european commission directorate-general home affairs · european commission directorate-general...

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

DIRECTORATE-GENERAL HOME AFFAIRS

Directorate C

Unit C/4: Financial support - Migration and Borders

______________________________________________________________________________

Subject: Template for the ex-post evaluation report for the External Borders Fund

______________________________________________________________________________

Summary

The documentation for the preparation of the national ex-post evaluation report consists of a

guidance document, an excel workbook to be filled in and a narrative report to be completed.

The final version takes into account the many useful comments received from Member States and

the results of further informal consultations. The updated documents provide for more

information on how to deal with the output and result indicators, on who should perform the

evaluation tasks and how to achieve an independent judgment as part of the evaluation exercise.

The deadline for submission of the reports remains unchanged. Member States should report on

the data available by 31 October 2012.

Action to be taken by the Commission

By mid-November, the Commission shall send to each Member State an individualised Excel

work book completed with the country-specific data available from the mid-term evaluation.

Please use those sheets to start the exercise and not the mock template provided in this package.

Action to be taken by the Member State

Complete the narrative report and the excel document and return them by 31 October 2012 to the

email addresses [email protected] and [email protected].

For any questions please contact Luciana Sandu ([email protected]).

SOLID/2011/24

final Committee

General programme

Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows

mailto:[email protected]

2

Background

According to Article 52(2), point b) of Decision 574/2007/EC, Member States shall submit by 30

June 2012 an evaluation report on the implementation of actions co-financed by the Fund. On the

basis of the reports from the Member States, the Commission shall submit to the EP, the Council,

the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the regions, by 31

December 2012 an ex-post report on the results achieved and qualitative and quantitative aspects

of implementation of the Fund.

In light of the fact that the eligibility period for actions for the 2010 annual programme ends at

the end of June 2012, and in order to allow for the integration of the results of this annual

programme in the report, it is proposed that Member States send their contributions by 31

October 2012.

3

Template for preparation by Member States of the

EX-POST EVALUATION REPORT ON THE RESULTS AND IMPACTS OF ACTIONS

CO-FINANCED BY THE EXTERNAL BORDERS FUND ANNUAL PROGRAMMES 2007 TO 2010

(Report set out in Article 52(2) (b) of Decision No 574/2007/EC)

4

EX-POST EVALUATION REPORT ON THE RESULTS AND IMPACTS OF ACTIONS

CO-FINANCED BY THE EXTERNAL BORDERS FUND ANNUAL PROGRAMMES 2007 TO 2010

(Report set out in Article 52(2) (b) of Decision No 574/2007/EC)

Report submitted by the Responsible Authority of: (Member State1) BELGIUM Date: 24 october 2012 Name, Signature (authorised representative of the Responsible Authority): Freddy ROOSEMONT, Director general Name of the contact person (and contact details) for this report in the Member State:

Freddy ROOSEMONT, Director general of the Immigration Office Tel : 02 793 8214 / 8215 / 8224 Email : [email protected]

Important remark This evaluation is to be performed by 1. staff with evaluation expertise within the Responsible or Delegated Authorities 2. a dedicated evaluation department within the national administration 3. external evaluation expert 4. or a combination thereof. OR This evaluation is to be carried out by the Responsible or Delegated Authority and then reviewed by 1. a dedicated evaluation department within the national administration 2. external evaluation expert 3. or a combination thereof. All options can be supported by the technical assistance.

1 Throughout this document, whenever reference is made to Member State(s), reference to the Associated States with

the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis is also implied

5

GENERAL INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED BY THE RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY ON EVALUATION EXPERTISE AND ON METHODOLOGY

- Did you have recourse to evaluation expertise to prepare this report? Yes/ No - If yes, for what part(s) of this report? Parts 1, 3 and 4

- Please explain what kind of evaluation expertise you had recourse to: * In-house evaluation expertise (for instance, Evaluation department of the Ministry, etc.) : (please

describe) An advisor, Mr. C. Thissen, independent of the Responsible Authority and experienced in management of projects and administration of the European Funds at the cabinet of the former Secretary of State for Migration and Asylum Policy has been seconded to the Immigration Office to make the ex-post evaluation in close cooperation with the staff of the European Funds Unit of the Immigration Office. * External evaluation expertise: (please describe) ________

Important remark Any evaluation expert must be obliged by the Responsible Authority to: - use this template, exclusively - fully comply with any instructions, methodological note, maximum length, etc. set out as annex to

this template.

6

EX-POST EVALUATION REPORT ON THE RESULTS AND IMPACTS OF ACTIONS CO-FINANCED BY THE EXTERNAL BORDERS FUND

ANNUAL PROGRAMMES 2008 TO 2010

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION - DATA COLLECTION AND EVALUATION FRAMEWORK PUT IN

PLACE IN YOUR COUNTRY .................................................................................................................. 7

PART I – NATIONAL CONTEXT IN WHICH THE FUND WAS IMPLEMENTED .................... 8

1.1. SECURING CO-FINANCING AND INVESTMENTS IN THE FIELD ......................................... 8

PART II – REPORTING ON IMPLEMENTATION .......................................................................... 12

2.1. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROGRAMMES IN THE “AWARDING BODY” METHOD .... 12

2.2. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROGRAMMES IN THE “EXECUTING BODY” METHOD... 13

2.3. PROGRAMME REVISIONS ........................................................................................................... 15

2.4. USE OF TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE (TA) ..................................................................................... 17

2.5. QUALITATIVE OPINION ON THE OVERALL IMPLEMENTATION SET-UP ....................... 17

PART III – REPORTING ON ACHIEVEMENTS .............................................................................. 19

3.1. BORDER MANAGEMENT ........................................................................................................... 19

3.2. VISA POLICY AND MANAGEMENT OF MIGRATION FLOWS ABROAD ............................. 21 3.3. DEVELOPMENT OF IT SYSTEMS SUPPORTING BORDER MANAGEMENT AND

MANAGEMENT OF MIGRATION FLOWS ........................................................................................ 23

3.4. TRAINING, RISK ANALYSIS AND STRATEGY SUPPORT ....................................................... 26

3.5. OVERALL RESULTS ACHIEVED WITH THE FUND'S INTERVENTION .................................................... 27

3.6. CASE STUDIES/BEST PRACTICES .............................................................................................. 31

3.7. LESSONS LEARNED ...................................................................................................................... 33

PART IV – OVERALL ASSESSMENT - IMPACT AND LOOKING TO THE FUTURE .............. 34

4.0. ANALYSIS ON THE DEVELOPMENTS IN THE MIGRATION FLOWS ................................... 34

4.1. ADDED VALUE AND IMPACT ..................................................................................................... 35 4.2. RELEVANCE OF THE PROGRAMMES' PRIORITIES AND ACTIONS TO THE NATIONAL

SITUATION ........................................................................................................................................... 40

4.3. EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PROGRAMME ........................................................................... 41

4.4. EFFICIENCY OF THE PROGRAMME ................................................................................... 42

4.5. COMPLEMENTARITY ............................................................................................................ 42

7

INTRODUCTION - DATA COLLECTION AND EVALUATION FRAMEWORK PUT IN PLACE IN YOUR COUNTRY

0.1. Please present an overview of the evaluation system set up as part of the implementation of

the External Borders Fund. What information is required from the final beneficiaries on the progress and final results of the project and how is it assessed? Final beneficiaries are required to submit data regarding the defined objectives and indicators in the submitted and accepted project proposal. It is requested that they do so every 3 months on a fixed date and in the final report. Quantitative data is requested next to a qualitative description of the progress made. The Responsible Authority (RA) assesses these data each time the Final Beneficiaries submit them to the RA. The reporting templates are designed to enable a direct view of the defined objectives and the achieved objectives/progress, so the progress and final reports are in principle the single basis for the assessment done by the RA. The RA keeps the reports in the project files and will use them, when needed, during the final check. Only when the progress report suggests that there are major problems, the RA will intervene and ask for more information.

0.2. Please provide also information on any specific / additional data collection methodology

used for this report.

1. Desk review of:

a) Multiannual programmes, b) annual programmes, c) reports to Commission

2. Bilateral Interviews and Questionnaires

a) Questionnaires send to the partners b) Interviews with final beneficiaries c) Interviews and questionnaires to get an overall view of the situation in Belgium

8

PART I – NATIONAL CONTEXT IN WHICH THE FUND WAS IMPLEMENTED

1.1. SECURING CO-FINANCING AND INVESTMENTS IN THE FIELD

1.1.1. Within the national budgetary framework, how do you secure the national resources available

for national and private co-financing for the Fund? What was the approach for the 2008-2010 annual programmes? Do you envisage changes for the future? The national resources necessary for co-financing the projects are budgeted in the budgets of the national authorities (FPS of Home Affairs, FPS of Foreign Affairs and Federal Police) responsible for implementing the projects in the field of the Fund, for which they have a legal monopoly. Each authority is competent for committing its means in accordance with the rules governing public finances. There is no private co-financing.

1.1.2. What investments did you undertake at national level in the field of external borders

management and visa policy? (Please mention under which field(s) and expenditure category/ies the costs for the VIS roll-out are included).

Border Management

Table n° 1 (Police)

Infrastructure and equipment

Staff Other

Total

2007

728 560 36 812 160 297 447 37 838 167

2008 817 445 38 545 760 258 895 39 622 100

2009 772 117 39 799 760 355 392 40 927 269

2010 550 432 41 084 560 262 310 41 897 302

Total : 160 284 838

2011 606 271 41 493 760 125 945* 42 225 976

2012 (as planned)

656 207

42 612 240

**

2012 for half year

*Not complete ** Not available

Visa Policy Table n° 2:

Infrastructure and equipment at visa

sections

Staff at visa sections and headquarters

Other

Total

2007 total Not available Not available Not available Not available 2008 total Not available Not available Not available Not available 2009 total Not available Not available Not available Not available 2010 total Not available Not available Not available Not available 2011 total Not available Not available Not available Not available 2012 total

(as planned)

Not available Not available Not available Not available

2012 total for first

half year

Not available Not available Not available Not available

9

IT Systems Table n° 3:

VIS (total investments/all

authorities)

SIS (total investments/all

authorities)

Total

2007 total

0

3 770 192

3 770 192

2008 total

0

2 971 747

2 971 747

2009 total

0

1 715 796

1 715 796

2010 total 0 1 969 650 1 969 650

Total : 10 427 385

2011 total 0 2 028 701 2 028 701

2012 total (as

planned)

0 210 198

210 198

2012 total for first half

year

0 105 099

105 099

Other, if applicable:

Table n° 4

… Total

2007 total

2008 total

2009 total

2010 total

2011 total

2012 total (as

planned)

2012 total for first half

year

1.1.2. Do the above tables include all your expenditure in the field of borders, visa and IT systems?

If not, what is excluded / not properly taken into account?

No, the investments related to the visa policy are not available.

1.1.4. Please indicate an estimate of the share of the contribution from the Fund (% of all) in relationship to the total national expenditure in the area of intervention by field (border management, visa policy, IT systems) and the total.

EBF expenses (national + EU) per field

10

Border management

Visa management (incl. biometry)

IT systems Total and share to national

investments per year

2007

352 136 252 439 1 668 154 2 272 729/ 41 608 359x100 =

5,4 %

2008 485 425 269 850 833 087 1 588 362/

42 593 847x100 = 3,7 %

2009 50 149 618 384 888 911 1 557 444/

42 643 065x100 = 3,6 %

2010 418 622 800 000 1 192 311 2 410 933/

43 866 652x100 = 5,4 %

Total and share to national

investments per field

1 306 332/ 160 284 838

x100 = 0,8 %

1 940 673/ Amount of national

investments not available

4 582 463/ 10 427 385

x100 = 43,9 %

7 829 468/ 170 712 223

x100 = 4,5 %

41 608 359 = sum of national investments in 2007 (37 838 167 + 3 770 192)




1.1.5. Please outline briefly any important national developments in border and visa management

since the approval of the multi-annual programme which are having an impact on the operations undertaken by authorities receiving funding under the External Borders Fund (including legislative changes, administrative and operational measures, changes in the institutional set-up, changes in response to changes in the size of the flows to be managed, the number of border crossing points or consulates etc). See also section 4.0 on the flows.

Law of 15/9/2006 adapting the Law of 15/12/1980 for transposition of the directive n. 2004/81/CE of the Council of 29/4/2004 (human trafficking). Law of 25/4/2007 adapting the Law of 15/12/1980 for transposition of the directive n. 2004/38/CE of the Council of 29/4/2004 (documents for entry of EU citizens and their relatives). Law of 26/11/2011 adapting the Law of 15/12/1980 (aggravating circumstances in human trafficking; families with minor children whose entry or stay is irregular are, as a rule, not to be detained in a closed centre). Law of 22/4/2012 adapting the Law of 15/12/1980 (designation of a return centre to an asylum seeker and his family after a decision of not granting asylum). Royal decree of 21/4/2007 on the shelf life of the biometric data. Royal decrees of 14/5/2009 and 22/4/2010 on the functioning rules of the reception facilities for families other than closed centres. Royal decree of 16/7/2012 adapting the document for commitment of financial care as a proof of sufficient means for a short stay (visa code). Royal decree fo 17/2/2012 on the new closed centre “Caricole” replacing the outdated “transit centre 127”.

- Number of border crossing points under the Schengen Borders Code : 13

- Number of consular posts in accordance with the Visa Code : 91

- Estimate(s) of number(s) of travellers crossing external borders annually (2007-2011)

11

2006 2009 2011

Number of passenger crossings at external borders

Not available 9 170 533 11 019 779

- Numbers of visa applications annually (2007-2011)

2006 2009 2011

Visa applications made Not available 195 961 242 373 Visas issued Not available 160 380 201 355

- List of the main services implementing border control and visa policy

Immigration Office, Police, Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

12

PART II – REPORTING ON IMPLEMENTATION

2.1. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROGRAMMES IN THE “AWARDING BODY” METHOD (IF APPLICABLE)

2.1.1 Overview of calls for proposals for the programmes

According to what logic do you organise the launching of calls for proposals? NA If you also select projects without a call, what are the reasons for using both such methods? …. 2.1.2. Overview of project proposals received, selected and funded after calls for proposals

under the awarding body method Table n° 5

Number of

Programme 2007

Programme 2008

Programme 2009

Programme 2010

TOTAL 2007-2010

Proposals received

Projects selected

Projects funded Including multiannual projects

Out of which multiannual projects

If not all projects were selected for funding after the calls for proposals, please explain the reasons why, per annual programme, where applicable: Annual programme 2007: Annual Programme 2008: Annual Programme 2009: Annual Programme 2010: 2.1.3. Overview of projects funded in the “awarding body” method without a call for

proposals Table n° 6

Number of Programme

2007 Programme

2008 Programme

2009 Programme

2010 TOTAL

2007-2010

Projects funded

Out of which multiannual

13

2.1.4. Total number of projects funded in the “awarding body” method under the

programmes 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010

Table n° 7

Number of … Programme

2007 Programme

2008 Programme

2009 Programme

2010 TOTAL

2007-2010

Projects funded after calls for proposals (total "projects funded" table 5)

Projects funded without such calls (total "projects funded" table 6)

TOTAL Projects funded in the “awarding body” method (including multiannual projects)

2.1.5. Co-financing Please describe the process of verifying and ensuring the presence of co-financing by the final beneficiaries whose projects were selected.

2.2. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROGRAMMES IN THE “EXECUTING BODY” METHOD

2.2.1. Description of the selection process under the "executing body method"

According to what logic do you organise the selection process under the executing body method?

Given the legal monopoly of the partners in the area of external borders management and control, and

considering that the budget of the ICT Department of the FPS of Home Affairs is within the budget of

the Immigration Office, selected projects are directly assigned to the partners in line with the method

described as “responsible authority acting as an executing body” outlined in the Commission decision

2008/456/EC of 5 march 2008 and in SOLID/2008/2.

With every AP an official invitation to submit project proposals is addressed to the Federal Police, Federal

Public Service (FPS) Foreign Affairs and the ICT Department of the Federal Public Service of Home

Affairs.

A Memorandum of Understanding2 signed with each partner determines how the MAP and AP are

elaborated and how projects are selected.

2 A Memorandum of Understanding covering the multiannual programming period 2007-2013 outlines how responsibilities are shared

between the Responsible Authority and each partner. Such an agreement has been signed with the 3 partners.

14

Negotiations about the projects to be financed under each AP and when they are to be implemented,

started when the MAP was drafted and led to an agreement on the type of actions planned and their timing

as well as on the general budgetary envelope available for each partner under each AP. Since then, the

responsible authority (RA) has been following programming developments on a bilateral as well as on a

multilateral basis with partners.

If you also select projects without a call for expression of interest or similar method, what are the reasons for using both such methods? NA 2.2.2. Proposals received, selected and funded after calls for expression of interest or similar

selection method in the “executing body method” Table n° 8

Number of … Programme

2007 Programme

2008 Programme

2009 Programme

2010 TOTAL

2007-2010

Proposals received

9 8 11 9

Project selected 9 8 11 9 Projects funded

7 7 9 8

Out of which multiannual projects

0 0 0 0

If not all projects were selected for funding after the calls, please explain the reasons why, per annual programme, where applicable: Annual Programme 2007: 2 projects were cancelled Annual Programme 2008: 1 project was cancelled Annual Programme 2009: 1 project was cancelled Annual Programme 2010: 1 project was cancelled 2.2.3. Projects funded in the “executing body” method without a call for expression of

interest or similar selection method Table n° 9

Number of Programme

2007 Programme

2008 Programme

2009 Programme

2010 TOTAL

2007-2010

Projects funded Out of which multiannual

15

2.2.4. Total number of projects funded in the “executing body” method in the programmes 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010

Table n° 10

Number of …

Programme 2007

Programme 2008

Programme 2009

Programme

2010

TOTAL 2007-2010

Projects funded after calls for expression of interest, or similar selection method (see table 8)

7 7 9 8 32

Projects funded without such calls (see table 9)

0 0 0 0 0

TOTAL Projects funded in the “executing body” method (including multi-annual)

7 7 10 8 32

2.2.5. Co-financing Please describe the procedures for verifying and ensuring the presence of co-financing by the final beneficiaries whose projects were selected. The final beneficiaries have to attest at the start of the projects that they have the necessary co-financing available. This has to be delivered by a responsible person for the budget or the accountancy of the final beneficiary

2.3. PROGRAMME REVISIONS

2.3.1. Overview of revisions for 2007-2010 annual programmes Table n° 11

AP EU

contribution allocated

Was a revision concerning a

change of more than 10% of the allocation

needed? (Y/N)

Percentage of allocation

concerned by the revision, if a

revision was needed

AP 2007 1.734.974,61 Y 20,86%

AP 2008

1.710.693,10

N

0,58%

16

2.3.2. In case a programme revision was necessary, please provide the main reasons. Please select

one or more from the list below and provide a brief explanation, for the annual programme concerned

Annual programme 2007

X Financial change beyond 10%

Changes in the substance/nature of the actions

New action(s) needed

Other (please explain) Explanation/elaboration: Annual programme 2008

Financial change beyond 10%


New action(s) needed X Other (please explain)

Explanation/elaboration: the financial change was less than 10%, the revision was needed because one project was classified under the general priority (50%) and needed to be upgraded to a specific priority (75%). Annual programme 2009




Other (please explain) Explanation/elaboration: Annual programme 2010




All/part of the above

Other (please explain) Explanation/elaboration: 2.3.3. In case you revised the annual programme, was the revision useful? To what extent did it lead

to a better consumption of the allocation?

AP 2009

1.779.363,00

Y

11,65%

AP 2010

1.943.832,00

Y

24,73%

17

Thanks to our regular steering group meetings we can create a clear view on the consumption rate of our final beneficiary (FB). A FB with an underspent can ‘liberate’ part of their budget which can than be assigned to FB with an overspent. This is only possible before the deadline for submission of the revised AP.

The revisions of the AP’s helped the consumption of the allocation, because some projects had an underspent, others an overspent and with the revision the allocation could be redistributed. Thanks to this way of working, we had an average consumption rate of ± 77% (2007-2009). The figures in 2.3.1 show that major parts of the budget would have been lost without the revisions.

2.4. USE OF TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE (TA)

2.4.1. Allocation and consumption 2007-2010 Table n° 12

AP TA allocated (€) TA consumed (€)

2007 121.448,22 121.448,22

2008 119.748,52 119.748,52

2009 154.555,41 66.541,47

2010 166.068,24 166.068,24*

Total 2007-2010 531.825,22 307.738,21

*estimate Table n° 13

AP/Use of TA

(€)

Staff within the RA, CA, AA (n°/€)

IT and equipment

Office / consumables

Travelling / events

Monitoring, project

management

Reporting, translation

Total

2007 108.602,15 3.179,90 755,76 7.799,74 132,60 978,08 121.448,23

2008 106.213,43 -606,05 3.495,78 6.066,88 4.423,48 155,00 119.748,52

2009 54.321,90 46,29 99,89 6.514,80 5.558,59 0,00 66.541,47

2010 144.444* 1.494* 2.324* 10.957* 5.312* 1.494* 166.068*

*estimates 2.4.2. Did the TA support prove to be useful? For what was it most helpful? Would you have

preferred that the TA allows for other elements to be funded as well and if so which ones? The TA was very useful, without this amount RA wouldn’t be able to create a special department to manage, control and monitor this fund. RA has used this amount mostly for staff costs.

2.5. QUALITATIVE OPINION ON THE OVERALL IMPLEMENTATION SET-UP

2.5.1. Has there been a review of the management and control systems at national level during the

reporting period? In case any changes occurred, please briefly mention why they were needed and what they consisted of.

There was no review of the management an control system during the reporting period.

18

2.5.2. To what extent were you legally or financially dependent on the approval of the Commission Decisions for launching the implementation of the annual programme?

Without the approval the RA cannot draw up the contracts and therefore not pay the first instalment to the final beneficiaries, so the RA is very dependent on the approval of the EC. Any delay in this process delays the implementation of the Annual Programme.

2.5.3. What was the implementation rate by priority? (how much did you spend out of the amount you actually allocated?)

Table n° 14

Implementation rates by priority Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4 Priority 5 Total

EU cofin

Total budget

(EU and national)

EU cofin

Total budget

(EU and national)

EU cofin

Total budget

(EU and national)

EU cofin

Total budget

(EU and national)

EU cofin

Total budget

(EU and national)

EU cofin

Total budget

(EU and national)

AP 2007

49,12% 51,29% 73,67% 75,20% 74,25% 91,31% 88% 81,65%

AP 2008

60,71% 67,78% 39,27% 39,57% 73,56% 73,56% 70,65% 72,06%

AP 2009

46,48% 48,18% 63,88% 63,88% 49,88% 74,82% 71,1% 61,31%

AP 2010

86,77% 89.61% n/a n/a 49% 52% 100% 100% 98.46% 98.46% 93,08% 93,18

% 65.53% 69,56% 0,00% 0,00% 52,10% 53,74% 77,92% 82,19% 74,17% 86,64% 80,70% 77,05%

2.5.4. Please fill in Annex 2 to this report. 2.5.5. In light of Annex 2, what is your overall assessment of the implementation of the External

Borders Fund allocations in your Member State from 2007 to 2010? Please choose among the options below:

Not satisfactory

Satisfactory X Good

Very good

2.5.6. Please explain your choice in relation to question 2.5.5.:

The consumption rate has been of ± 80% (APs 2007-2010). Most of the projects would have

been postponed or not implemented, Thanks to the EC co-funding Belgium was able to execute

these projects. The implemented projects attained most of the result foreseen. There were no

major problems encountered during the implementation.

19

PART III – REPORTING ON ACHIEVEMENTS

3.1. BORDER MANAGEMENT

Priority 1 - Support for the further gradual establishment of the common integrated border

management system as regards the checks on persons at and the surveillance of the external

borders

Priority 2 - Support for the development and implementation of the national components of

European Surveillance System for the external Borders and of a permanent European Patrol

network at the southern maritime borders of the EU Member States

3.1.1 What were the results achieved through the projects implemented at the level of these

priorities, grouped by action? Table n° 15

(Please choose the outputs and results applicable, transfer to this page and complete the relevant categories listed in the table in annex 1) CCI 3 : Operating equipment for border surveillance Videossurveillance – videoplatform – nightviewers

Number of equipment acquired or upgraded % of equipment renewed out of the total equipment

Average intervention time (time between the alert and arrival on the

spot)

Length of the external borders covered (km)

Achieved through APs 2007-2010

Baseline Overall at Achieved through APs 2007-2010


Baseline Overall at


Baseline Overall at

national national national national

level 2007-2010 level 2007-2010 level 2007-2010

level 2007-2010

1/ 1 video surveillance equipment in Nieuwpoort 2/ 3 gyro videoplatforms for helicopters 3/ 3 long range nightviewers for maritime surveillance Total : 7

0 2/ 3 non-homogeneous cameras 3/ 6 short-range nightviewers Total : 9

1/ 1 modern video equipment 2/ 4 helicopters equiped 3/ 9 nightviewers under which 3 long-range Total : 14 of higher quality and up to date

75% of the videosurveillance equipment of the helicopters replaced

Outdated and non-homogeneous equipment

Modern and homogeneous equipment

na na na na na na

20

CCI 12 : Training and risk analysis Crossborder air traffic

Number of persons trained

Number of practices/tools developed or upgraded (software,

statistics)

Number of reports issued Share of staff

trained (compared

to total)

Number of institutional collaborations on risk

analysis developed

Actually achieved through APs 2007-2010

Baseline Overall at


Baseline Overall at Actually achieved through APs 2007-2010



Baseline Overall at


level level level level

2007-2010

2007-2010 2007-2010 2007-2010

na na na Adaptation of legislation - Creation of 3 networks (UK, NL, F) - Partnerships with Belgian authorities - Contacts with airfield responsibles - Info sessions - Publication of a circular

0 Adaptation of legislation - Creation of 3 networks (UK, NL, F) - Partnerships with Belgian authorities - Contacts with airfield responsibles - Info sessions - Publication of a circular

17 violations of Schengen rules detected i.e. 45,2% decrease compared with 2009

0 17 violations of Schengen rules detected i.e. 45,2% decrease compared with 2009

na na na na

3.1.2. To what extent are the achievements of the 2007-2010 annual programmes consistent with

the initially set objectives in the multi-annual programme and in the annual programme in question? (Please detail)

There were 5 national objectives set under this priority. They were achieved through different actions, see following detail. • Better control of border crossing points (especially traffic and passenger flow at secondary border checkpoints) and better control of border crossing movements Achieved through : - AP 2007-2008 Improved border management through increased surveillance capacity at secondary border points (video surveillance at the harbour of Nieuwpoort)

- AP 2008 Better observation at the maritime borders (nightviewers) - AP 2010 Creation of an image of cross-border air traffic by the General Aviation (air border surveillance and control in secondary airports in collaboration with the neighboring countries) • Improved equipment, suitable to be deployed during common actions coordinated by Frontex, especially in the field of maritime air control Achieved through -AP 2007-2010 Better observation at the maritime borders (the helicopters equiped with videoplatform and the nightviewers can be made available to other Member States in collaboration with FRONTEX) • Training and exchange of best practices (in the area of visa policy and border management)

21

Achieved through - AP 2010 Creation of an image of cross-border air traffic by the General Aviation) • Improvement of the coordination of the information flow between actors/stakeholders at national level and from and between Belgium and other Member States • Increasing the fight against misuse of visa application (“visa-shopping”) and pseudo-legal migration These two objectives have been achieved through actions implemented under other priorities (cfr below). 3.1.3. To what extent did the projects and the actions, through their results, contribute to

improving overall border management in your country? In answering, please refer to the outputs and results at section 3.1.1. above.

The overall border management improved because the following targets have been reached :

- More efficient equipment, such as video cameras in Nieuwpoort, nightviewers to spot border crossing movements, video cameras for the helicopters that are at disposal of FRONTEX ;

- Improved communication between the Immigration Office and partners. - A better surveillance in risk regions and in secondary ports and airports ; a better insight into

the migration phenomena in those places.

3.2. VISA POLICY AND MANAGEMENT OF MIGRATION FLOWS ABROAD

Priority 3 – Support for issuing of visas and 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

3.2.1. What were the results achieved through the projects implemented at the level of this priority,

grouped by action? Table n° 16

CCI 8 : Other ICT systems Development of the Belgian Verification System (BVS) Number of other ICT systems developed or upgraded Number of institutional stakeholders involved


Baseline Overall at national level 2007-2010



Development of the Belgian Verification System

0 1 4 0 4

22

CCI 9 : Consular cooperation and ILO’ Fieldworkers, borderguard assistance, co-location in Conakry

Number of joint consular practices developed

Number of Member States with whom such practices

were developed

Number of ILOs deployed % of consular posts affected

Average waiting time for visa

issuance (days)

%of visa applications

affected


Baseline Overall at



Baseline Overall at

Data not available

Data not available

Data not available

national national national

level level level

2007-2010

2007-2010 2007-2010

1 colocation in Conakry

0 1 1 0 1 39 (14 as field workers – 25 border guards)

0 39

3.2.2. To what extent are the achievements of the 2007-2010 annual programmes consistent with the initially set objectives in the multi-annual programme and in the annual programme in question?

There were 5national objectives set under this priority. They were achieved (in whole or in part) through different actions, see following detail. • Increasing the fight against misuse in connection with visa application (“visa-shopping”) and pseudo-legal migration. • Acceleration in the issuing of visas to bona fide travellers Achieved through - AP 2007 The Belgian Verification System (for the control of the validity of documents, BVS allows connecting the databases of the Immigration Office, of the Federal Police and of the FPS of Foreign Affairs and Interpol) - AP 2007-2010 The field workers (local staff hired to check documents submitted with visa application , know-how shared with the Schengen partners) - AP 2008-2010 Border-guard assistance (document advisors in risk-countries, training of staff of consulates, of airlines and of local immigration services) • Establishment of economies of scale in the processing and issuing of visas (consular cooperation). Achieved through - AP 2009 Co-location in Conakry (shared infrastructure in the French consulate)

• Training and exchange of best practices (in the area of visa policy and border management)

23

Achieved through

- AP 2007-2010 The field workers (know-how shared with Schengen-partners) - AP 2008-2010 Border-guard assistance (document advisors in risk-countries, training of staff of consulates, of airlines and of local immigration services) - AP 2009 Co-location in Conakry (shared infrastructure and exchange of information) • Improvement of the coordination of the information flow between actors/stakeholders at national level and from and between Belgium and other Member States Achieved through - AP 2007 The Belgian Verification System (BVS)

- AP 2007-2010 The field workers -AP 2008-2010 Border-guard assistance - AP 2009 Co-location in Conakry (shared infrastructure in the French consulate)

3.2.3. To what extent did the projects and the actions, through their results, contribute to improving visa issuing and preventing irregular entry into the EU? In answering, please refer to the outputs and results at section 3.2.1. above.

The visa issuing improved through the results of the project fieldworkers. In risk countries the controls and checks of documents submitted with visa applications increased by hiring local staff. The project Border Guard Assistance targeted the prevention of irregular entry into the EU by way of: -Improvement of the controls before boarding in sensitive airports (11 control missions, 30 flights controlled, 21 persons refused boarding) -Training of the local immigration staff, of consular personnel and of airline personnel (515 persons trained). -Decrease by an average of 20% of the number of persons who were denied boarding in a period of two months following the controls. The databases of the Police and of the FPS of Foreign Affairs are interconnected with the BVS which allows a better verification of the documents (in case of loss or theft) submitted at the diplomatic post or at the Schengenborder.

3.3. DEVELOPMENT OF IT SYSTEMS SUPPORTING BORDER MANAGEMENT AND MANAGEMENT OF MIGRATION FLOWS

Priority 4 – Support for the establishment of IT systems required for the implementation of EU

legal instruments in the field of external borders and visas



(Please choose the outputs and results applicable, transfer to this page and complete the relevant categories listed in the table at the annex, where necessary add comments) Please see example above

24

CCI 4 : Operating equipment for border checks Biometric passport reading equipment at external posts

4. Operating equipment for border checks

Number of equipment acquired or upgraded

Average waiting time for verification of a traveller’s

entry



Baseline

2007-2010

3)Biometric passport reading equipment in external posts : 28

73

101

28 (the equipment of the remaining 73 posts has been funded by national accreditations)

No data available

No data available

CCI 7 : VIS Extending BELVIS, VIS Federal Police

7. VIS

% of EBF contribution to total investment undertaken to

support development of VIS

Number of consulates connected to VIS

Number of border crossing points

connected to VIS

Number of other stakeholders connected

75% 0 75% 0 0 0

CCI 11 : Operating equipment for visa issuing VISABIO, connecting 13 border posts to the VIS, biometry at a visa post in Belgium

11. Operating equipment for visa issuing


Number of destinations of the equipment

acquired or upgraded

Average waiting time for visa issuing



Baseline

2007-2010

1) Network of collecting biometric data : 92/97 posts equiped 2)Connecting border posts to the VIS : 13 posts 3)Installation of biometry at a visa post in Belgium postponed to AP 2011

0 0 0

97 13 1

97 13 1

No data available

No data available

25

CCI 8 : Other ICT systems Access to biometric data Immigration Office

8. Other ICT systems

Number of other ICT systems developed or upgraded

Number of institutional stakeholders involved

Improvement in average time consultations/number of consultations (Yes/No)



Baseline Overall at

national national

level Level

2007-2010 2007-2010

Total 1 0 1 3 0 3

8.1. API na na na na na na na na na

8.2. FADO na na na na na na na na na

8.3.Other (i.e. national systems)

Access to biometric data Immigration Office *

0 1 3 0 3

*Due to license problems the access is not working at the moment



There were 4 national objectives set under this priority. They were achieved (in whole or in part) through different actions, see following detail. • Installation of the VIS Achieved through

- AP 2007-2010 Extending of the central system – BELVIS (Belgian Go Live March 2010,

European go Live October 2011) -AP 2009-2010 VIS (Federal Police) • Increasing the fight against misuse in connection with visa application (“visa-shopping”) and pseudo-legal migration • Acceleration in the issuing of visas to bona fide travellers • Improvement of the coordination of the information flow between actors/stakeholders at national level and from and between Belgium and other Member States Achieved through -AP 2007-2010 Extending of the network for the collection of biometric data (Visabio) -AP 2007 Access to biometric database -AP 2009 Connecting border posts to the VIS -AP 2009 Biometric passports reading equipment at external border posts

26

Through the installation of electronic biometric equipment at diplomatic posts and border posts, and the connection with the C-VIS the risk to obtain fraudulent visa is diminished, the same for the installation of biometric equipment at border posts. The information flow between the Immigration Office, the Federal Police (borderguards) and the FPS Foreign Affairs (diplomatic posts), as well as between MS improved with the go live of the VIS. 3.3.3. To what extent did the projects and the actions, through their results, contribute to the

development of the IT systems necessary for the implementation of EU instruments in the field of external borders and visas? Please breakdown for SIS, VIS and, where applicable, other IT systems. In answering, please refer to the outputs and results at section 3.3.1. above.

• The BELVIS Message Broker is ready to exchange data (sending and receiving of messages) with the European central VIS • The BELVIS Message Broker and the partner applications are ready to exchange end- to-end data (sending and receiving of messages) with each other and with the European central VIS • Alphanumeric data exchange is possible from the consular posts and the border control posts with the European central VIS • Biometric data collection and control (verification and identification) is possible at 94 % of the consular posts and the border control posts + can be exchanged with the European central VIS • The BCP and DRP for the BELVIS Message Broker is ready • The BCP (and DRP) has been implemented: BELVIS Message Broker is available on a 24/7 basis The projects did not contribute to the development of the SIS (developed with national budget)

3.4. TRAINING, RISK ANALYSIS AND STRATEGY SUPPORT

Priority 5 – Support for effective and efficient application of relevant EU legal instruments in

the field of external borders and visas, in particular



(Please choose the outputs and results applicable, transfer to this page and complete the relevant categories listed in the table at the annex, where necessary add comments) CCI 12 : Training and risk analysis Second line control


Number of practices/tools developed or upgraded

(software, statistics)

Number of reports issued Share of staff trained

(compared to total)

Number of institutional

collaborations on risk

analysis developed




Baseline Overall at


level level level

2007-2010

2007-2010

2007-2010

27

Second line control : 24 persons trained

0 24 na na na 6 0 6 na na



There were 2 national objectives set under this priority. They were achieved (in whole or in part) through different actions, see following detail. • Improvement of the coordination of the information flow between actors/stakeholders at national level and from and between Belgium and other Member States. • Training, education and exchange of best practices in the area of visa policy and border management. Achieved through -AP 2009-2010 Second line control: (training of borderguards in the second line by way of exchange

missions with other MS) 3.4.3. To what extent did the projects and the actions, through their results, contribute to

improving the application of the EU standards in the field of external borders and visas in your country and supporting overall strategy development by your administration in this area, including risk assessment? In answering, please refer to the outputs and results at section 3.4.1. above.

Targets reached • Exchanges of back-office inspectors with other Member-States to tune the operation of the several second line control practices • Issuing of reports Those objectives and targets were also achieved through actions implemented under the previous priorities (cfr above).

3.5. Overall results achieved with the Fund's intervention

3.5.1. Please insert an overview table presenting the overall achievements through the

Fund's intervention. Table n° 19: Overall 2007-2010 EBF results following aggregation by priorities

(Please transfer to this page and complete all indicators listed in the table at the annex by aggregating the results listed by priority). Please see example above.

Priority 1 - CCI 3 : Operating equipment for border surveillance Videossurveillance – videoplatform – nightviewers

28

Priority 1 - CCI 12 : Training and risk analysis Crossborder air traffic



statistics)

Number of reports issued Share of staff

trained (compared

to total)


analysis developed


Baseline Overall at





Baseline Overall at


level level level level

2007-2010

2007-2010 2007-2010 2007-2010

na na na Adaptation of legislation - Creation of 3 networks (UK, NL, F) - Partnerships with Belgian authorities - Contacts with airfield responsibles - Info sessions - Publication of a circular

0 Adaptation of legislation - Creation of 3 networks (UK, NL, F) - Partnerships with Belgian authorities - Contacts with airfield responsibles - Info sessions - Publication of a circular

17 violations of Schengen rules detected i.e. 45,2% decrease compared with 2009

0 17 violations of Schengen rules detected i.e. 45,2% decrease compared with 2009

na na na na

Number of equipment acquired or upgraded % of equipment renewed out of the total equipment



Baseline Overall at

national national

level 2007-2010 level 2007-2010

1/ 1 video surveillance equipment in Nieuwpoort 2/ 3 gyro videoplatforms for helicopters 3/ 3 long range nightviewers for maritime surveillance Total : 7

1/ 0 2/ 3 non-homogeneous cameras 3/ 6 short-range nightviewers Total : 9

1/ 1 modern video equipment 2/ 4 helicopters equiped 3/ 9 nightviewers under which 3 long-range Total : 14 of higher quality and up to date

1/ na 2/ 75% of the videosurveillance equipment of the helicopters replaced 3/ Extension with 3 high-performance nightviewers

1/ na 2/ Outdated and non-homogeneous equipment 3/ 6 short-range nightviewers

1/ na 2/ Modern and homogeneous equipment 3/ 9 nightviewers under which 3 long-range

29

Priority 3 - CCI 9 : Consular cooperation and ILO’ Fieldworkers, borderguard assistance, co-location in Conakry



were developed

Number of ILOs deployed % of consular posts affected

Average waiting time for visa

issuance (days)

%of visa applications

affected


Baseline Overall at



Baseline Overall at

No data available No data available

No data available


level level level

2007-2010

2007-2010 2007-2010

1 colocation in Conakry

0 1 na na na 39 0 39

Priority 3 - CCI 8 : Other ICT systems Development of the Belgian Verification System (BVS) Number of other ICT systems developed or upgraded Number of institutional stakeholders involved





Development of the Belgian Verification System

0 1 4 0 4

Priority 4 - CCI 4 : Operating equipment for border checks Biometric passport reading equipment at external posts


Average waiting time for verification of a traveller’s

entry



Baseline

2007-2010

3)Biometric passport reading equipment in external posts : 28

73

101

28 (the equipment of the remaining 73 posts has been funded by national accreditations)

No data available

No data available

Priority 4 - CCI 7 : VIS Extending BELVIS, VIS Federal Police




Number of border crossing points

connected to VIS


75% 0 75% 0 0 0

30

Priority 4 - CCI 11 : Operating equipment for visa issuing VISABIO, connecting 13 border posts to the VIS, biometry in a visa post in Belgium

Number of equipment acquired or upgraded Number of destinations of the equipment

acquired or upgraded




Baseline

2007-2010

1) Network of collecting biometric data : 92/97 posts equiped 2)Connecting border posts to the VIS : 13 posts 3)Biometry in a visa post in Belgium postponed to AP 2011

0 0 0

92 13 1 Total : 106

92 13 1 Total : 106

No data available

No data available

Priority 4 - CCI 8 : Other ICT systems Access to biometric data Immigration Office





Baseline Overall at

national national

level Level

2007-2010 2007-2010

Access to biometric data Immigration Office

0 1 3 0 3

Priority 5 - CCI 12 : Training and risk analysis Second line control



statistics)

Number of reports issued




Baseline Overall at


level level level

2007-2010 2007-2010 2007-2010

Second line control : 24 persons trained

0 24 na na na 6 0 6

31

3.5.2. How do you assess the results of section 3.5.1. in the national context of

implementation of the External Borders Fund?

Neutral

Positive

X Very positive

Excellent

3.5.3. Please comment on the overall results achieved (as presented in Table n° 16) in

relation to your initially set expectations as stated in the annual programmes.

All the objectives have been achieved except two :

- the installation of biometry in a visa post in Belgium

- and the installation of access to biometric data at the Immigration Office (due to a

license problem).

3.6. CASE STUDIES/BEST PRACTICES

3.6.1. Important /successful projects funded in the annual programmes 2007, 2008, 2009

and 2010 Please describe at least 5 projects which deserve, in your opinion, particular mention since you consider them as a good practice, or of an innovative nature, of interest to other Member States (example of a project supporting an EU policy priority) or of particular value in the light of the multiannual strategy and your national requirements. Successful project 1: Field Workers – AP 2007-2008-2009-2010 – Priority 3.1 National objectives:Increasing the fight against misuse in connection with visa application (“visa-shopping”) and pseudo-legal migration. and Acceleration in the issuing of visas to bona fide travelers Under this project field workers are employed in consular posts to investigate local documents admitted with visa applications (such as birth or marriage certificates, bank account statements, work agreements,…) and to discover fraudulent or false documents. This project is very successful, because in risk countries such as Cameroon, Ivory Coast, Senegal, The Philippines,… Belgian consular officers not always have the right knowledge nor the best resources to detect falsified documents. It is a real advantage to have a full time field worker at their disposal. Thanks to this project consular posts have better resources to discover visa shopping and/or fraudulent visa applications. The filed worker can also treat files from other Member States (upon request) and the results of their work is presented at Schengen meetings in the Third Countries, so the cooperation between Member States can be improved. This is a project that can be a good example for other Member States. Successful project 2: Belvis – AP 2007-2008-2009-2010 – Priority 4.2 National objective: • Installation of the VIS This project is the development of the national part of the VIS.

32

This is as well an important project (European obligation to have the NVIS developed) as a successful one. Belgium was one of the first Member States to have the NVIS developed and ready to be operational. (March 2010) Successful project 3: Visabio – AP 2009-2010 – Priority 4.2 National objective: • Increasing the fight against misuse in connection with visa application (“visa-shopping”) and pseudo-legal migration • Acceleration in the issuing of visas to bona fide travellers This project is the installation of material to capture biometric information to deliver biometric visa in the Belgian consular posts. After a slow start under AP 2007 and 2009 the project reached cruising speed under AP 2009 and 2010 with the equipment of respectively 31 and 42 consular posts. Successful project 4: Nieuwpoort – AP 2007-2008 – Priority 1 National objective: • Better control of border crossing points (especially traffic and passenger flow at secondary border checkpoints) and better control of border crossing movements The innovative part of this project is the important factor. The (pleasure) harbour of Nieuwpoort is an official external border post. The border control was executed by a border post from 9am to 5pm. The installation of camera’s registering the entry and exit channel 24/7 improves the control of the border significantly. When a suspected vessel is detected on the recordings an extra check can be done by the border guard during the opening hours of the border post. Successful project 5: Borderguard assistance – AP-2008-2009-2010 – Priority 3 National objective : • Increasing the fight against misuse in connection with visa application (“visa-shopping”) and pseudo-legal migration. • Acceleration in the issuing of visas to bona fide travelers The project concentrated on the reduction of illegal immigration by training consular and airlines staff and local authorities in 12 airports of risk countries for abuse of forged documents and illegal immigration. Since 2008 the actions undertaken in the field had a positive effect on the number of holders of fraudulent documents intercepted at Brussels Airport. This means that the actual number of passengers using false documents did decrease. This has a direct effect on the passenger flows at the airport since they are less disturbed by the interception of bogus travellers. 3.6.2. Description of best practices derived from the implementation of the External

Borders Fund Please describe a few best practices you consider you have acquired through implementation of the External Borders Fund in terms of tools for administrative management and cooperation at national level or with other Member States. Regarding the administrative management we learned to develop clear procedures and reporting tools for the final beneficiaries. The cooperation on national level with other public services was enhanced through steering group meetings and bilateral consultations. When faced with a problem we could rely on other Member States for advice or exchange of best practices, thanks to bi-annually meetings with the Nordic working group or participation in seminars organized in other MS.

33

3.7. LESSONS LEARNED

3.7.1. Description of 3 less successful projects, among the projects funded in the annual

programmes 2007 to 2010 The three les successful projects chosen encountered mostly ‘external’ problems. With one (access to biometric data at the Immigration Office) the result was only partly achieved (output ok) because of a problem with computer licenses. The hardware was bought but could not be operational without special licenses. A second project (second line control) encountered problems with good achievements due to a lack of involvement of the staff of the final beneficiary. It was difficult to motivate the staff to execute the project upon their other daily tasks. And third project (videoplatform for helicopters) can be considered less successful because the equipment bought is not entirely used for border surveillance. It is also used for research and public order, which was originally not foreseen when drafting the AP. 3.7.2. Lessons learned 3.7.2.1. Please describe what are the lessons learned and practices developed for the future both in terms of Fund/project management and in terms of practices developed for the management of border/visa. Especially with this fund we learned to pay close attention to the specific priority that final beneficiaries ‘choose’ for their project, if this specific priority is provided for. Also in terms of Fund management we learned to choose better indicators (measurable) and targets. 3.7.2.2. Were you already able to integrate some of these practices in the management of the projects? Yes, with the AP’s 2010 to 2013 (and the revisions) we closely researched the specific priorities of the projects, as well as the set indicators.

34

PART IV – OVERALL ASSESSMENT - IMPACT AND LOOKING TO THE FUTURE

4.0. ANALYSIS ON THE DEVELOPMENTS IN THE MIGRATION FLOWS

4.01. Please present a short overview on the trends in migration flows to your country

during the period 2006 to end 2011 and analyse them in light of the developments influencing them (legislative, policy, etc.).

Please start from the background provided in the multi-annual programme, outlining any changes that appeared during the reporting period. When doing so, please refer to relevant data / statistics concerning passenger flows, irregular attempts for entry, visa applications and visas issued for the years 2006, 2009, 2011. (These reference years are considered relevant milestones as they represent the start, mid-term and (almost at the) end of the intervention period analysed). Table n° 20

Number of .. 2006 2009 2011

Passenger crossings at external borders

Not available 9 170 533 11 019 779

Third country nationals refused entry at the external borders

1422 1275 2735

Third country nationals apprehended after having crossed the external border illegally, including persons apprehended at sea

Not available 13 710 13 550

Visa applications made 221 789 235 133 278 592

Visas issued 178 961 191 754 229 593 Source : Police, Eurostat, Immigration Office

“Top 10” of the visa applications Applications Post Applications Post Applications 2006 2009 2011 22367 Moscow 24409 Mumbai 44116 Mumbai 18298 Mumbai 20292 Moscow 24097 Moscow 17291 Casablanca 19585 Casablanca 19149 Casablanca 10684 Beijing 12047 Kinshasa 15164 Kinshasa 9786 Kinshasa 10 851 London 12345 London 8419 London 7925 Kiev 9955 Beijing 7591 Kiev 7627 Beijing 9816 Kiev 6926 Ankara 6984 New Delhi 9345 New Delhi 6287 Belgrade 7518 Ankara 7843 Ankara 6210 Istanbul 5263 Istanbul 7125 Istanbul The most significant increase in visa applications is seen in India, RD Congo and the UK.

35

“Top 10” of third-country nationals found to be illegally present (rounded) 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total : 23800 Total : 13710 Total : 12115 Total : 13550 Algeria 2425 Morocco 2465 Algeria 2605 Algeria 2725 Morocco 2035 Algeria 2255 Morocco 2180 Morocco 2385 India 1615 India 965 India 560 Tunisia 750 Iraq 865 Afghanistan 805 Palest. Ter. 510 Serbia 460 Brazil 540 Brazil 560 Iraq 455 Iraq 420 Palest. Ter. 560 Palest. Ter. 520 Brazil 415 Palest. Ter. 405 Afghanistan 440 Iraq 435 Tunisia 410 India 385 Tunisia 340 Tunisia 405 Afghanistan 350 Albania 380 Serbia 325 Turkey 300 Iran 265 Brazil 380 Russia 315 China 270 Turkey 250 Iran 370 (Source : Eurostat)

4.02. Please specify whether, in your opinion, the intervention through the Fund contributed to

changes in migration trends in your country and if so, explain the reasons. The introduction of biometry into the issuing procedure of visa (VISABIO), a better control of the documents introduced for visa applications (fieldworkers), a better control of documents before boarding (borderguard assistance), a better surveillance at secondary border crossing points (AVIA, Nieuwpoort) have certainly an influence on the number of persons crossing the borders. But it seems exaggerated to think that the migration trends as such are influenced by the implemented projects. 4.03. Please specify to what extent migration flows influenced decisions on the intervention of the

Fund? Did you (re)shape the programming through the Fund in order to meet any (new/ unforeseen) specific needs within the migratory context at national level? If, why?

The decisions on the projects were less influenced by the large migration flows than by suspicions of fraud documents in some risk countries and by lack of cooperation in the identification procedures.

4.1. ADDED VALUE AND IMPACT

Volume effects: 4.1.1. Taking into account the information in part I, how and where in particular did the Fund's

intervention contribute most significantly to the overall range of activities in support to border management (checks and surveillance) in your country?

The project “creation of an image of cross border air traffic” and the project “improved border management in Nieuwpoort” permit a better control and management of the migration via secondary ports and airports.

36

Concerning border surveillance the purchase of new/better nightviewers and cameras to mount on helicopters helped to improve the surveillance of the maritime border. The actions undertaken in the “borderguard assistance” had a positive effect on the number of holders of fraudulent documents intercepted at Brussels Airport. This means that the actual number of passengers using false documents did decrease. This has a direct effect on the passenger flows at the airport since they are less disturbted by the interception of bogus travellers. It proofs that the Fund did contribute to a more efficient management of the passenger flows at border crossing points. 4.1.2. Taking into account the information in part I, how and where in particular did the Fund's

intervention contribute most significantly to the overall range of activities in support to visa issuing in your country?

By financing the network for collection of biometric data (Visabio), the Fund has allowed to equip all the consulates with biometric material and to match the standards laid down by the VIS for the control of visa applicants.

Thanks to the Fund all the consulates have been connected to the VIS within a period of four years and the staff trained to use it. The project “fieldworkers” implemented in a series of sensitive risk-countries has revealed a great number of forged documents and of fraudulent applications for business visas. 4.1.3. Taking into account the information in part I, how important was the support of the

External Borders Fund to the national efforts in developing the IT systems VIS and SIS? The VIS has been fully developed in the frame of projects financed by the Fund at a range of 75%. The SIS has been fully installed with national means. 4.1.4. To what extent did the Fund contribute to strengthening the image of having secure borders

in your society? With the improvement of the control at maritime borders (cameras in Nieuwpoort, nightviewers and helicopters equipped with gyro-cameras), the improvement of the control at secondary airports, the control by border-guards in risk airports, the introduction of biometry in visa applications, and the improvement of exchange of information between the borderposts and the central services of the Immigration Office, the image of Belgium having secure borders must certainly be visible to the persons crossing the borders or wanting to cross the border. If this is also the case in the Belgian society is another question which is difficult to answer because no data concerning this perspective is available. 4.1.5. How do you perceive the programmes' added value in comparison with existing national

programmes/policies at national, regional and local level, and in relation to the national budget in the area of intervention of the External Borders Fund?

Without the financial help of the Fund, most of the projects would have been postponed or not have been implemented.

37

Scope effects: 4.1.6. How did the Fund enhance your response capacity in relation to detecting irregular crossings

and apprehending irregularly entering third-country nationals? When applicable, please illustrate by referring to specific actions and/or projects.

The following projects focused specifically on combating fraudulent border crossings : - 3 projects of equipment (video-surveillance, nightviewers, cameras on helicopters) enhance

the surveillance of the maritime borders. - The project “creation of an image of cross border air traffic by the General Aviation” targets

the fraudulent border crossings in secondary airports. - The project “borderguard assistance” targets fraudulent boardings in the airports of sensitive

third-countries. 4.1.7. To what extent did the Fund contribute in particular to preparing your country for the

introduction of the integrated, interoperable European system of surveillance, e.g. EUROSUR?

The Fund did not contribute to this.

4.1.8. To what extent did the Fund contribute to increasing and improving (local) consular co-

operation and creating economies of scale in consulates? When applicable, please illustrate by referring to specific actions and/or projects.

Thanks to the project “co-location in Conakry”, Guinean visa applicants for Belgium can introduce their application in the French consulate of Conakry instead of the Belgian consulate in Dakar. Infrastructure as well as know-how is shared. The experience of the local staff hired in the frame of the project “fieldworkers” to detect fraudulent documents is available to the Schengen partners. 4.1.9. To what extent did the Fund allow you to research, develop, test and introduce innovative /

state-of-the-art technology at borders and in consulates? (such as ABC gates and Registered Traveller Programmes).

The Fund has not yet been contributing to this. 4.1.10. What alternatives would you have used to address the problems identified at national level

should the Fund not have been available? To what extent and in what timeframe would you have been able to address them?

The equipment for the border surveillance would not been bought with only national budget available. The roll-out of the biometric material in the diplomatic posts would not yet been finished without the European funding.

38

4.1.11. Taking into account the above analysis of your programmes' achievements, please evaluate the overall impact of the programmes under the External Borders Fund (choose one or more options and explain):

Border management

consolidation and limited extension of border management capabilities in your country

consolidation and significant extension of border management capabilities in your country

limited modification of practices/tools supporting border management in your country Xsignificant modification of practices/tools supporting border management in your country Xintroduction of new practices/tools supporting border management in your country

other (please specify) The assistance to borderguards in the main airport of sensitive countries had a positive effect on the number of holders of fraudulent documents intercepted at Brussels Airport. This has a direct effect on the passenger flows at the airport since they are less disturbed by the interception of bogus travellers and contributes to a more efficient management of the passenger flows.

Visa

consolidation and limited extension of visa policy capabilities in your country

consolidation and significant extension of visa policy capabilities in your country

limited modification of practices/tools supporting visa policy in your country Xsignificant modification of practices/tools supporting visa policy in your country Xintroduction of new practices/tools supporting visa policy in your country

other

1) Through the support of EBF to the fieldworkers project, some embassies in countries sensitive for irregular migration to the EU and with difficult/suspicious visa application files, could recruit an expert for the identification of false documents. This allows our consular staff to better motivate why a visa should not be delivered (based on facts such as false or falsified documents) and to give a better and faster treatment to bonafide visa applicants. It enables the staff to concentrate on their core business.

2) The EBF has supported the installation of equipment for the capture of biometric data in Belgian consulates and external border posts. This new practice (introduction of biometrics) has also brought modification in the treatment of visa applications:

- Through a more secure system (VIS) and secured visa with biometrics, our staff was encouraged to deliver longer stay visas (e.g. 5 years) with multiple entries.

- Due to the requirement of personal presence of visa applicants for capturing biometrics, and the additional time requested for the capture of biometrics (3 to 4min.) some embassies were confronted to longer queues. Embassies had to extend their opening hours. The introduction of biometry has brought more work in front office, but often less in back office. The issuance of 20.000 visas at the Belgian border posts has been much more structured and the identification of applicants is much more efficient (photo capturing and fingerprinting).

IT systems

limited contribution to investments in SIS in your country

significant contribution to investments in SIS in your country

crucial contribution to investments in SIS in your country

limited contribution to investments in VIS in your country

39

significant contribution to investments in VIS in your country Xcrucial contribution to investments in VIS in your country

other (please specify) The SIS is developed with national budget only. 75% of the VIS investment is paid by the Fund; without this contribution the national component of the VIS would not have been developed on time probably for the Go Live

Role effects: 4.1.12. To what extent did the Fund enable you to address specific national weaknesses and/or

deficiencies at external borders? When applicable, please illustrate by referring to specific actions and/or projects.

The project “creation of an image of crossborder air traffic by the General Aviation” aims at creating cooperation networks within the country (national partners : Defense, Federal Police, airport authorities, Immigration Office) and with the competent authorities in the neighbouring countries in order to combat the use of secondary airports for illegal migration and for trafficking. 4.1.13. To what extent did the Fund enable you to address specific national weaknesses and/or

deficiencies in the services and facilities available for your country in third countries with regard to visa issuing and/or the (preparation for the) entry of third-country nationals into your country and the Schengen area? When applicable, please illustrate by referring to specific actions and/or projects.

The discovery of false or fraudulent documents accompanying a visa application is a difficult matter. The project “fieldworkers” was successful in ameliorating the control of documents in risk countries such as Cameroon, Senegal, Ivory Coast,… through the hiring of local staff, with more experience with local documents. The project “borderguard assistance” targeted the prevention of irregular entry into the EU by way of: -Improvement of the controls before boarding in sensitive airports (11 control missions, 30 flights controlled, 21 persons refused boarding) -Training of the local immigration staff, of consular personnel and of airline personnel (515 persons trained). -Decrease by an average of 20% of the number of persons who were denied boarding in a period of two months following the controls. 4.1.14. What other effects did the implementation of the Fund bring at national level; different from

what was initially expected or estimated? When applicable, please illustrate by referring to specific actions and/or projects.

Not applicable. 4.1.15. Please indicate to what extent the activities co-financed by the Fund would not have taken

place without the financial support of the EU and explain:

they could not have been carried out X they could have been carried out to a limited extent

they could have been carried out to a significant extent

40

part of the activities carried out by public authorities (namely…) could not have been carried out

the co-financing of the Fund, activities by other organisations could not have been carried out (namely, if applicable)

other There would be no sufficient national budget to carry out the projects, except for the Belvis, because the development of this system is a European obligation. Process effects: 4.1.16. To what extent did the Fund contribute to an efficient management of passenger flows at

border crossing points? When applicable, please illustrate by referring to specific actions and/or projects.

With the project “borderguard assistance” the Fund has contributed to the reduction of the number of holders of fraudulent documents intercepted at Brussels Airport, because the number of passengers using false documents did decrease. This has a direct effect on the passenger flows at the airport since they are less disturbed by the interception of bogus travellers and it contributes to a more efficient management of the passenger flows at the National Airport. 4.1.17. To what extent did the Fund make a difference in the overall development of your national

border management system and/or strategies? When applicable, please illustrate by referring to specific actions and/or projects that changed the set-up and/or approach of your public administration.

The Fund helped significantly to modernize the border management and to bring it into line with the European directives. The following aims have been achieved :

- Installation of the Visa Information System (BELVIS) - Improvement of the coordination of the information flow between actors/stakeholders at

national level and from and between Belgium and other Member States (connecting border posts to the VIS and VIS police)

- Increasing the fight against misuse in connection with visa applications (“visa-shopping”) and pseudo-legal migration (fieldworkers and borderguards)

- Acceleration in the issuing of visas to bona fide travellers (Visabio and biometric passports reading equipment at border posts)

4.2. RELEVANCE OF THE PROGRAMMES' PRIORITIES AND ACTIONS TO THE NATIONAL SITUATION

4.2.1. Building on the results in the excel sheets and on the analysis under PART III of this

questionnaire, please describe, in general terms, how relevant the programme's objectives are to the problems and needs initially identified in the field of borders management. Has there been an evolution which required a reshaping of the intervention?

The objectives of the programmes match with the actual needs identified in the MAP. All those objectives were at least partially achieved by the actions developed in the AP’s.

41

Better control of maritime and air border crossing points (especially traffic and passenger flow at secondary border checkpoints) and better control of border crossing movements Increasing the fight against misuse in connection with visa application (“visa-shopping”) and pseudo-legal migration and acceleration in the issuing of visas to bona fide travellers Connection to the VIS of all the border posts Consular cooperation

All those aspects are present in the AP 2007 and following; some are still present in AP 2010 and beyond. There is some stability in the projects, which is not surprising when they address needs requiring long-term actions. In this respect, the organization of the projects on an annual basis has hindered the management of the actions and has increased the administrative work.

4.3. EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PROGRAMME

4.3.1. Building on the results in the excel sheets and on the analysis under PART III of this

questionnaire, 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) have been attained. Are the effects resulting from the intervention consistent with its objectives?

Better control of maritime and air border crossing points (especially traffic and passenger flow at secondary border checkpoints) and better control of border crossing movements through increased surveillance capacity at secondary border points (video surveillance at the harbour of Nieuwpoort, use of long-range nightviewers, helicopters equiped with videoplatform) and through the creation of an image of cross-border air traffic by the General Aviation (air border surveillance and control in secondary airports in collaboration with the neighboring countries). Increasing the fight against misuse in connection with visa application (“visa-shopping”) and pseudo-legal migration and acceleration in the issuing of visas to bona fide travellers The fight against visa-shopping and pseudo-legal migration is tackled by - creating a network of biometric data collection linking all the stakeholders (Immigration Office, the Federal Police and the FPS of Foreign Affairs); - implementing the Belgian Verification System which allows connecting the databases of the Immigration Office, the Federal Police, the FPS of Foreign Affairs and Interpol for the control of the validity of documents; - hiring local staff as fieldworkers in some consulates in risk countries to check the documents submitted with visa applications (know-how shared with the Schengen partners); - sending borderguard assistants to sensitive airports in third-countries (document advisors, training of staff of consulates, airlines and local immigration services). Connection to the VIS BELVIS connects all the consulates to the VIS, as well the Federal Police and all the external border

posts (Belgian Go Live March 2010, European go Live October 2011). Through the installation of electronic biometric equipment at diplomatic posts and the connection with the C-VIS the risk to obtain fraudulent visa is diminished, the same for the installation of biometric equipment at border posts. The information flow between the Immigration Office, the Federal Police (at the border posts) and the FPS Foreign Affairs (diplomatic posts), as well as between MS improved with the go live of the VIS.

42

Consular cooperation Is promoted through several projects : fieldworkers, borderguard assistance and by placing a Belgian visa official in the French consulate in Guinea (co-location in Conakry).

4.4. EFFICIENCY OF THE PROGRAMME

4.4.1. What were the programme management costs according to the categories below for the

programme years 2007 to 2010? Table n° 21

Calendar year TA contribution (€) National contribution (€)

National contribution in-kind (offices, IT tools) –

(€ estimate)

Total (€)

2007 121.488 0 Not available 121.488

2008 119.748 0 8.573 128.321 2009 154.555 0 13.000 167.555 2010 166.068* 0 14.797 180.865 2011 136.236* 0 14.246 150.482 First six month 2012 98.034* 0 7.922 105.956

*budgeted 4.4.2. Breakdown by different categories of the national contribution in-kind (from point 4.4.1. above) Table n° 22

Calendar year Staff within the RA, CA, AA

(n°& €)

IT and equipment (€)

Office/ consumables(€)

Travelling/ events

Total (€)

2007 Not available Not available Not available Not available Not available 2008 TA 2.515 6.058 TA 8.573 2009 TA 2.587 10.413 TA 13.000 2010 TA 4.547 10.250 TA 14.797 2011 TA 5.083 9.165 TA 14.246 First six month 2012

TA 1.993 5.929 TA 7.922

4.4.3. What is your opinion on the overall efficiency of the programme implementation? For the AP’s 2007 to 2010, the contribution of the EU actually spent amounts 5.551.217 € The actual costs (TA + in kind) of the management of the programme for the same AP’s amounts 598.229 € (subject to verification of the TA of 2010 which has not occurred yet). Thus, the management costs represent 10 % of the means invested for the implementation of the programme comprising 53 projects for three AP’s. This is deemed reasonable.

4.5. COMPLEMENTARITY

4.5.1. Please indicate any issues you have had with establishing the complementarity and/or

synergies with other programmes and/or EU financial instruments.

43

NA 4.5.2. Please indicate, for the period 2007-2010, any complementary funding available in the area

(besides national sources mentioned already at point 1.1.2.)

NA

* * *

Overall list of outputs and results indicators ANNEX 1

Category Indicators

OUTPUT RESULTS

1. Means of transport

Number of means of transport acquired or upgraded

Number of patrol missions performed

% of the fleet modernised out of the total

Average intervention time (time between the alert and

arrival on the spot) Achieved through APs 2007-2010



Baseline

Overall at national level 2007-2010

After the intervention through the Fund



Total

1.1. Motorbikes

1.2. Cars (including SUVs, vans, trucks, but excluding mobile surveillance units)

1.3. Planes

1.4. Helicopters

1.4. Boats

2. Border surveillance systems

Number of systems acquired or upgraded

Number of stakeholders connected



arrival on the spot)







Baseline



Baseline


3. Operating equipment for border surveillance


% of equipment renewed out of the total

equipment


arrival on the spot)





Baseline



Baseline




1 video 3 gyro 3 night-viewers Tot : 7

0 3 6 Tot : 10

1 4 9 Tot : 14

Na 75% Ext +3

Na 0% Ext+3

Na 75% Ext+3

4. Operating equipment for border checks


% of Border Crossing Points covered with modernised equipment

Average time spent with the verification of a

traveller's entry

Actually Baseline Overall at Achiev Baseli Overall Achieved Baseli Overall

45

achieved through APs 2007-2010

national level 2007-2010

ed through APs 2007-2010

ne at national level 2007-2010

through APs 2007-2010

ne at national level 2007-2010

Total

4.1. ABC gates

4.2. Documents verification

28 biometric passport readers

73 101 27% 73% 100%

4.3. Other

5. Border infrastructure

Number of Border Crossing Points developed or upgraded

Number of places in detention facilities at

external borders

Number of other infrastructures developed or

upgraded

Number of staff working in new/upgraded infrastructures

% of Border Crossing Points's modernised out of the total number of Border

Crossing Points

Average waiting time for travellers at borders




Baseline



Baseline



Baseline



Baseline




6. SIS


support development of SIS

% of successful connection tests

Compliance Test Extended (where applicable)


YES NO NA

7. VIS




Number of border crossing points connected to VIS


100%

0 100% Not relevant : roll-out postponed to 2011

8. Other ICT systems



Improvement in average time consultations/number of consultations (Yes/No)




Baseline

Overall at national Level 2007-2010

Total

8.1. API

8.2. FADO

8.3.Other (i.e. national systems)

-Belgian verification system

0 2 7 0 7

46

-Access biometry Immigration Office

9. Consular cooperation and ILOs



were developed

Number of ILOs deployed

% of consular posts affected

Average waiting time for visa issuance (days)

%of visa applications affected




Baseline



Baseline



Baseline

Overall at national level


Baseline Overall at national level


Baseline Overall at national level

3

0 3 na na na 39 0 39 na na na na na na

10. Consular infrastructure

Number of visa sections in consular posts new/

renovated

Number of equipment acquired to enhance the quality of the consular

service (security doors, bulletproof windows)

Number of visas issued

at new or renovated premises

Average waiting time for

visa issuance (days)

Reduction of incidents (Yes/No) Achieved

through APs 2007-2010



Baseline



Baseline



Baseline

11. Operating equipment for visa issuing


Number of destinations of the equipment acquired or

upgraded





Baseline

105 0 105 105 na na

12. Training and risk analysis

Number of persons trained Number of practices/tools

developed or upgraded (software, statistics)

Number of reports issued

Share of staff trained (compared to total)


analysis developed




Baseline



Baseline





Total Second line

0 24 AVIA : 6 0 6 23 0 23

47

control 24

12.1. General

12.2. Specialised

13. Info campaigns and promotion

Number of events organised Number of attendants

Number of medias used

Legend: Baseline – situation before the beginning of the intervention (it should be calculated as an average of the 6 and a half years before the implementation of the programme; thus it would be a comparable reference with the duration of implementation for 2007-2010 programmes (1 January 2007- 30 June 2012).)

48

Annex 2

OVERALL MANAGEMENT OF THE ACTIONS IN THE APS 2007-2010

Le

ge

nd

Questions:

1. Was the expected number of projects initially set finally achieved through the action?

2. Did you spend a higher amount than you initially programmed for this action?

3. Did you achieve the expected results for the projects?

4. Did you encounter issues with the management of this action?

5. Did you encounter issues with individual projects implementation?

6. Was this action subject to AP revision?

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6

Yes No (pls explain)

Yes (why ?) No Yes No (Why) Yes (what?)

No Yes (what kind?)

No No Yes, <10%

Yes, >10%

AP 2007

Action 1: A Data exchange system

Project was

cancelled X

Project was

cancelled X X X

Action 2: Better perception of bordercrossing movements at secondary border points (Nieuwpoort) X X X X X X

Action 3: Better maritime control (videoplatforms) X X X

we have had to

reduce the total

eligible cost based on real use

of the equipment X X

Action 4: Development of BVS X X X X X X

Action 5: Field workers X X X X X X

49

Action 6: Promotion of efficient visa issuance through strengthened consular collaboration (limited representation) (Bamako)

Project was

cancelled X

Project was

cancelled X X X

Action 7: Extending of BELVIS X

More costs than initially

programmed, recovery of underspend

of other projects X X X X

Action 8: Extending of biometrics at consular and diplomatic posts (Visabio@bel) X X X X X X

Action 9: Access to biometric database by the Department of Alien affairs (Visabio DVZ) X X X X [SE(1] X

AP 2008

Action 1: A Data exchange system

Project was

cancelled X

Project was

cancelled X X X

Action 2: Nieuwpoort X X X X X X

Action 3: Nightviewers X X X X X X

Action 4: Videoplatform

X X X

we have had to

reduce the total

eligible cost based on real use

of the equipment

X X X

50

Action 5: Field workers

X X

2 fieldworkers were hired instead of 3

X X X

Action 6: Border Guard Ass.

X X 3 missions executed

instead of 6 X X X

Action 7: Extending of BELVIS

X X, more costs

than initially expected

X X X X

Action 8: Extending of biometrics at consular and diplomatic posts (Visabio@bel)

X X

15 posts equipped instead of 25 posts

X X X

AP 2009

Action 1: Nieuwpoort

Project was

cancelled X

Project was

cancelled X X X

Action 2: The Fieldworker X X X X X X

Action 3: Border Guard Assistance

X X X X X X

Action 4: Co-location in Conakry

X X

VISA Bureau was operationnal

after the eligibility period

X X X

Action 5: Extending of the central system - BELVIS

X X X X X X

Action 6: extending of the network for the collection of biometric data (Visabio@bel)

X X X X X X

51

Action 7: Installation of biometry at a visa post in Belgium (consular post)

Equipment was

delivered and

installed after

eligibility period

X

Equipment was

delivered and

installed after

eligibility period

X X X

Action 8: Connecting border posts to the VIS

X X X X X X

Action 9: Biometric passports equipment at border posts

X X X X X X

Action 10: VIS (Federal Police) X X X X X X

Action 11: Second Line Control

X X 2 missions executed

instead of 4 X X X

AP 2010

Action 1: Video platform X X X X X

X

Action 2: Avia X X X X X

X

Action 3: Border Guard Assistance

X X X X X

X

Action 4: Field Worker X X X X X X

Action 5: Guarantor database (cancelled)

Project cancelled

n/a n/a Project was cancelled

X Project was cancelled

X

Action 6: VIS (Federal Police) X X X X X X

Action 7: Belvis X X X X X X

Action 8: Visabio@bel X X X X X X

Action 9: Second line control X X X X X X

End of the report ☻