project on time and it asked to cancel the agreement. The project is planning to apply for funding from the 2011 annual programme instead. Because of the two projects not being implemented, three new projects have been selected recently and agreements have not been signed with these projects yet. The responsible authority for the EBF does not sign agreements with final beneficiaries before the Commission has approved the annual programme and the revised programme has not yet been approved. IV.4 Projects funded in the executing body method without a call for expression of interest or for proposals or similar Projects funded in the executing body method without a call for expression of interest or for proposals or similar selection method Programme 2007 Programme 2008 Programme 2009 Number 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 2007-2009 IV.5 Total number of projects funded in the executing body method in the programmes 2007, 2008 and 2009 Number of Projects funded after calls for expression of interest, calls for proposals, or similar selection method(see table IV.3) Projects funded without such calls (see table IV.4) TOTAL Projects funded in the executing body method Programme 2007 Programme 2008 Programme 2009 4 2 3 9 0 0 0 0 4 2 3 9 TOTAL 2007-2009 19
20
Part V SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECTS FUNDED IN THE AWARDING BODY METHOD AND IN THE EXECUTING BODY METHOD 2007-2009 1. Summary description of the projects funded under Priority 1 in the annual programmes, 2007 through 2009 In the awarding body method Not applicable. In the executing body method Electronic passports have been introduced by many countries and passports issued by EU Member States must contain biometric information. In order to read the information stored in the chip in the passport, new passport readers are needed. The National Police Board planned to purchase 250 epassport readers and these were to be placed at the Swedish border crossing points. The project only purchased 125 electronic passport readers as they found out that they did not need more than that. The action Portable equipment for border control consists of one project implemented by the National Police Board. The objective of this project is to procure portable equipment to be used to check travel documents. The project also includes integrating the equipment with relevant IT systems. The equipment will be used at airports and in harbours. The equipment will be used to capture biometric information from people crossing the borders. Approximately 200 will be bought. The project is still on-going. The purchase of fingerprint readers is a project implemented by the National Police Board. The readers will be integrated with relevant IT systems such as SIS and VIS. At the border crossing points, fingerprints must be checked in order to compare them to fingerprints taken in the visa application process. The project is still on-going. 2. Summary description of the projects funded under Priority 2 in the executing body method in the annual programmes, 2007 through 2009 21
In the awarding body method Not applicable. In the executing body method Only one project is implementing priority two in the programmes approved by the Commission so far. This project is the procurement of Rigid-inflatable boats and it is implemented by the Swedish Coast Guard. Two RIB boats will be procured and the aim is to enhance the surveillance of the external maritime borders. The boats can be deployed at short notice and will make the border control at sea more effective. 3. Summary description of the projects funded under Priority 3 in the annual programmes, 2007 through 2009 In the awarding body method Not applicable. In the executing body method Only one project is implementing priority three under the programmes 2007-2009. The project contributes to one of our objectives under priority three in the multiannual programme, purchase and upgrading of equipment to be used at consular offices in order to facilitate the visa issuing process. The project is a subproject of the Swedish VIS project, implementing VIS at national level. In 2007, biometric stations were placed in Swedish consulates. The purpose of the project was then to develop the software of the biometric stations and make it possible to capture photo and signature from visa applicants. 4. Summary description of the projects funded under Priority 4 in the annual programmes, 2007 through 2009 In the awarding body method Not applicable. In the executing body method 22
The project Development of passenger name records was intended to develop an IT system. The system would include an application for receipt and temporary storage of passenger lists. The project was included in the annual programme 2007 but did not manage to finish in time and has only developed parts of the system. The Swedish SIS II project is developing Sweden s national elements of the European SIS II project. The Fund co-finances parts of this large project. The development of the national elements of the VIS has been done by the Swedish Migration Board, and two projects under priority four relate to the development of the VIS. The two projects include adjusting the national VIS to the central VIS and an application used for taking biometric information according to demands set by the Biometric Matching System is also developed. Another project is the training of staff who will be using the VIS system. This project is addressed at staff of Swedish foreign missions. 5. Summary description of the projects funded under Priority 5 in the annual programmes, 2007 through 2009 In the awarding body method Not applicable. In the executing body method Not applicable. 6. Summary description of the projects funded in the awarding body method without a call for proposals, in the annual programmes 2007 through 2009 Not applicable. 7. Summary description of the projects funded in the executing body method without a call for expression of interest, a call for proposals or similar selection method, in the annual programmes 2007 through 2009 Not applicable. 23
8. Explain any significant change to the distribution of the projects funded in the awarding body method, by Priority and by Specific Priority, in the annual programmes 2007 through 2009 Not applicable. 9. Explain any significant change to the distribution of the projects funded in the executing body method, by Priority and by Specific Priority, in the annual programmes 2007 through 2009 The annual programmes 2007 and 2008 were implemented closely in line with the adopted programmes, but two projects did not spend all the funds allocated to them. The passenger name records did not manage to finish on time, and must implement the rest of the project without funding from the EBF. The project purchasing electronic passport readers purchased 125 readers instead of 250. The distribution of funding has remained almost the same as in the programme. The 2009 annual programme has been revised and a few actions have been exchanged. As regards the selected and funded projects described above, it is too early to say whether they will be implemented fully in accordance with the description in the programme. 10. Highlight any significant change (other than the distribution referred to under points 8 and 9) to the projects funded in the awarding body and executing body method in the annual programmes 2007 through 2009 In the awarding body method Not applicable. In the executing body method There are no other changes than the changes described under V.9. 11. Important projects funded in the annual programmes 2007 to 2009 2007 annual programme Only four projects were part of the annual programme 2007. They were all relevant projects, but we would specifically like to mention the project Purchase and upgrading of equipment to be used at consular offices in order to facilitate the visa issuing process. The project is a subproject of the Swedish VIS project, implementing VIS at national level. In 2007, biometric stations were placed in Swedish consulates. The purpose of the project was to develop the 24
software of the biometric stations and make it possible to capture photo and signature from visa applicants. Although the VIS has been delayed at central level, the Swedish VIS project has been able to finish many parts of the project. The equipment and the system can be used for issuance of visas, but without a connection to the central VIS. The system has been created in such a way that it is possible to use it without this connection. 2008 annual programme The annual programme 2008 included only one action, consisting of two projects that were both subprojects of the Swedish VIS project. With the aid of the EBF funding, the projects have implemented the action fully according to the original plan. The VIS system is now being used for issuance of visas. 2009 annual programme We have not yet seen any results of the projects included in the 2009 annual programme. 12. Description of one success story, among all the projects funded in the annual programmes 2007 to 2009 The greatest success story of the programmes implemented so far is the Swedish VIS project. Several subprojects have been implemented as EBF projects. They all contribute to the possibility to use the VIS system to issue visas and to control the visas at borders. The success of the Swedish VIS project is that the system can be used even though the European system has not been finished. This means that biometrics is taken from visa applicants and that the visas are registered in the system. 13. Description of one failure, among all the projects funded in the annual programmes 2007 to 2009 In general, we consider the implementation of the programmes 2007 2009 so far as successful. However, there was one project that did not finish on time, which means that the objectives of the project were not met at the end of the project period. The beneficiary is planning to finish the project without funding from the EBF, but when the final report of the project was produced, there were no results yet. 25
Part VI TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE INFORMATION AND PUBLICITY 1. Technical assistance Please provide a concrete description of the activities implemented under the Technical Assistance measures of the annual programmes 2007 through 2009. No annual breakdown is required. The technical assistance has only been used by the responsible and has mainly been used for salaries of the two employees working with the fund at the responsible authority. These two employees perform most of the tasks related to the management of the fund, for example creating and developing procedures, selection of projects and writing programmes, financial control, monitoring and evaluation of projects, reporting to the Commission, information activities, participation in the SOLID committee and cooperation with the EBF in other Member States, coordination of and meetings for the partnership Other costs for which the technical assistance has been used include:information events, one in 2008 and one in 2009, Hiring of a consultant to help prepare for the first information event and to create procedures for the audit trail of the fund, Travel costs for staff of the responsible authority: to SOLID committee meetings, to visit final beneficiaries etc. 2. Information and Publicity - Information and publicity activities by the Responsible Authority The responsible authority makes the Fund visible in as many contexts as possible and works actively with information activities. The responsible authority has arranged two major information events in accordance with article 33 of the Implementing Rules, one in December 2008 and one on November 2009. The 26
latter was organised together with the other SOLID funds. Both events included information about the multiannual programme and the annual programmes. The responsible authority has made visits to potential beneficiaries at several occasions. Training for beneficiaries and potential beneficiaries has also been provided and information is disseminated through e-mail every time there is a call for interest. The main source of information about the Fund can be found on the website http://www.polisen.se/sv/om-polisen/internationellt-samarbete/samarbete-inom- EU/Gransfonden/. The multiannual programme was published in the beginning of 2009, after the programme had been approved. Summaries of the annual programmes 2007 and 2008 were published at the same time. The annual programme 2009 is under revision and is therefore not published on the website. - Information and publicity activities by the final beneficiaries The rules on visibility of EU funding are described in the agreements signed with the projects and the responsible authority checks that the projects follow these rules. The projects make the Fund visible in different contexts depending on the type of project. The projects funded under the annual programmes 2007 through 2009 do not include information events such as conferences or training and therefore they make the Fund visible in other contexts. Some projects often participate in meetings with other authorities or other Member States, for example VIS and SIS II, and they always include information about the Fund in presentations. Equipment that is bought with support from the Fund, show the EU logo together with information about the External Borders Fund. This can be seen especially in airports. 27
Part VII ASSESSMENT OF IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ANNUAL PROGRAMMES 2007, 2008 AND 2009 VII.1. Assessment of the implementation of the 2007 Annual Programme 1. Has the 2007 programme been implemented as originally planned and broadly in line with the programme schedule? When the Fund was introduced in 2007, Sweden had to build its administration for the Fund before starting to select projects. However, a dialog was held with all relevant actors working with border control regarding projects that would be appropriate to co-finance with the Fund. The programme finished in December 2009, and the four projects that were part of the programme have submitted final reports to the responsible authority. One project did not finish in time and the results were not fully accomplished. One project, which was supposed to buy equipment, bought less of the equipment that was originally planned for. Overall, the result is still satisfying since two of the projects were implemented according to plans and two projects were implemented with good results. The project that had not finished in time is still in progress and will finish without the support from the Fund. 2. Have you encountered problems on implementation of the 2007 annual programme? If so, what measures did you take? We have not encountered any major problems in the implementation of the 2007 annual programme. 3. Has a revision of the 2007 programme by the Commission been necessary? If so, what were the main changes? No revision has been necessary. 4. Have you implemented the 2007 programme (the case being, the revised programme) fully? (= all or nearly all actions set out in the programme approved by the Commission, or in the revised programme approved by the Commission, could be implemented by the end of this programme) 28
The programme has been almost fully implemented. Only one action has not yet been completed and must finish without support from the Fund. The reason to why the action was not completed is that the project implementing the action was facing many technical difficulties, which caused delays. 5. Have the expected quantitative and qualitative results of the 2007 programme - as set out in the programme / revised programme approved by the Commission - been achieved at the end of this programme? The indicators set up in the annual programme 2007 have been reached to a large extent. However, there are a few indicators that can either not be measured at this point or that have not been reached. The action concerning the electronic passport readers had one indicator about purchasing 250 readers, while only 125 were actually purchased. The action concerning passenger name records did not fulfil all indicators either, as the system was not in place when the project period ended. 6. In the light of the implementation of the 2007 programme, do you consider that the distribution of funding between the actions was appropriate? Were the actions set out in the programme you submitted to the Commission appropriate? Yes, the distribution of funding was appropriate. Two projects did not use all the funding allocated to the particular actions, but overall the results are good. One of the projects that did not spend all the allocated funding, did not use all the money due to the fact that the money was not needed. The project had, at first, planned to purchase 250 electronic passport readers, but the final beneficiary realised that only 125 readers were needed at the Swedish border crossing points. The other project that did not use all the money allocated to it, was the project developing the passenger name records. Due to the fact that the project did not manage to finish on time, it did not spend all the money allocated to it. 29
VII.2. Assessment of the implementation of the 2008 Annual Programme 1. Has the 2008 programme been implemented as originally planned and broadly in line with the programme schedule? Yes. The 2008 programme included only one action consisting of two projects and both projects have been implemented successfully. 2. Have you encountered problems on implementation of the 2008 annual programme? If so, what measures did you take? No, we have not encountered any problems. 3. Has a revision of the 2008 programme by the Commission been necessary? If so, what were the main changes? No revision has been necessary. 4. Have you implemented the 2008 programme (the case being, the revised programme) fully? (= all or nearly all actions set out in the programme approved by the Commission, or in the revised programme approved by the Commission, could be implemented by the end of this programme) Yes. 5. Have the expected quantitative and qualitative results of the 2008 programme - as set out in the programme / revised programme approved by the Commission - been achieved at the end of this programme? The Swedish VIS is fully implemented and the results have mainly been achieved. The indicators/results that have not been achieved is the result of the central VIS not having been fully implemented yet. 6. In the light of the implementation of the 2008 programme, do you consider that the distribution of funding between the actions was appropriate? Were the actions set out in the programme you submitted to the Commission appropriate? Yes, the distribution of funding was appropriate. 30
VII.3. Assessment of the implementation of the 2009 Annual Programme 1. Has the 2009 programme been implemented as originally planned and broadly in line with the programme schedule? The annual programme 2009 has been revised, but the revised programme has not yet been approved by the Commission. Two actions have been deleted from the original programme and replaced by three new actions. The results of the projects cannot be measured yet. 2. Have you encountered problems on implementation of the 2009 annual programme? If so, what measures did you take? When we discovered that the projects could not be implemented, we arranged new calls for interest in order to receive new project proposals. The reason to why the actions could not be implemented was that the final beneficiaries realised that they would not be able to implement the projects in time. The circumstances had changed in a way that made it impossible for the actions to be implemented during the programme period. One example of such a circumstance is the delays in the roll-out of VIS. 3. Has a revision of the 2009 programme by the Commission been necessary? If so, what were the main changes? Yes. Two actions have been deleted from the original programme and replaced by three new actions. The results of the projects cannot be measured yet. 4. Have you implemented the 2009 programme (the case being, the revised programme) fully? (= all or nearly all actions set out in the programme approved by the Commission, or in the revised programme approved by the Commission, could be implemented by the end of this programme) Not known by June 2010. At this point in time, none of the projects had come very far in its implementation and it would we impossible to assess the implementation results. 5. Have the expected quantitative and qualitative results of the 2009 programme - as set out in the programme / revised programme approved by the Commission - been achieved at the end of this programme? Not known by June 2010. 6. In the light of the implementation of the 2009 programme, do you consider that the distribution of funding between the actions was appropriate? Were the actions set out in the programme you submitted to the Commission appropriate? 31
The distribution in the first version of the annual programme 2009 was not appropriate and the programme must be revised. VII.4. The Management and Control System for the Fund and the implementation of the Annual Programme 2007 through 2009 1. Has the Management and Control System of the External Borders Fund which you designed in 2007-8, been efficient for the implementation of the annual programmes so far? The Management and Control System designed for the EBF in Sweden has been working well. The organisation and the procedures have been further developed as we have gained more experience with the Fund, but are mainly the same as in 2008 when our description of the Management and Control System was created. We have identified two difficulties: There were delays in the beginning, after the Fund had first been launched. When the basic act had been adopted there was too little time to fully develop all procedures before beginning to select projects. For this reason, procedures have sometimes developed along the way, and projects selected in the first two years of the Fund have sometimes been handled differently than projects selected in a later stage. In Sweden, the four SOLID Funds are managed by three different responsible authorities. Since Sweden has received small allocations from the EBF, a small Fund administration has been created. The management of the four funds has not been uniform and this has created much more work for all authorities involved. Building one Fund administration for all funds would have been more efficient. The fact that we are several authorities involved with the funds also means that we all need to participate in the SOLID committee meetings. The Commission usually only offers two seats for each Member States and this makes it difficult for all of the representatives to participate actively in the meetings. 2. Please list any changes you have made in the Management and Control System of the External Borders Fund which you designed in 2007-8, bearing in mind the experiences gained/ lessons learned during the implementation of the annual programmes 2007 2009 and/or any comments from the Commission and/or audits The following changes have been made in the management and control systems: 32
Procedures for the Expert group and the Border Council have been adopted and the Expert group now uses a detailed checklist when examining project proposals. When making the decision to make a payment to a project, it is the Controller of the Fund Secretariat who presents the case to the head of the Central Border Management Division, not the delegated person as indicated in the description of the Management and Control System. A revised manual of procedures for the responsible authority was adopted 25 January 2010. This manual has been revised after comments made by the audit authority during system audit visits. Changes include mainly revisions of checklists used in the examination of proposals, monitoring etc. 33
Part VIII OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF THE RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROGRAMMES 2007-2009 VIII.1. What is your overall assessment of the implementation of the External Borders Fund in your Member State from 2007 to 2009? The implementation of the External Border Fund began in 2007, but during a long period the responsible authority had to work intensively with the development of a Fund administration. The implementing rules of the Fund were adopted in March 2008 and many guidelines from the Commission have been presented at an even later date. Therefore, the responsible authority was struggling to build a Fund administration at the same time as finishing programmes and trying to start distributing money to projects. After a Fund administration had come into place, the procedures have had to be developed and up-dated several times. For a long time, it felt like we were right in the beginning of the multiannual programme period. It was not until the beginning of 2010, after having received final reports of projects funded under the 2007 and 2008 annual programmes that we could finally see the operational results of the projects funded. At this stage, it is still too early to give a full judgement of the implementation of the Fund. A few things can be noted specifically: The administrative burden is very heavy, especially for a small Fund administration, as the demands are as high for a small Fund as they are for a Fund with larger allocations. The workload related to the annual programmes has been very heavy. Since the annual programmes have to be very specific about the kind of actions to be implemented, there is little room for changes without having to revise the programmes. The fact that the four SOLID funds are managed by three different authorities in Sweden has created some problems for us. In some cases, the rules may not be interpreted in the same way by all authorities which can cause trouble for the final beneficiaries who sometimes have several projects running, with funding from more than one fund. The results of the annual programmes 2007 and 2008 are fairly satisfying, as most projects have been implemented according to their plans and in accordance with the annual programmes. It is too early to give an assessment of the annual programme 2009 as none of the projects have finished yet. Overall, we feel quite satisfied with the results of the annual programmes 2007 and 2008 and the way in which we have managed the Fund in the last three years. 34
VIII. 2 Taking into account the overall implementation of the External Borders Fund in your Member State from 2007 to 2009, what is your preliminary assessment in relation to the following aspects of the External Borders Fund on the following aspects? 1. Relevance of the programme's priorities and actions to the national situation Please describe how relevant the programme's objectives are overall to the problems and needs identified in the field of external border control and visa policy. Has there been an evolution which required a reshaping of the intervention? The intervention described in the multiannual programme has so far stayed unchanged. However, we would like to point out that the relevance of the programme to the Swedish situation is limited. Many of the improvements needed in the field of external border control relate not only to external border control but also to the compensating measures and controls of aliens during residence in Sweden. In order to improve the external border control and, for example, work against human smuggling, measures not implemented directly at the border would be more appropriate. 2. Effectiveness of the programme Please highlight the key results of the programme overall and the extent to which the desired results and objectives (as set out in the multiannual programme strategy) been attained. Are the effects resulting from the intervention consistent with its objectives? At this stage, it is not clear how much impact the Fund has had on the overall objectives of the multiannual programme. Some actions have had major impact, such as the implementation of the VIS, while the results of other actions are not clear yet. The development made in the area of border control is mainly affected by the Schengen rules and many actions would have had to be implemented even if the Fund had not existed. However, the Fund offers financial contributions, which improves the implementation. 3. Efficiency of the programme Please estimate the cost of the management of the External Borders Fund so far and whether in your opinion the programme's objectives are being developed in accordance with the original planning and at a reasonable cost. As far as the responsible authority is concerned, the National Police Board started working with the Fund management in June 2007, but the costs related to the management during 2007 were not financed by the Technical Assistance and there are no exact figures describing the costs. Since 2008, two employees have been working full time with the Fund. The estimated cost for the 35