EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Brussels, 2.2.2024

SWD(2024) 75 final

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

EVALUATION

Accompanying the document

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL

on the evaluation of Regulation (EU) 2019/1896 on the European Border and Coast Guard, including a review of the Standing Corps

{COM(2024) 75 final}

Table of contents

1.Introduction

Purpose and scope of the evaluation    

2.What was the expected outcome of the intervention?

2.1    Description of the intervention and its objectives    

2.2    Points of comparison    

3.How has the situation evolved over the evaluation period?

Current state of play    

4.Evaluation findings (analytical part)

4.1.To what extent was the intervention successful and why?

4.1.1. Coherence    

4.1.2. Effectiveness    

4.1.2.1 Governance and organisational structure of Frontex    

4.1.2.2 Operations    

4.1.2.3. Return    

4.1.2.4. Situational awareness    

4.1.2.5. Capability development    

4.1.2.6. Cooperation with EU institutions, agencies and third countries    

4.1.2.7. Fundamental Rights    

4.1.3. Efficiency    

4.1.3.1. Use of human and financial resources by Frontex    

4.1.3.2. Costs and benefits generated by the EBCG Regulation    

4.1.4. Standing Corps    

4.2.How did the EU intervention make a difference and to whom?

4.3.Is the intervention still relevant?

5.What are the conclusions and lessons learned?

Annex I: Procedural Information

Annex II. Methodology and Analytical models used

Annex III. Evaluation matrix and, where relevant, Details on answers to the evaluation questions (by criterion)

Annex III.A Evaluation of the ebcg regulation, Details on answers to the evaluation questions

Annex III.B Review of the standing corps, Details on answers to the review questions

Annex IV. Overview of benefits and costs

Annex V. Stakeholders consultation - Synopsis report

Glossary

Purpose and scope of the evaluation

In late June 2022, the European Commission launched the evaluation of Regulation (EU) 2019/1896 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2019 on the European Border and Coast Guard (EBCG Regulation) 1 to analyse its implementation according to the specific criteria set out in the Commission’s Better Regulation Guidelines, namely effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, relevance and EU added value. 2 The evaluation also analyses the scope and content of the EBCG Regulation and the state of implementation of the Regulation’s provisions. Beside the specific criteria listed above, the evaluation is subdivided in the following main thematic areas: coherence, governance and organisational structure, operations, return, situational awareness, capability development, cooperation with EU institutions, agencies, international organisations and third countries, fundamental rights, use of human and financial resources, costs and benefits generated by the EBCG Regulation, and the Standing Corps. The evaluation was in part informed by an external study 3 .

Article 121 of the EBCG Regulation requires the Commission to carry out an evaluation of the Regulation by 5 December 2023 and every four years thereafter. The Commission is also required to report to the European Parliament (EP), the Council and the Management Board (MB) of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (‘Frontex’ or ‘Agency’) on the findings of the evaluation. Article 121 sets the scope of the evaluation 4 .

The EBCG Regulation also calls on the Commission to carry out a review of the Standing Corps (SC) created by the 2019 EBCG Regulation. The results of the review should be presented to the EP and to the Council by 31 December 2023. Article 59 sets the scope of the review 5 . 

The findings of the review are also included in this staff working document, as the SC forms an integral part of the EBCG.

The evaluation covers the implementation of the EBCG Regulation from its entry into force in December 2019 to October 2023 6 . A wide range of stakeholders were consulted as part of the evaluation both directly by the Commission 7 and by the external contractor (ICF Consulting Services Limited – (ICF)) that carried out the study, including Member States, the EP, the European External Action Service (EEAS) and relevant EU agencies. A detailed description of the stakeholder consultation is presented in Annex I and in Annex V. In line with the Better Regulation Guidelines, an Inter-Service Group (ISG) was set up within the Commission to accompany the evaluation process. 

The evaluation analyses whether the EBCG Regulation was successful in applying the effectiveness, efficiency, and coherence criteria. This part includes an analysis of the legal coherence and policy framework governing Frontex and the EBCG. The findings on effectiveness are divided into the key thematic areas.

Furthermore, the evaluation analyses the relevance and EU added value criteria, by assessing to what extent the new mandate of the Agency, introduced in 2019, has contributed to achieving the objectives of the EBCG as a whole, and to what extent it has supported Member States in implementing effective border management in full respect of fundamental rights and contributed to increase the efficiency of the Union’s return policy. Additionally, this section evaluates whether the objectives of the EBCG could have been achieved sufficiently by Member States acting alone.

Finally, the evaluation looks at the relevance of the EBCG Regulation in the context of current and emerging needs and challenges at EU external borders. This includes assessing the relevance of the EBCG Regulation in terms of its overall scope and objectives, as well as the relevance of Frontex’s tasks prescribed in the Regulation.

The external study was conducted through a mixed methods approach 8 and was informed by the triangulation of a variety of sources. A range of methodological tools and techniques were used. For more details on the methodology please see Annex II.

The evaluation takes stock of the state of play in the implementation of the EBCG Regulation and identifies any inconsistencies in the legislative framework or gaps in the implementation, to feed into the future work of the Commission, Frontex, and Member States.

The limitation of this evaluation and of the review of the SC is that the implementation of the EBCG Regulation is still ongoing and will only be completed in 2027. Accordingly, the implementation of a number of key elements of the Regulation (e.g. integrated capability planning, the setting-up of the SC, European integrated border management (EIBM)) is a work in progress. While this situation does not call into question the validity of the findings presented in the document, it sets a clear limitation to the conclusions that can be drawn with respect to the need to propose changes to the legislation.

Finally, as the vast majority of the provisions of the EBCG Regulation regulate Frontex, this evaluation primarily focuses on analysing the functioning of, and the results achieved by, the Agency, including its objectives, mandate, resources, and tasks. At the same time, the evaluation also considers the EBCG as a whole, in particular in the context of EIBM and the cooperation between Member States and the Agency.

2.1 Description of the intervention and its objectives

Established by Council Regulation (EC) 2007/2004 9 , the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union – as it was called at the time - took up its responsibilities on 1 May 2005. The Agency was established to improve the integrated management of the external borders by facilitating and rendering more effective the application of existing and future Community measures relating to the management of external borders. The Regulation was amended in 2007 and in 2011. The 2016 EBCG Regulation 10 repealed the 2007 Frontex Regulation. Two years after the entry into force of the 2016 Regulation, the Commission proposed a new Regulation to reinforce the Agency, which came into force on 4 December 2019 (current EBCG Regulation). It was adopted without conducting a prior impact assessment, largely due to the political expectation to prepare and adopt the proposal within a very short timeframe. The 2019 EBCG Regulation repealed the 2016 Regulation. Overall, the Agency progressively moved away from coordination and adopted a more operational role, eventually incorporating the EU’s first uniformed service with executive powers, the Standing Corps.

The EBCG is composed of the Agency and of the national authorities of the Member States responsible for border management, including coast guards to the extent that they carry out border control tasks, as well as national authorities responsible for return. Member States have the primary responsibility for managing their sections of the external border and are responsible for issuing return decisions, while the Agency should support the Member States in applying EU measures relating to the management of the external borders and returns 11 .

The EBCG Regulation’s general objective was to address the need for a permanent and reliable solution, by providing the Agency with the necessary capabilities to support Member States in addressing migratory challenges and potential future threats at the EU’s external borders and efficiently managing those borders, as well as to support returns in an effective manner. The Regulation significantly expanded the Agency’s mandate, including by:

•Setting up the EBCG SC, comprising 10 000 staff, which is to be fully operational by 2027;

•Significantly increasing the Agency’s budget to acquire, maintain and operate technical equipment (e.g. patrol cars, vessels);

•Laying down the basis for improved coordination processes and mechanisms between the Agency and national authorities;

•Scaling up the Agency’s support in all phases of return procedures (pre-return, i.e. identification and acquisition of travel documents, return operations, voluntary returns, post-arrival and reintegration); and

•Strengthening cooperation with third countries, including through the deployment of the SC, exchange of information and facilitation in the field of returns;

The intervention logic below serves to depict the chain of expected effects associated with the EBCG Regulation, by identifying needs and objectives of the EBCG as well as input and actions to achieve the outputs, outcomes and impacts in line with the five evaluation criteria (relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency and EU added value).

Figure 1: Intervention logic of the EBCG Regulation 12

2.2 Points of comparison

The 2016 EBCG Regulation was put in place in record time after the 2015 migration crisis. Yet, more remained to be done to ensure the effective control of the EU’s external borders and the effective return of third-country nationals with no right to stay in the EU, as part of a comprehensive approach to migration. Therefore, it was imperative that the EBCG could fully respond to the level of ambition and needs of the EU to effectively protect the external borders and meet future challenges.

In its June 2018 conclusions 13 , the European Council confirmed the need for a more effective control of the EU’s external borders by further strengthening the supporting role of Frontex, including its cooperation with third countries, through increased resources and an enhanced mandate.

Moreover, the EP’s resolution of 30 May 2018 on the annual report on the functioning of the Schengen area 14 insisted on the need for a prompt introduction of the fully fledged EIBM strategy, a technical and operational strategy by the Agency, and subsequently also national strategies by the Member States.

Responding to these calls, the Commission’s 2018 proposal for a new EBCG Regulation promoted substantial changes to the EBCG, in particular to provide the Agency with its own operational arm: a EBCG SC of 10 000 operational staff with executive powers to effectively support Member States on the ground.

Consequently, the functioning of the EBCG and, more importantly, the way strategic priorities for the EIBM were set, needed to be adapted. The proposed EBCG Regulation introduced a new political steering of European integrated border management by establishing a multiannual policy cycle, bringing together European and national integrated border management strategies.

Furthermore, the proposal also aimed to improve the capability to exchange information and support Member States in the area of return to increase the efficiency of returns and achieve a more effective and coherent European return policy. In September 2018, the Commission adopted a legislative proposal for a targeted review of the Return Directive, which aims at reducing the obstacles to return and making return procedures more effective, while respecting the rights of the irregular migrants. In this context, the proposed changes to the EBCG Regulation further expanded the scope of operational assistance to be provided by the Agency to the Member States.

Cooperation with third countries is another key element of EIBM. The 2018 proposal aimed to reinforce the cooperation of the Agency with third countries, with the aim of promoting EIBM and return standards, to exchange information and risk analysis, to facilitate the implementation of returns with a view to increasing return efficiency, and to support third countries in the area of border management and migration.

The above-mentioned elements all aimed to reinforce EIBM, so as to enable the EBCG to act as a genuine border authority to ensure the protection of EU external borders, to effectively manage migratory flows, as well as to contribute to guarantee a high level of security within the Union - a key condition to preserve the Schengen area 15 . 

Current state of play

The 2019 Regulation introduced major changes, including giving significant new tasks to the Agency. To steer the implementation and the rapid operationalisation of the Regulation, the Agency and the Commission developed an implementation roadmap to better monitor progress. In November 2022, a new version of the roadmap was presented to the MB of Frontex. It aims to track the progress of implementation in the coming years.

Nevertheless, in December 2023, the implementation of the Regulation is still work in progress.

While the setting up of the Standing Corps was always meant to be completed only in 2027, a number of external and internal factors have impacted also other parts of the implementation of the Regulation during the evaluation period:

External factors: The Covid-19 pandemic in 2020-2021 led to restrictions on global travel and resulted in delays in the recruitment of SC staff, as well as cancellations or delays of Frontex activities in 2020 and 2021. At the same time, the closure of international borders and travel restrictions as a result of the pandemic resulted in a reduced pressure from irregular migration at the external borders, which eventually resulted in a reduced need for Frontex support to Member States.

In 2020 and 2021, certain third countries engaged in attempts to instrumentalise migration for political purposes, creating a new demand for increased deployments at the EU’s Eastern land borders. The pressure on the Eastern borders grew with the full-scale aggression of the Russian Federation towards Ukraine in 2022, which created an unprecedented mass influx of people fleeing the war into the EU 16 .

In 2022 and 2023, an increase of irregular border crossings towards the EU increased again via the Western Balkan states as well as throughout the Mediterranean region 17 . 

Further, the implementation of the Regulation is taking place in an evolving policy and legal environment, with the ongoing reform of the Schengen Borders Code 18 , changes to (or developments of) new border information technology systems such as the Schengen Information System (SIS), the European Travel Information and Authorisation System (ETIAS) 19 , the Entry/Exit System (EES) 20 , and interoperability between the different EU systems 21 . Frontex has an important role to play in the implementation and/or use of these systems.

Finally, media scrutiny and criticism from civil society intensified during the evaluation period which made the Agency take a more open and transparent approach in its communication towards the public.

Internal factors: The evaluation period was also marked by significant turmoil for the Agency itself, with an investigation by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) that lead to the resignation of the Agency’s former Executive Director (ED) in 2022. The Agency was under interim management until the appointment of the new ED, who took office on 1 March 2023. During the interim period, the MB met every month to advise, facilitate and monitor the work of the Agency’s senior management.

Currently, the state of play of the implementation of key areas of the EBCG Regulation is the following:

Governance and organisational structure the Agency

In 2022, the Agency adopted a revised, expanded organisational structure (nine Divisions) to take account of its enhanced mandate 22 . In November 2023, after intensive discussions, the new organisational structure was approved by the Management Board to better reflect the core mandate and needs of the Agency, especially in the management of the SC. 

In line with the EBCG Regulation, in 2021, the management structure of the Agency was expanded from one to three Deputy Executive Directors, with specific thematic portfolios. The new ED of Frontex was appointed by the MB on 20 December 2022 and took office on 1 March 2023.

Operations

As part of its main mandate under the Regulation, during the evaluation period, Frontex carried out joint operations and rapid border interventions, providing continuous technical and operational assistance to Member States 23 . Overall, 15 joint operations took place in 2020, 19 in 2021 and 20 in 2022, with the majority being maritime joint operations 24 . In 2023, the Agency has launched 24 joint operations. Based on the results of the stakeholder consultation conducted by ICF, the evaluation found that the Agency’s extensive support enabled Member States and partner third countries (under status agreements) to draw on additional human resources and technical equipment when needed. Frontex has also a role in the development of European standards related to technical and operational aspects of border management and return, for example especially in terms of border surveillance. A concrete example of promoting the harmonisation is development of handbooks 25 .

Return

Frontex is tasked by the EBCG Regulation with assisting Member States in implementing return of third-country nationals with no legal right to stay in the EU. Frontex offers support to Member States in all phases of the return process and coordinates return operations at a technical and operational level, including voluntary returns. The Agency has further developed its capacity to organise Frontex-led return operations to further relieve the Member States from some of the organisational burden. The EBCG Regulation reinforced cooperation with third countries through exchange of information and facilitation of returns.

In 2022, for the first time, the Agency carried out two end-to-end return operations to Albania and Nigeria entirely organised by Frontex, using charter flights. A third operation was organised in March 2023 to Bangladesh. In 2022, Frontex recorded a 36% increase in the total number of people returned, compared to 2021, including a steadily increasing share of voluntary returns.

IT tools have been developed to enhance cooperation and coordination between national return-enforcing authorities, such as the Integrated Return Management Application (IRMA) for return-related operational data collection and Frontex Application for Return (FAR) a tool that allows the Agency and Member States to organise and coordinate forced return operations (scheduled and chartered), as well as a platform where Member States can request technical assistance for voluntary returns/departures. To build capacity in Member States for an end-to-end digitalisation of the return process, the Agency developed RECAMAS, a reference model for an IT return case management system to be used by Member States to align their national IT systems.

European Integrated Border Management

The multiannual strategic policy cycle for EIBM 26 was finalised with the adoption of the Commission’s Communication of 14 March 2023 27 . On that basis, Frontex, in close cooperation with the Member States and Commission, prepared the new Technical and Operational Strategy for EIBM (TO-EIBM) that was adopted by the MB on 20 September 2023 28 . 

In parallel, Member States are working on aligning their national strategies for EIBM, to implement the multiannual strategic policy. Member States have until the end of the first quarter of 2024 to align their national EIBM strategies with the European framework. The national strategies and the actual implementation will be evaluated by the Schengen evaluation and monitoring mechanism. The Commission is required to evaluate the implementation of the EIBM multiannual strategic policy four years after its adoption.

Capability development

The Agency expanded its capability development activities, with respect to human and technical resources, over the course of 2020-2023. Most targets for training activities were met across 2020-2023.

The Technical Equipment Pool (TEP) 29 grew from 1 245 items in 2020 to 3 623 items in July 2023. Frontex also deployed major, light, and portable equipment to existing joint operations, including in response to the full-scale invasion of Ukraine by the Russian Federation.

On research and innovation, technical standards for maritime, aerial, land border surveillance, and document inspection equipment were adopted 30 . 

In the context of integrated planning 31 , by October 2023, all but one of the Member States and Schengen Associated Countries submitted their national capability development plans to Frontex 32 . The multiannual plan for profiles of the SC was adopted in 2023 by the MB 33 . The multiannual acquisition strategy and its implementation plan were adopted in September 2023 34 .

Based on these elements, Frontex is yet to develop the capability roadmap that is to provide a sound foundation for the Agency to guide the development of the EBCG’s capabilities.

Situational awareness

The Agency conducted its regular situational awareness activities 35 , including providing regular risk analysis products, carrying out vulnerability assessments, and facilitating information exchange in the framework of EUROSUR. In April 2021, the European Commission adopted an Implementing Regulation on the situational pictures of EUROSUR 36 . 

The Agency has been working closely with the Member State authorities and with third countries in relation to risk analysis. It also contributed to EU mechanisms such as the Migration Preparedness and Crisis Blueprint and the Integrated Political Crisis Response.

In line with the EBCG Regulation, Frontex developed two Strategic Risk Analyses (SRA) in 2020 and 2022. The 2022 SRA 37 provided the basis for the Commission Communication on the multiannual strategic policy for EIBM. Frontex and the European Commission also worked towards greater coherence between the Agency-led vulnerability assessments and the Commission-led Schengen evaluation mechanism 38 .

Cooperation

Frontex can cooperate with third countries on the basis of status agreements and/or working arrangements 39 . To facilitate enhanced cooperation with third countries, and to enable the deployment of SC officers to third countries’ borders that are not shared with a Member State, the model status agreement was revised and adopted by the Commission in December 2021 40 . The EU has since signed new status agreements with North Macedonia (2022) 41 , Moldova (2022) 42 , Montenegro (2023) 43 , and Albania (2023) 44 .

The Commission also adopted a model for Frontex working arrangements in December 2021 45 . However, the Commission is in consultation with the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) on revising the data protection modalities of the model working arrangement, which will allow Frontex to conclude new working arrangements with third countries. Until this consultation is finalised, Frontex continues to cooperate with third countries under existing working arrangements (aligned with the 2016 EBCG Regulation). 

Furthermore, Frontex can cooperate with other EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies and international organisations based on working arrangements 46 .

Fundamental rights

Fundamental rights are an integral part of EIBM 47 . Virtually all activities by Member States and Frontex in the context of border management (including risk analysis, trainings, border checks, border surveillance, and return) have the potential to have an impact on fundamental rights, including on absolute rights such as the right to life, the prohibition of torture and other forms of ill-treatment, and the principle of non-refoulement. The fundamental rights safeguards included in the EBCG Regulation and, more generally, in applicable EU law relating to border management aim to ensure that all activities are performed with respect to fundamental rights, in conformity with the EU Charter on Fundamental Rights. Furthermore, Frontex is also tasked with promoting the application of the Union acquis in the area of border management, including the respect for fundamental rights 48 . 

The EBCG Regulation strengthened fundamental rights safeguards in the EBCG. In particular, the tasks of the FRO were extended, and FRMs were introduced to provide a continuous assessments of the Agency’s fundamental rights compliance in operational activities. To implement the legislative framework, in 2021 the Agency updated the Fundamental Rights Strategy 49 and adopted the Action Plan for its implementation 50 . To enhance the position of the FRO, MB Decision 6/2021 51 was adopted on the independence of the FRO, as well as MB Decision 43/2022 52 , which lays down the procedures and timelines for the ED and MB to act on the recommendations of the FRO and CF.

The EBCG Regulation provides for the recruitment of at least 40 FRMs by December 2020. After initial delays, the Agency completed the recruitment of in total 46 FRMs in 2022. To guarantee effective monitoring, the ED adopted the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for FRMs 53 in 2023. The SOP aims to clarify the scope of monitoring and reinforces the FRMs’ right to access all areas of operational activity of the Agency, including land and sea patrolling, as well as to participate in debriefing interviews with migrants. The Agency also increased the monitoring of forced-return operations through the pool of forced-return monitors, which includes a number of the FRMs.

The Agency has also adopted implementing rules and procedures to enhance the functioning of its reporting mechanisms (Serious Incident Report (SIR) mechanism 54 , complaints mechanism 55 , and supervisory mechanism on the use of force 56 ).

Finally, the Agency has worked to increase the transparency of the procedure to trigger Article 46 of the EBCG Regulation, which concerns the decision to withdraw financing, or not to launch, suspend or terminate the Agency’s activities in a host country. To this end, the Agency has adopted the Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) 57 to clarify roles and responsibilities within the Agency to support the decision-making process of the ED in such cases.

Data protection

On data protection, to implement the requirements of the EBCG Regulation and of Regulation 2018/1725 (EU DPR), the MB adopted MB Decision 68/2021 58 , and MB Decision 69/2021 59 , However, these were under revision to respond to the critical opinions issued by the EDPS. Following the approval by the MB of the revised decisions, the Agency will need to implement them fully across all its operations and activities.

Standing Corps

One of the most important innovations introduced by the 2019 EBCG Regulation was the establishment of the EBCG SC 60 . The SC was established to improve the integrated management of the EU’s external borders. It incorporates four categories of staff 61 .

During the evaluation period, the Agency was operationalising the SC in line with the ambitious timeframe set by the co-legislators, despite an initial delay caused in part by the Covid-19 pandemic and its impact on recruitments and training. Nevertheless, Frontex has progressed with the establishment of the SC and has by now almost caught up with the delay incurred.

Thus, Category 1 staff increased from 495 in 2021 to 970 as of beginning of September 2023, and Category 2 from 347 in 2021 to 450 as of beginning of September 2023 62 , 63 . Most of the Categories 2 and 3 of the SC are, respectively, seconded or nominated by national authorities with law enforcement and border management tasks or with immigration and return duties.

4.1.To what extent was the intervention successful and why? 

Due to the vast amount of data collected and analysed, the different criteria are elaborated separately below.

4.1.1. Coherence

The coherence assessment focuses on the internal and external coherence of the EBCG Regulation. It also considers the Regulation’s coherence with the relevant policy framework 64 . 

Internal coherence

The objectives of the Regulation are broadly defined in recital 120 and Article 1. However, the Regulation does not create a clear link between its objectives and the activities of the Agency, nor does it clearly define the objectives of the SC 65 , 66 .

Article 4 of the EBCG Regulation defines the EBCG as a body comprising both the relevant Member States’ authorities responsible for border management, including coast guards to the extent they carry out border control tasks, national authorities responsible for return and Frontex. However, the regulatory provisions focus primarily on Frontex. Frontex is to implement EIBM as a shared responsibility with national authorities 67 , in practice shared responsibility makes it difficult to establish accountability in situations where both Frontex and national authorities are involved in an operation 68 , including in third countries. In addition, during joint operations, various local authorities may be present in areas where Frontex operations take place, being subject to different jurisdictions and obligations. Frontex’s operational staff is under the tactical command and control of the host State, yet both Frontex and national operational staff are also responsible under EU law and international law, including on fundamental rights 69 .

The regulation of the use of force is not sufficiently clear in Article 82 and Annex V of the EBCG Regulation. In defining ‘force’, the provisions do not clarify the meaning of ‘the use of any instruments’ when resorting to force 70 . Annex V provides general principles governing the ‘use of force and weapons and general practical rules on the ‘use of force, weapons, ammunition and equipment’ during operations and related activities. However, it is not clear whether the principles of using force, control, and authorisation are applicable to all means of force. The use of force and the circumstances in which it is allowed also depend on the national law of the host Member State and are further defined in the relevant operational plans 71 . 

On personal data protection, while the Agency is bound by Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 (EU DPR) 72 , Articles 86 to 91 of the EBCG Regulation set specific rules applicable to the EBCG. The analysis found that the EBCG Regulation is not always sufficiently detailed, including on the allocation of responsibilities between the Agency and Member States. Moreover, it leaves a wide margin of interpretation of some provisions (e.g. risk analysis, EUROSUR). Furthermore, while Frontex deems some of these constraints on processing the operational personal data in the EBCG Regulation too restrictive, the limitations have a clear purpose to ensure that data is processed only within the Agency’s legal mandate 73 . In 2021, the Agency adopted implementing rules 74  on the data protection provision of the EBCG Regulation. However, the EDPS issued opinions on both sets of rules, which was the reason for the Agency to revise them. On the basis of the drafts provided by the Frontex DPO, the Management Board adopted the two decisions in early 2024. With the recent adoption of the two revised MB decisions 75 , as well as their subsequent implementation by the Agency, any further assessment of the need to modify the data protection provisions of the EBCG Regulation would be premature.

On the definition of return-related activities, while the definition of return in the EBCG Regulation is broad and refers to the entire return process, a clearer definition of relevant ‘return’-related concepts (e.g. ‘voluntary return’ and ‘voluntary departure’) would help facilitate implementation and operational application of the mandate on return.

According to Article 10(ac) of the Regulation, Frontex is to provide the necessary assistance for the deployment of a common information-sharing environment, including interoperability of systems, as appropriate. However, in the course of developing prototypes of IT tools to assist Member States in border management activities, it has been noted that the legal framework does not enable the Agency to maintain such information-sharing environments once they have been developed.

External coherence

Regulation 656/2014, as it was adopted before the EBCG Regulation, does not capture Frontex’s expanded mandate in SAR under the current EBCG Regulation. Article 10(i) requires Frontex to provide technical and operational assistance to Member States and third countries […], in support of SAR operations for persons in distress at sea, which may arise during border surveillance operations at sea. However, Frontex cannot conduct SAR operations independently or without the coordination of a national Rescue Coordination Centre (RCC). This gap has an impact on the ability to delineate accountability between Frontex and Member States (see also ‘internal coherence’), in particular in any case where the national RCC may decide not to initiate SAR.

While there is no incoherence between the EBCG Regulation and the Return Directive, the term ‘assisted voluntary return’ was introduced in the EBCG Regulation without being defined 79 . The implementation of Frontex’s mandate on return could be facilitated by some additional clarity in this respect.

The Schengen Borders Code 80 and the reformed Schengen Evaluation Regulation 81 were found to be coherent with the EBCG Regulation. 

The EBCG Regulation and the internal framework set by MB Decision 25/2016 are in line with Regulation (EC) 1049/2001 on public access to documents 82  although the European Ombudsman reported that in several cases the Agency did not follow up on some of the requirements, somewhat limiting transparency and access to documents 83 .

Three large-scale IT systems are in place to manage external borders, the SIS, Eurodac, and the VIS, while three other systems are under development – the EES, ETIAS, and the European Criminal Records Information System (ECRIS-TCN). Furthermore, EUROSUR provides a framework for information exchange and cooperation between Member States and Frontex to improve situational awareness and increase reaction capability at the external borders 84 . While there is no inconsistency within the legislative framework, during the consultations, it was highlighted that access to the information systems is usually provided in the national language of the Member States, adding a practical obstacle for the SC members (including those from other Member States) to access the systems in the host Member State. Frontex is developing its own access to SIS, and, in the case of ETIAS, the Agency will have its own case management system.

According to Articles 2(15) and 54 of the EBCG Regulation, the Agency’s statutory staff, including Category 1 SC staff, is subject to the EU Staff Regulations. SC staff seconded by Member States (Categories 2 and 3) are typically subject to a specific legal regime created for law enforcement authorities. For Category 1 staff, however, some aspects of working conditions, such as working time, shift work and stand-by patterns, and related allowance entitlements, ranks and reclassification, specific deployment rules, disciplinary measures, (early) retirement, are governed by the Staff Regulations and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, or their implementing rules, which are not adjusted to or do not necessarily take sufficiently into account the specific nature of duties and operational activities performed by the SC.

While the application of the EU Staff Regulations to Category 1 SC staff is indeed not entirely adequate for staff carrying our border guards tasks, the evaluation finds that the majority of those challenges, with the most relevant exception of the possibility of early retirement, e.g. allowing shift work or stand-by, issues related to sick leave, specific deployment rules, could be resolved with the adoption of new or amendment of existing implementing rules by the Commission and/or by the MB, in line with Article 110 of the Staff Regulations.

In addition, while Category 1 staff should be able to carry out the same tasks as national border guards, including the use of firearms, this aspect of the Regulation does not appear to be properly implemented in some Member States that have not aligned the rights of Category 1 staff to those of their national border guards. However, this issue does not derive from EU legislation but from the incomplete implementation of the Regulation by those Member States.

Finally, The EBCG Regulation is coherent 85 with the Common Approach to Decentralised Agencies 86 .

4.1.2. Effectiveness

4.1.2.1 Governance and organisational structure of Frontex

Governance

The governance structure established by the EBCG Regulation, which focuses on Frontex, supports the performance of the Agency’s tasks. The Management Board is the main governing body of Frontex and is responsible for the Agency’s strategic decisions 87 . It comprises representatives of the heads of the border authorities of the 26 EU Member States signatories to the Schengen acquis 88 and two representatives from the European Commission. The role of the MB is appropriately defined. However, the expanding mandate of Frontex has led to an expanding workload for the MB. Hence there is a need to make strategic decision-making and oversight more efficient. According to a small minority of Member States, the workload often leads to discussions of very technical issues that are not a priority for all 89 and leave limited time for high-level strategic discussions (including on key documents, like the Single Programming Document (SPD)) 90 . It is to note that after the resignation of the Agency’s former ED in 2022, the MB stepped up and extensively supported the work of the interim senior management until the new ED took office in March 2023.

One concern that was identified in relation to the composition of the MB is that the members of the MB appointed by most Member States do not represent national authorities responsible for return. This impacts the effectiveness of the MB’s strategic-level governance on return policies.

The European Commission oversees the work of EU decentralised agencies and is represented in the MB. The EBCG Regulation confers several wide-ranging powers on the Commission, which allow for political oversight of key Frontex activities (including externally). Overall, the stakeholders interviewed considered that the Commission’s powers were well defined 91 . At the same time, these powers are, to a great extent, exercised via a high number of formalised procedures, in particular opinions, decisions and approvals 92 , that create significant workload for the European Commission.

The European Parliament provides political scrutiny and budgetary oversight of the Agency. The EBCG Regulation foresees that an expert of the EP may be invited to MB meetings (Article 104(7)), but in practice a permanent observer from the EP’s LIBE Committee Secretariat is participating in MB meetings, with reporting function.

The political scrutiny and budgetary oversight of the EP appears largely effective according to stakeholders, with the EP having enhanced its oversight following intense media pressure on Frontex. In January 2021, it created a Frontex Scrutiny Working Group (FSWG) to monitor the Agency’s compliance with fundamental rights 93 . A report of the FSWG on its investigation was presented in July 2021 94 . The report noted that parliamentary oversight could be strengthened in relation to the role of national parliaments holding their own national governments accountable 95 . This has highlighted the need to use Article 112 of the EBCG Regulation, which allows cooperation between the EP and national parliaments to exercise scrutiny more effectively, in light of the shared responsibility of Frontex and national authorities for border management and return. Some external stakeholders believe that a permanent EP representative on the MB would enhance oversight 96 . However, most interviewees from the EP did not favour this option, given the need for the Parliament to retain independence 97 . 

Overall, stakeholders considered the powers of the Executive Director to be well defined 98 . in Article 106 of the EBCG Regulation. The decision to expand the management structure of the Agency to include three Deputy Executive Directors with well-defined portfolios added efficiency in light of the Agency’s expanded mandate, as will moving towards delegated decision-making rather than relying on an overly centralised model, which was the past practice at the Agency 99 . 

The Fundamental Rights Officer is responsible for monitoring Frontex’s implementation of its fundamental rights obligations and reports directly to the MB. Certain oversight limitations have been identified in the FRO’s role (see section 4.1.9 on fundamental rights). Efforts including the 2022 MB decision on the follow-up to the FRO’s recommendations 100  have served to further strengthen the efficiency and effectiveness of the FRO.

The tasks, duties and powers of the Data Protection Officer are specified in a MB Decision adopted in 2021 101 . The DPO is independent in the performance of their duties, and reports directly to the MB 102  as well as to the ED. A major ongoing challenge for the DPO is its low number of staff, which makes it difficult to manage the high workload associated with the expanding Agency 103 . 

An Internal Audit Capability (IAC) was established under Article 80 of the Frontex Financial Regulation 104 , through the adoption of MB Decision 43/2020, to create an internal auditing function within Frontex 105 . The IAC is functionally independent and reports to the MB and the ED 106 . As a recent initiative, there is insufficient time to evaluate its contribution to enhancing the effectiveness of internal governance, but it is likely to support internal decision-making and improved governance in the future. The Head of IAC considers that there are sufficient human resources to carry out their function 107 .

Organisational structure

The organisational structure of the Agency is not sufficiently aligned with its new mandate and further changes are needed. Comparing the 2018 structure of the Agency (when it was a traditional EU decentralised agency) with its current structure shows that despite its expansion in size, it has failed to adequately accommodate the necessary operational management for the SC, consisting (primarily) of law enforcement officers and specialised equipment and assets. The split of competences across a number of divisions is unclear, leading to a lack of ownership or clear processes 108 . The Management Board adopted the Agency’s new organisational structure in November 2023, which the Agency will start to implement in January 2024.  On the operational level, the current structure results in multiple reporting channels. Frontex is currently developing new operational and chain of command (FC2) 109 concepts which are likely to result in changes to how the SC are structured and establish clearer reporting lines.

Overall, the Agency has a clear planning process, with the programming process substantiated by a clear legal basis 110 . The Agency’s programming documents are sent to the Commission, the EP and the Council, and are endorsed by the MB 111 . In consultation with the European Commission and the MB, Frontex developed a Roadmap for the implementation of the EBCG Regulation. Structured according to sections of the Regulation, the Roadmap is continuously updated, most recently in 2023 112 , and helps to inform the MB on the implementation of its mandate 113 .

4.1.2.2 Operations

During the evaluation period, Frontex provided extensive technical and operational assistance to Member States through joint operations (JOs) and rapid border interventions (RBIs), including technical and operational assistance in SAR operations. Frontex’s operational support was mainly in terms of border surveillance and border checks activities via JOs at the external borders. The majority of JOs and RBIs focused on the land and sea external borders under significant migratory pressure. Other types of operational activities are carried out through focal points established at key border crossing points.

Table 1: Frontex joint operations carried out in the period 2020-2023

Source: Frontex CAARs (2020-2022)

Overall, Frontex’s operational support is valued by Member States and has contributed to managing the migratory pressures and protecting and managing EU external borders. The core added value of Frontex is to allocate operational resources, such as personnel and equipment to support Member States in terms of border management and return.

Additionally, Frontex has a role to develop European technical and operational standards and harmonise practices among Member States. Frontex has developed together with Member States several operational guidelines and handbooks that support this objective 117 .  

Frontex JOs are planned and implemented on the basis of the standard operational cycle, comprising of initiation, planning, implementation, and evaluation. Eleven Member States surveyed experienced no issues with the joint planning of operations, while ten experienced some issues, such as the operational planning of a JO being cumbersome or that the information provided by Frontex is less up-to-date than national operational awareness.

The Agency has recently started to develop a four-category concept to prioritise the needs of various countries/border sections which is expected to have a positive impact on the planning of the deployment of SC staff and equipment.

The availability of certain categories of SC profiles do not fully correlate with the overall needs. While the situation has improved over time, specific profiles are in high demand and Frontex reports up to 65% gaps for certain profiles 118 .

The EBCG Regulation 119 refers to the use of databases, but Frontex’s access to national databases depends on the agreement of the host Member State. Challenges in sharing and accessing information were reported by nine Member States 120 . Only four countries facilitate some form of access (CZ, FR, PT and IS). Other Member States currently do not allow Frontex staff to consult relevant databases, including national databases for border checks. However, where such access is provided, the information is often available only in the national language, which is an obstacle for SC staff.

Frontex has not yet finalised the technical implementation of access to SIS. The current lack of access to relevant European databases (such as VIS, SIS), which is due to delays and implementation issues, further limits the support the Agency can provide for border checks.

4.1.2.3. Return

Frontex has become an essential actor in the common EU system for return, taking on new responsibilities related to return of people who have no legal right to stay in the EU. Frontex has effectively supported Member States through all phases of return procedures. Stakeholders at EU and national level value Frontex’s operational and technical assistance in return, particularly in organising joint return operations (JROs), but also in other return-related support.

Table 2: Key results of Frontex return operations

Source: Frontex Consolidated Annual Activity Reports (2019-2022).

Most Member States surveyed did not encounter any challenges when cooperating with Frontex in the different stages of the return process. The majority reported positive cooperation with Frontex in the field of return and also noted indirect benefits, such as reducing secondary movements. Some Member States 125 particularly valued Frontex’s assistance with organising charter flights, which are considered a safer option to return violent and difficult cases. Efforts were made to use scheduled flights for cases that could reasonably be returned that way. Challenges included last-minute cancellations of JROs, which typically reflected problems of cooperation between the organising Member State and the third country of destination.  

The EBCG Regulation extended the Agency’s mandate to include the possibility to provide assistance to voluntary returns. Since then, the Agency has enhanced its tailored support for this type of return, the support with return counselling also increased.

Pre-return assistance was valued by Member States, with reports of good experiences with European Return Liaison Officers (EURLOs), who helped with acquisition of travel documents and facilitated return operations.

The value of the deployment of Frontex Return Escort and Support Officers (FRESOs) was also underlined by several countries 126 .

The Agency is further developing its own capacity to organise Frontex-led return operations, which is aimed at further relieving the Member States from some organisational burden.

Post-arrival support and reintegration are a relatively new area for the Agency 127 . The lack of clear definitions creates some practical difficulties in implementation. However, the Agency has developed ‘working definitions’ to overcome these obstacles. As regards return-related digitalisation by the Agency, most Member States reported that IRMA and FAR are convenient and user-friendly, and the availability of useful source material and information in one place is useful. To build capacity in Member States for an end-to-end digitalisation of the return process, the Agency developed RECAMAS, a reference model for an IT return case management system to be used by Member States to align their national IT systems. The Agency is able to provide both technical and financial assistance to Member States in building such systems.

4.1.2.4. Situational awareness

Situational awareness

Frontex has been able to contribute to improved situational awareness at external borders through its products (including risk analysis, vulnerability assessments and 24/7 situational monitoring). Nevertheless, several elements impact its ability to provide up-to-date and comprehensive situational monitoring. This stems in part from limitations in the EBCG Regulation relating to processing of personal data, (see section 4.1.1.). A number of implementation issues also persist, including incomplete reporting by Member States in the context of EUROSUR and delays by Frontex in providing risk analysis products in all four-tiers of EIBM, due to methodological and data issues (especially in relation to return and third-country data). 

The situational picture at the EU external borders that EUROSUR provides can thus only be partially accurate, complete, and up-to date. A majority of Member State respondents to the survey agreed that the implementation of the EUROSUR framework is effective in terms of information exchange to improve situational awareness 133 . However, only a minority agreed that it has been effective in terms of information exchange to increase the reaction capabilities among the relevant stakeholders 134 or sufficient to improve detection, prevention and combating of irregular migration and cross-border crime. 135  

While input of data by Member States remains a challenge, in particular when it comes to possible double reporting of similar information in JORA and EUROSUR, there have been significant improvements in data quality, flow, and speed of reporting. One of the most notable achievements is the marked increase in data quality, with a decrease in re-entry rates 136 . Frontex suggested that adding a tool to monitor the quality of data reports by Member States could be helpful, with data quality reports potentially feeding into existing quality control mechanisms (vulnerability assessments, Schengen evaluations, etc.), which would issue recommendations where needed 137 . 

Although the Regulation foresees an upgrade of the EUROSUR communication network to CONFIDENTIEL UE/EU CONFIDENTIAL, this has not been implemented. The reasons are two-fold: firstly, Frontex’s current facilities do not meet the requirements for such an upgrade. Secondly, the upgrade has considerable costs, with little added value in terms of the additional information that could be shared via EUROSUR, most of which does not require CONFIDENTIEL UE/EU CONFIDENTIAL classification level. 138  This view was also supported by around half of the Member States 139 . A minority of Member States see a potential advantage in upgrading the communication network, as this could help to improve information sharing 140 and the European situational picture. 141 However, the only type of information identified, which is classified and would add value to the situational picture, is the location of military assets involved in operations, such as in the Aegean or Central Mediterranean 142 . One of the issues that require further clarification is the accreditation of the classified network and the entity that should take responsibility for this process (EUROSUR Security Accreditation Board or Frontex Security Accreditation Authority).

In its report of 1 July 2022 on the functioning of EUROSUR prepared in accordance with Article 121(5) of Regulation (EU) 2019/1896 143 , Frontex presented the results of the implementation process carried out so far. It shares the observations outlined above, such as EUROSUR contribution to the improvement of the situational awareness, the need for timeliness and quality of reporting as well as significant investments that would need to be undertaken to establish a network enabling the exchange of classified information up to CONFIDENTIEL UE/EU CONFIDENTIAL level 144 . 

Risk analysis

The EBCG Regulation ‘reinforces significantly the analytical products focusing more than ever on prediction and prevention’ 145 , The risk analysis products generated by Frontex generally perform well across a number of key qualitative metrics. Its products are well received at strategic level, but lack of access to intelligence information limits their use at operational level 146 , Another shortcoming identified by a minority of Member States was the lack of regional or locally specific analysis 147 . Others found the strategic analysis helpful but felt there was not sufficient analysis linked to the joint operations 148 .

Frontex’s operational activities are generally based on up-to-date risk analysis and are well received by key stakeholders. It produces a wide range of risk analysis products specifically on its joint operations.

Some weaknesses were identified through consultation with Member States and Frontex. For example, the risk analysis produced by Frontex does not adequately cover all four tiers of EIBM 149 . The key elements of EIBM missing from Frontex risk analysis products are returns and third-country information, while EBCG Regulation stipulates that Frontex’s mandate on risk analysis is to ‘monitor migratory flows toward the Union, and within the union in terms of migratory trends, volume and routes, and other trends or possible challenges at the external borders and with regard to return’ 150 . 

Vulnerability assessment

Vulnerability assessments allow Frontex to monitor potential vulnerabilities at EU’s external borders, and to work with Member States to reduce those vulnerabilities. Most Member State respondents believe that Frontex’s vulnerability assessment activities help to assess Member States’ readiness and capacity to face challenges at external borders and are conducive to better preparedness 151 . The assessments are also seen as helpful in the context of the Schengen evaluations 152 . The European Commission and Frontex have worked together to ensure better synergies between the two mechanisms. Nevertheless, some Member States still see these mechanisms as overlapping 153 .

However, some Member States expressed concern that vulnerability assessment data collection places a heavy administrative burden on their authorities 154 . This administrative pressure is compounded by a ‘highly inefficient IT platform’, reducing the added value of the annual baseline vulnerability assessment. Nevertheless, Member States recognise the relative recency of the vulnerability assessment system, and Frontex has reported an ongoing upgrade to the Vulnerability Assessment Platform (VAP) to deal with this problem 155 . 

The analysis also found that, while the data collections for risk analysis and vulnerability assessment should be coherent with one another, the processes within Frontex are not sufficiently interlinked. One issue is that vulnerability assessment data are not fully used in risk analysis products. This discrepancy is due to a certain level of conceptual misalignment between methodologies. The core of the problem, as identified by Frontex and Member States, is that the definition of vulnerability in the common integrated risk analysis model (CIRAM) does not match the definition of vulnerability in the common vulnerability assessment methodology (CVAM) 156 . For Member States, vulnerability assessments are a concrete, quantitative and capacity-based system with measurable outcomes. Conversely, the conceptualisation of vulnerability in CIRAM includes ‘pull factors’, reflecting broader factors influencing the arrival of migratory flows from outside the EU 157 .

In addition, the level of confidentiality of vulnerability assessment data means that it is harder to access this information for risk analysis. While the purpose of vulnerability assessments is to allow Member States to address their own specific weaknesses, risk analysis can take a more overarching and EU-wide approach, with an associated lower level of sensitivity. Frontex also has separate systems for producing risk analyses and vulnerability assessments, which impacts their coherence.

Finally, a weakness of vulnerability assessments, that significantly limits their effectiveness, is the lengthy and indirect enforcement system established by the EBCG Regulation. The ‘escalation procedure’ in Article 32(9)-(10) does not appear commensurate with the gravity of the vulnerabilities identified by the Agency at the EU’s external borders. The analysis also found that in cases, where a Member State fail to implement a recommendation and the ED then decides in accordance with Article 32(10) to escalate a case to the MB, the MB decision it not taken as resolute as intended in the ECBG Regulation. There seem to be a reluctance to take these decisions, despite the impact that these vulnerabilities might have on all Member States.

4.1.2.5. Capability development 158

Capability development

The overarching capability development planning is still under implementation. The requirement of the Regulation is to have a Capability Roadmap that defines long term plans for recruitment, training, acquisition of technical equipment and research and innovation, both for the Agency and Member States.

The process has been launched by collecting existing plans of the Member States as the baseline. All but one Member State sent their national capability development plans to Frontex by October 2023. In parallel, the Agency presented the Capability Roadmap methodology to the MB in September 2023.

After adoption of the TO-EIBM, the Capability Roadmap is to be attached to the Strategy as an annex. The Roadmap is still in the making. Due to lack of this document, four years after the entry into force of the 2019 Regulation, there is a lack of strategic direction for the long-term development of the capabilities of Frontex.

In parallel, Frontex has developed its multiannual acquisition strategy, which is to document short, medium, and long-term needs. The European Commission adopted its opinion in May 2023 on the Agency’s multiannual acquisition strategy for technical equipment and its implementation plan. The strategy was only adopted by the Agency’s MB in September 2023 159 . Only the multiannual plan for the SC personnel profiles 160 was already adopted in 2022.

As a result, integrated planning 161 could not be fully implemented yet. There is not any well-defined understanding yet of the acquisition needs within Frontex or the whole European Border and Coast Guard. Furthermore, it is also important to note that there is only four years left to spend the significant financial resources allocated in the current MFF to technical equipment.

Training

An essential part of capacity development planning is training. Frontex has implemented a range of training activities for Member States and third countries and met most internal training targets. Frontex has been updating and maintaining training standards within the European Border and Coast Guard, including Standards for European Common Core Curriculum for border guards and several specialised trainings for Member States 162 . 

The Regulation specifies that an “Agency training centre” should be established 163 .  Such decision has not been taken in the period under evaluation. There are no long-term sustainability assessments or comparable analysis on financial efficiency how to organise the training. A Frontex training centre, further utilisation Partnership Academies in Member States, externalising some parts of the training by tendering are possible options, as well as a hybrid solution of the options.

At the same time, a majority of Member States agreed or strongly agreed that, in the spirit of shared responsibility, the division of competence between Member States and Frontex, as set out in the Regulation, is sufficiently clear and adequate to meet the objectives on education and training of border and coast guards 164 . 

Technical equipment

The equipment of the Agency and equipment of Member States form a technical equipment pool that is to be gradually developed and deployed to the JOs. Frontex is managing and coordinating the pool and liaising with Member States in several working groups in this regard. Additionally, Frontex acquires and coordinates the development of other equipment, which is used by European Border and Coast Guard, including the SC.

None of the targets in terms of development of technical equipment were fully met. The development was slowed down due to above-mentioned delays in the strategic planning. The fact that the multiannual acquisition strategy was missing until recently was a specific challenge.

Lack of vision for the long-term development of the capabilities of the Agency impacted the efficiency of acquisition within Frontex. For example, the acquisition of various items was delayed, forcing the Agency to rely on options that proved inefficient, at least initially, such as renting vehicles (and subsequent issues with modifying vehicles to its specific needs and replace unsuitable vehicles that had deteriorated faster than anticipated vehicles) 165 . Given that the EBCG Regulation has as an objective to establish Frontex’s technical equipment as the backbone of EU’s border management 166 , the shortcomings in the acquisition present a significant problem in the implementation of the Regulation 167 .

Firstly, the Agency was not able to acquire in a timely manner all the equipment that was necessary. This had an impact on equipping the SC with personal equipment. Even further, this also impacted the acquisition of heavy equipment for the Agency to be deployed to the joint operations as the core equipment of SC.

There are several reasons for the delays. The definition of the operational requirements and development of the technical standards has been taking time. At the same time, procurement has been cumbersome, for example for the tendering challenges. Additionally, the budgetary rules are rather strict, and synchronising the budgeting, planning and actual procurement is complex.

Frontex has suffered from bottlenecks in terms of logistics, operators of the equipment, and premises to dock, store and maintain the equipment. This goes especially for the heavy equipment. The resource issue has not been so far taken sufficiently into account while developing SC and Frontex headquarters staffing plans.

Member States have faced challenges as well. Member States have not contributed enough technical equipment to the pool, compared to the operational needs. This is mostly because the national technical equipment pool has been developed historically in line with the national needs and national budget constraints. Even so, certain types of technical equipment in the Member States and SAC are only available at very limited numbers, which poses challenges in covering the national needs, let alone contributing to cover EBCG needs. Even if there has been European funding available for some time, the large-extend utilisation of funds has kicked off only recently. Getting technical equipment from the procurement planning all the way to be deployed and operational typically takes several years. Additionally, some Member States have been discouraged to fully utilise European funds because of the requirements to allocate it annually to the European Border and Coast Guard Technical Pool in line with the requirements under ISF/BMVI 168 . Finally, there has not been strong oversight nor guidance to ensure that Member States would fulfil their obligations to deploy equipment to the joint operations.

Lastly, there are a number of administrative and practical issues that make European-wide operating of certain equipment very cumbersome. An important element here is that although technical equipment exists at national level and can be made available, there is not enough crew to operate it. In accordance with the EBCG Regulation, the Member State needs to provide the major equipment together with its crew. The crew will be part of that Member State’s contribution to the Standing Corps. In addition, Member States are facing issues with the maintenance of the technical equipment. Other issues are about registrations, transport, insurances and similar issues. Itemising and solving these practical issues will greatly promote development and utilisation of the technical equipment.

Frontex and Member States can improve the situation considerably by making use of EU Financial Instruments (such as BMVI) to purchase additional technical equipment (Member States), training crews for operating technical equipment (Frontex and Member States), providing support in logistics and maintenance (Frontex), and Frontex increasing its own pool of technical equipment.

The overall gaps in the technical equipment caused that joint operations have had annually shortages of essential equipment, compared to operational needs. Light equipment (such as hand-held sensors) has been well available, but heavy equipment (such as maritime vessels) not so much.

Research and innovation

2020 – 2023 Frontex has been supporting European capability building with research and innovation in line with its mandate. Frontex has been promoting standardisation and harmonisation of border management capabilities. Additionally, Frontex has been promoting and enhancing innovation, and additionally executing and supporting research 169 . The multiannual programming documents define the expected results and indicators.

Frontex has a mandate to develop standards in several areas 170 , including standards for border surveillance 171  but the standardisation work has still work ahead.

4.1.2.6. Cooperation with EU institutions, agencies and third countries

Cooperation with EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies

Frontex has well-established cooperation with the European Commission to ensure coherence between policy priorities and the Agency’s operations in border management and return. Frontex participates in the EU mechanism for preparedness and management of crises related to migration (Migration Preparedness and Crisis Blueprint) 174 that brings together Member States, the Council, the Commission, EEAS, EUAA, Frontex, Europol, eu-LISA and FRA, to work together on migration preparedness and crisis management. Frontex provides ad hoc analytical contributions to support the Council, including inputs to the Council’s Integrated Political Crises Response (IPCR) as well as Integrated Situational Awareness and Analysis Reports (ISAA) 175 . The Agency regularly reports to the EP on the progress of implementation of its recommendations.

Frontex has well-established cooperation with EU JHA agencies on the basis of working arrangements 176 (EUROPOL, eu-LISA, EUAA, CEPOL, FRA etc.). Overall, Frontex’s activities are coherent with the activities of other agencies. However, potential overlaps in mandates require close coordination and clarifications. 

Cooperation with Europol is rated positively, although a minority of Member States stressed the importance of ensuring complementarity and avoiding overlaps, in view of Frontex tasks in the area of cross-border crime 177 . Overall cooperation is rated as good, with regular contact between the two agencies 178 . At the same time, the cooperation arrangement between the two agencies dates back to 2015 and needs to be updated in accordance with the requirements of the EBCG Regulation on working arrangements 179 . 

Some Frontex stakeholders noted that the EBCG Regulation does not sufficiently specify the Agency’s role, limitations, and procedures in its tasks to support Europol, Eurojust and national law enforcement authorities 180  or that its mandate in this area is too narrow. Yet the importance of avoiding overlaps in mandates of Frontex and Europol has been highlighted by the Commission and some Member States, which explains the perceived narrow interpretation of Frontex’s mandate in this field 181 . Moreover, the majority of Member States agreed that the cooperation with Europol and Eurojust was already well defined 182 , and did not suggest further expanding the mandate of Frontex in this field. At the same time, the exchange of information between the agencies has been hampered in the past, following two opinions of the EDPS issued on 7 June 2022. These opinions, notably, had an effect on Frontex’s “Processing of Personal Data for Risk Analysis (PeDRA)” which includes the forwarding of information on potential human smugglers or traffickers to Europol. These problems should be remedied with the implementation of the new data protection framework in Frontex (see section 4.1.1 above), and through the negotiation of a new working arrangement with Europol, based on the new mandates of both agencies. 

The Agency has been playing an active role in European cooperation on coast guard functions, notably through inter-agency cooperation with the European Fisheries Control Agency (EFCA) and the European maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) in the framework of a tripartite working arrangement. The three agencies work jointly on multipurpose operations, where they undertake activities to support various coast guard functions falling under their respective remit. Overall, cooperation is rated positively among the agencies, and the legal base for their cooperation is sound.

Frontex has successfully enhanced its cooperation with CSDP missions and operations. In 2022, it signed a working arrangement with the European Union Capacity Building Mission in Niger (EUCAP Sahel Niger) and in 2023 it agreed on the text of a working arrangement with the European Union Advisory Mission Ukraine (EUAM Ukraine), which is expected to be signed by the end of this year. The ramifications of the Russian aggression against Ukraine showed that the overarching mechanism for cooperation with CSDP missions, including those not considered as priority, could provide the necessary flexibility for Frontex at the operational level 183 . EUAM Ukraine is supporting the development, updating and implementing the Ukrainian National Integrated Border Management Strategy. The cooperation between Frontex and EUAM Ukraine will support this effort by providing EUAM Ukraine with the expertise of the Agency in the area of Integrated Border Management, standards and good practices.

Cooperation with third countries

Frontex can cooperate with third countries via status agreements, working arrangements, or through non-operational cooperation, in line with EU foreign policy objectives and its International Cooperation Strategy 184 . The EBCG Regulation 185 brought new opportunities for cooperation with third countries, including the ability for Frontex to conduct joint operational activities with executive powers anywhere on the territory of a third country, subject to a status agreement and an operational plan negotiated and concluded with the relevant third country. It also allows for the exchange of information with third countries in the framework of EUROSUR 186 through the inclusion of EUROSUR provisions in an operational plan based on a status agreement or a working arrangement. Furthermore, the EBCG Regulation added new fundamental rights and data protection safeguards, to accommodate the evolving EU legal framework, extending the regulatory framework for cooperation with third countries. In line with Article 76(1) of the EBCG Regulation, a model status agreement was adopted by the European Commission in December 2021 187 . During the evaluation period, the EU signed and concluded status agreements with Moldova, North Macedonia, Montenegro, and Albania; negotiations with other third countries are currently ongoing.

The Commission also adopted a model working arrangement on 21 December 2021. Frontex finalised negotiations of a number of working arrangements based on this new model. The first such text, negotiated with Niger, received a negative opinion from EDPS, which found the arrangement’s data protection provisions insufficient for international data transfers to Niger. Due to the fact that these provisions are broadly based on the model working arrangement, the Commission is currently working with Frontex and the EDPS to amend the model’s personal data protection provisions. Once a text has been agreed with EDPS, the finalisation of the negotiations of these new generation working arrangements can take place. Frontex currently has close to twenty working arrangements with third country authorities in place, all based on earlier iterations of the EBCG Regulation.

The vast majority of Member States agreed that cooperation with third countries is clearly defined in the EBCG Regulation and is conducive to addressing specific needs and challenges at external borders 188 . Overall, Frontex’s activities in the external dimension are well regarded by key stakeholders and have a clear legal basis. New joint operations to third countries have been successfully deployed on the basis of new status agreements in Moldova, North Macedonia and Montenegro.

Two own-imitative reports have been prepared by the European Parliament Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) in the context of status agreements: the Report on the negotiations on a status agreement on operational activities carried out by the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) in Senegal (2023/2086(INI)) and the Report on negotiations on a status agreement on operational activities carried out by the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) in Mauritania (2023/2087(INI)).

One legal inconsistency has been identified in the EBCG Regulation in relation to working arrangements with third countries (and international organisations). Article 117(5) requires the Agency to include ‘provisions expressly empowering ECA, OLAF and EPPO to conduct […] audits and investigations. However, working arrangements are legally non-binding documents. While Frontex is able to include such provisions in its working arrangements, legally speaking those cannot ‘empower’ the ECA, OLAF and the EPPO 189 .

Cooperation with international organisations

Cooperation with international organisations under working arrangements is limited by specific provisions in Article 68 of the EBCG Regulation, which sets out an exhaustive list of organisations 190 with which Frontex may cooperate. The justification for, or added value of, setting such limits in the Regulation itself is unclear, as it limits the ability of the Agency to develop more structured cooperation with relevant partners, including some organisations with which it has established useful cooperation in the past (e.g. International Centre for Migration Policy Development (ICMPD), NATO, World Customs Organization).

In practice, Frontex has working arrangements with eight international organisations and international think tanks. This includes two that are not listed in the EBCG Regulation (DCAF, ICMPD), although all of these working arrangements pre-date the Regulation. Similarly, there is no reference in the EBCG Regulation to the Agency's cooperation with non-State actors, although Frontex is also involved in post-return and post-arrival activities alongside non-State actors, such as non-governmental organisations (NGOs) 191 . 

The Agency’s external engagements are coordinated with the support of the Commission, and in cooperation with the EEAS if necessary. Any new working arrangements are subject to a Commission approval and must also be approved by the MB of the Agency. This suggests sufficient guarantees being in place that makes the added value of an exhaustive list of organisations in the EBCG Regulation unclear.

Frontex is able to maintain less formal cooperation with organisations outside of working arrangements. With such organisations Frontex aims to promote dialogue and coordination in areas of mutual interest, including cooperation with the World Customs Organization, ICMPD, Allied Maritime Command (MARCOM) of NATO and the International Labour Organization (ILO) 192 , 193 . However, in particular in the case of NATO, informal avenues do not allow the cooperation to reach its full potential.

4.1.2.7. Fundamental Rights

The EBCG Regulation aims to establish a comprehensive fundamental rights framework, including horizontal safeguards, roles, procedures, and instruments (to be set up and/or implemented by the Agency) to ensure the protection of fundamental rights in the implementation of the Agency’s mandate 194 . 

During the evaluation period, Frontex put in place a number of measures to ensure and promote the respect of fundamental rights, including by adopting and/or implementing rules and procedures. This includes the Fundamental Rights Strategy and its implementing Action Plan 195 , rules on the FRO’s activities (including contributing to a wide range of Agency tools and procedures, such as operational plans), the continuous deployment of FRMs to all Agency activities and operations, MB Decisions (on the complaints mechanism, SIRs, supervisory mechanism on the use of force, etc.), data protection safeguards and rules allowing the DPO to carry out his/her tasks effectively, as well as embedding fundamental rights components within Frontex trainings and other longer-term efforts to promote a fundamental rights culture within the Agency.

Although the obligation to fully comply with fundamental rights applies to the entire EBCG, and therefore also to the Member States, and not only to Frontex, the regulatory provisions are focused on the Agency and not on national authorities. However, many concerns about fundamental rights reported to the FRO do not relate to Frontex’s staff or assets, but, rather, to alleged violations by staff of the Member States during operational activities jointly undertaken by the Agency and Member States. In such cases, the powers of the FRO are limited, as they do not include monitoring the national authorities’ activities, which are instead covered by national monitoring mechanisms (such as the national ombuds institutions) to the extent that such institutions exist 196 . 

While Frontex has a duty to constantly assess the fundamental rights compliance of all its operational activities through the work of its FRMs, under EU law there is no similar obligation for Member States 197 , although the Commission strongly encourages the development of similar mechanisms at national level 198 and is offering financial support for setting up such mechanisms at the national level 199 . The Fundamental Rights Office’s monitoring of Member States’ staff involved in operational activities has at times created tensions with some Member States, whose authorities question the scope of the Office’s activities and suggest that it is overstepping its mandate 200 . 

The limitations of the Fundamental Rights Office’s mandate can also negatively impact at times the ability of the FRMs to conduct their activities, as well as call into question their right to access operational areas. Some clarifications were brought about by the 2023 Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) for FRMs 201 . Although the scope of the FRMs’ monitoring activities is limited to the areas within which the Agency operates, FRMs may collect relevant information and assess the fundamental rights situation, with regard to border and migration management, in the Member States and third countries in which the Agency conducts operational activities. This therefore also includes the relevant activities of national authorities. However, the objective is not to evaluate the conduct of national authorities but, rather, to evaluate the situation insofar as it may have an impact on Frontex’s activities, the Agency’s reputation, and above all its staff’s ability to operate in a way that fully complies with fundamental rights obligations.

Fundamental Rights Officer (FRO)

The role of the FRO is crucial in ensuring the Agency’s respect for, and compliance with, fundamental rights, as well as the effectiveness of the internal fundamental rights monitoring and accountability mechanisms. The FRO is responsible for monitoring the Agency’s implementation of its fundamental rights obligations and for advising (including on his/her own initiative) the Agency on fundamental rights-related issues 202 . As highlighted during the stakeholders’ consultation 203 , the initial absence of obligations on the MB and ED had de-prioritised the need to follow-up to FRO recommendations. In the case of Hungary, for example, the suspension of the Agency’s support for border management took place five years after the first recommendation of the FRO 204 . This situation was remedied by the adoption of MB Decision 43/2022 on actions to be taken as a follow-up to the FRO’s recommendations 205 , which stipulates clear timelines and procedures for the follow-up to recommendations by the FRO and Consultative Forum.

Other challenges to the work of the FRO derived from the lack of sufficient and adequate human and financial resources provided to the FRO to fulfil his or her tasks. Despite the requirement in the EBCG Regulation to provide the Office with sufficient human and financial resources 206 , the resources of the Fundamental Rights Office were insufficient for quite some time and were increased considerably only from 2021-2022, following a recommendation from the Agency’s MB 207 . 

Fundamental Rights Monitors (FRMs)

The EBCG Regulation introduced the role of FRMs, who have the pivotal task to ‘[…] assess fundamental rights compliance in operational activity, provide advice and assistance in that regard and contribute to the promotion of fundamental rights as part of EIBM’ 208 . 

To facilitate effective monitoring, the EBCG Regulation requires that FRMs have access to all areas in which the operational activities of the Agency take place and to all documents relevant to the implementation of those activities. However, differences in interpretation on the scope of the FRMs’ mandate/monitoring and access to operational areas and documents (including databases) have hindered the effectiveness of the monitoring activities. In addition, limitations imposed by some national authorities to the FRMs’ ability to monitor certain activities, such as not allowing their participation in (land and sea) patrolling and/or debriefing interviews, further constrained FRMs’ effectiveness in fulfilling their monitoring capabilities. To guarantee effective monitoring, the ED adopted the SOP for the FRMs in March 2023 209 , which also reiterates the access rights of FRMs in line with the EBCG Regulation. 

Consultative Forum (CF)

Unlike the FRO and FRMs, the CF does not have the mandate to monitor Frontex’s activities. Rather, it assists the Agency by providing independent advice on fundamental rights matters. The ED and the MB, in coordination with the FRO, may consult the CF on any matter related to fundamental rights 210 .

Although the CF may carry out on-the-spot visits to the Agency’s operations (in its headquarters and in host Member States), these visits are not aimed at fundamental rights monitoring. Rather, their objective is to collect information, which may be used to inform the CF’s work to advise the Agency. Despite the adoption of MB Decision 43/2022, which also aimed to improve cooperation between the Agency and the CF, including by setting clearer procedures and timelines regarding the response to CF recommendations, the Forum has argued that there are several challenges stemming from the Regulation or its implementation that risk limiting the impact of their work. These include insufficient access to information, lack of request for consultations from the Agency or insufficient time to reply to requests, and limited follow-up to the CF’s recommendations. Several stakeholders also highlighted the difficulties for civil society organisations to continue contributing to the work of the CF on a voluntary basis, given their limited resources and staff 211 . 

Decisions to suspend, terminate or not launch activities (Article 46)

Article 46 provides another important fundamental rights safeguard of the EBCG Regulation. It establishes the obligation of the ED to suspend, terminate or not launch any activity of the Agency if the conditions to conduct such activities are not (or no longer) fulfilled, including in cases of serious or persistent fundamental rights violations 212 . Various stakeholders highlighted that the EBCG Regulation leaves considerable discretion to the ED in this regard 213 . 

To fill this gap and to strengthen the functioning of Article 46, in 2022 the Agency adopted a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) on establishing the roles and responsibilities within the Agency to support the decision-making process of the ED. 214 The SOP also aims to clarify the applicable criteria for decisions, setting out a gradual approach and relying on the principle of proportionality when deciding actions to be taken under Article 46. Whenever appropriate, mitigating/corrective measures should be put in place to improve and resolve the situation without triggering Article 46. 

Stakeholders’ views diverge on the design and application of Article 46.  As withdrawing Frontex staff from a host country limits or eliminates the FRO’s ability to monitor and report on possible fundamental rights violations at that country’s borders, and the Agency’s ability to contribute to improving the situation, some stakeholders even suggest a ‘reverse Article 46’, which could entail additional safeguards and/or an enhanced presence of the Agency in response to fundamental rights violations at the borders of the host Member State 215 . 

Stakeholders’ views similarly diverge on the authority adopting the decision referred to in Article 46. The EBCG Regulation puts this responsibility on the ED of the Agency. Some consider that this provision has the potential to place excessive public and political pressure on the ED alone, without involving other relevant actors (such as the MB, European Commission, or the Council) 216 . On the contrary, others argue that the potential involvement of such actors could lead to the politicisation of the process (with the risk of having political actors blocking in practice the possibility of triggering Article 46) 217 .

Serious Incident Reporting (SIR) mechanism

The SIR mechanism is one of the main reporting mechanisms of the Agency and is used to promptly inform the Agency’s management and relevant stakeholders 218 of a serious incident (SI). This section focuses on the SIRs related to fundamental rights violations (so-called SIR category 1).

The EBCG Regulation only mentions this mechanism once in in Article 46, without however establishing any rules on the mechanism itself. Therefore, the Agency adopted a revised and enhanced SOP on the SIR procedure in a 2021 Decision of the ED, which repealed and replaced the original 2014 SOP on the mechanism 219 . The adoption of the SOP on SIRs is relatively recent and further monitoring is needed to assess its functioning 220 .

The SIR mechanism provides important information for the FRO to monitor the Agency's compliance with its obligations to respect fundamental rights. The shortcomings of the previous SIR mechanism, in particular following the investigations into allegations of Frontex’s involvement in pushbacks in 2020 and 2021, prompted the Agency to improve the mechanism. The revised SOP enhances the role of the FRO by allowing the direct reporting of situations that potentially violate fundamental rights, as well as automatically assigning the FRO as case-handler for all incidents concerning alleged violations of fundamental rights. 221  However, according to the CF, the mechanism may still require further improvements to be effective. For example, in the Forum’s view the FRO should be involved in all steps of the process, i.e. identification, categorisation and handling of cases, and the FRO should have the possibility to challenge previously made decisions on the categorisation of incidents 222 . 

Overall, the external study identified some factors that may continue to limit the mechanism’s effectiveness. Some of these factors have largely already been addressed, chiefly by the introduction of the 2021 SOP on the SIR mechanism, such as the perceived insufficient involvement of the FRO in handling reports. Other issues persist, such as limited sources of information, a problem that may be exacerbated by insufficient cooperation from national authorities during investigations and follow-up. Additionally, serious incident files remain “open” for long periods of time, although this is also due to the FRO being reluctant to close incidents if the feedback received by national authorities is deemed insufficient. Other overarching issues may include difficulties in ensuring that any established wrongdoings are adequately remedied, particularly as the responsibility with regard to following up on SIRs concerning category 1 SC falls on the national authorities of Member States, as well as an overall lack of transparency (SIRs are restricted documents), and the fact that the mechanism does not feature avenues for redress for any established injured parties – although any victims can pursue redress through other mechanism including legal action against the Agency. An overall lack of incentives for deployed staff to submit SIRs was also noted. The Agency has already started to take measures to address this issue. Thus, the FRO has been working to increase Agency staff awareness of the SIR mechanism and the revised SOP, through training and briefing activities, as well as better advertising the obligation to report serious incidents, the existing mechanisms to protect whistle-blowers and anyone reporting incidents, and the potential consequences for not reporting violations of fundamental rights. Moreover, the presence of FRMs on the ground contributes to a broader utilisation of the SIRs mechanism: FRMs inform deployed staff on the SIRs mechanism and encourage them to submit SIRs where appropriate and may also submit SIRs themselves. In addition, the FRO has created a dedicated SIR team within the Fundamental Rights Office. The capacity of the SIR team will however need to increase, given the growing number of SC officers and new deployment activities 223 .

Complaints mechanism

Introduced in 2016, the complaints mechanism is an important component of the Agency’s fundamental rights protection framework. Despite being one of the main reporting mechanisms, over the years various stakeholders have raised concerns about its set up and implementation, suggesting that these may have limited its capacity to provide an effective and accessible tool for reporting, investigating, and remedying alleged breaches of fundamental rights 224 . More specifically, these concerns relate to the access, scope, independence, and transparency of the mechanism, the limited role of the DPO in the process, issues with lack of adequate follow-up to complaints, and absence of options for remedy and appeal.

In particular, the complaints mechanism does not provide access to those who have not been affected ‘directly’ by actions or omissions 225 , nor does it allow the possibility to initiate a complaint ex officio 226 , nor to submit anonymous complaints 227 . This restricted access might be a contributing factor to the low number of complaints submitted via this mechanism. On the other hand, allowing broader access to the mechanism may lead to the submission of frivolous complaints. Additionally, EU regulations already impose the obligation to report wrongdoing noticed in the exercise of their duties 228 . Any staff witnessing wrongdoings but not directly employed by the Agency, moreover, since 2021 has access to the Agency’s whistle-blower mechanism. The EP 229 and the European Ombudsman 230  have called into question the independence of the complaints mechanism, given the role of the FRO and ED, respectively, in assessing and deciding on the complaints. Although the FRO recommends appropriate follow-up, the decision on the merits of the complaint lies with the ED, who should ensure proper follow-up and report back to the FRO. For complaints concerning national staff, the merits of the complaints are assessed by the national authorities, as the FRO forwards those complaints to the relevant Member State and sends a copy to the Member State’s national human rights institution or ombuds institution, as applicable, for further action.

Where a complaint relates to data protection issues, the ED consults the DPO before taking a decision 231 . During the consultation, it was reported that the work of the DPO in this area has been very limited so far 232 . 

Furthermore, the EBCG Regulation does not provide for the possibility of appeal within the complaints mechanism. The European Ombudsman found that the mechanism lacks scrutiny and indicated that decisions by the ED on complaints forwarded by the FRO may be challenged before the European Ombudsman 233 . 

Return monitoring and fundamental rights

In line with the EBCG Regulation 234 , the Agency adopted a code of conduct for return operations and return interventions, which reinforces the respect for fundamental rights when carrying out these activities 235 , through a number of obligations and good practices to be observed/ implemented. 

The monitoring of forced-return operations is carried out by the pool of forced-return monitors. The pool is set up by the Agency from monitors of competent bodies of the Member State. The Agency also contributes FRMs to the pool 236 . The FRA raised questions about the governance of the pool as the management of the pool of forced-return monitors is currently assigned to the FRO (independent but not external to the Agency). The FRA considers that handing over this responsibility to a fully external entity could enhance the independence of the pool 237 . Before 2021, the pool solely comprised monitors from Member States, while the Fundamental Rights Office worked to train and then appoint FRMs as forced-return monitors 238 .

Issues were reported in relation to the limited number of experts made available to the pool by Member States, which might limit the capacity to meet monitoring needs for all relevant operations 239 . In 2021, the FRO recruited three FRMs to act as forced-return monitors, and in 2022, six FRMs acted as forced-return monitors to ensure adequate capacity to return monitoring operations. Additional FRMs are consistently trained as forced-return monitors to ensure that the available monitoring capacity reflects the needs of Agency and Member States 240 , 241 .

4.1.3. Efficiency

4.1.3.1. Use of human and financial resources by Frontex

The EBCG Regulation significantly increased Frontex's resources, with its budget more than doubling and staff almost tripling between 2019 and 2022. This trend is set to continue, as the EU contributions will steadily increase under the remainder of the 2021-2027 MFF. Frontex, in turn, is expected to meet the increasing budgetary targets each year and to translate these resources into effective and efficient implementation of the Regulation. Figure 2 shows the magnitude of this increase.

Figure 2 EU contribution to Frontex (2016-2027)

Source: ICF, based EU budget data from MFF 2014-2020 and MFF 2021-27.

The adoption of the EBCG Regulation also led to a significant increase in human resources dedicated to operational response, including the SC. This sharp increase in its budget, in combination with its expanded mandate, created significant implementation challenges for the Agency, which are expected to be mitigated over time. Besides the general MFF 2021-2027 reduction in the Agency’s budget (40%), further reductions were applied by the budgetary authority to the annual budget for Frontex in 2021, 2022 and 2023. The Agency’s budget in those years was reduced by EUR 61 million 242 , by EUR 65 million and EUR 50 million respectively.  Despite the reductions from their initial budget, the Agency recently released EUR 15 million of its EU contributions for 2023, EUR 57.2 million in 2022 and EUR 14.6 million in 2021. Moreover, in the years 2019 and 2020, the Agency also released respectively 22.3 million and 98.9 million. The largest budget adjustment in 2020 was mainly due to the challenging and changing circumstances caused by the pandemic situation which triggered the Agency to scale down its activities in the area of return, joint operations and onboarding of the SC as well as that many activities, in particular trainings, meetings and recruitments, have been performed remotely. Based on the executed budget, implementation of the appropriations is sound, confirming that the Agency is still quite effective in forecasting its short-term budget implementation.

Overall, the allocation of human and financial resources in Frontex's strategic planning has been broadly in line with the tasks assigned to the Agency by the EBCG Regulation as well as with its strategic and horizontal objectives set in the SPD. Since 2021, staff has shifted towards strategic objectives related to operational activities rather than horizontal objectives, such as internal management and cooperation. The SC development drove the financial resources allocation in 2020, while resource planning from 2021 onwards has been stable, prioritising operational support, returns, and horizontal management. Resource allocation appeared adequate to some extent for developing and managing human resources and TEPs.

In adapting its budgetary management to the new mandate and expected operational results, some areas of expenditure, generally related to the implementation of the EBCG Regulation, have proved particularly problematic for the Agency from a budgetary and financial management perspective. Moreover, the efficiency of the Agency’s financial resources allocations has varied during the years. For instance, Frontex's ability to spend its voted budget for infrastructure and operating expenditure decreased in 2020 and 2021 in comparison to 2019, while 'staff expenditure' remained within targets. This is indicative of the difficulties in implementing the significantly growing budget lines related to joint operations, deployment of team members and equipment.

Moreover, Frontex has generally been able to spend the amounts carried over from the previous year, with no significant difference between the three years considered. For example, EUR 159.4 million were carried forward from 2020 to 2021 (43.6 %) compared to EUR 102 million from 2019 to 2020 (32%). Out of this amount carried forward EUR 20.3 million were cancelled, representing 12.8% of the total appropriations carried forward. For comparison, EUR 9.4 million (9%) had to be cancelled in 2020.

EUR 240.4 million were carried forward from 2021 to 2022 (47%) which is a higher level compared to EUR 159.4 million from the previous year. Out of the amount carried forwards EUR 39.4 million were cancelled, representing 16%.

Approximately 90% of the amounts carried forward under 'Infrastructure and operating expenditure' and 'operational expenditure' are paid within the year following the initial commitment, while a greater proportion (50%) of those recorded under 'Staff expenditure' is returned each year, although this is small in absolute terms.

The most problematic carried over budget items under 'operational expenditure' are 'Agency equipment' and 'strengthening capacities', which includes training and research and innovation. In 2021, under the ‘Agency equipment’ budget item, 78% of funds were automatically carried over (EUR 20.4 million) and 22% of funds were cancelled, corresponding to EUR 5.9 million 243 . These amounts have further increased in 2022, with respectively 85% of funds carried over and 15% cancellations, amounting to EUR 13.4 million 244 . A key challenge in this regard has been the insufficient clarity on the acquisition strategy and the logistics concept, linked to the delays in the adoption of the multi-annual acquisition strategy 245 . 

4.1.3.2. Costs and benefits generated by the EBCG Regulation

Member States have benefitted from EU funds 247  to implement the EBCG Regulation and manage borders and migration. Under 2014-2020 ISF-Borders and Visa instrument, within the framework of targeted specific actions (up to 90% EU co-financing rate, the difference being covered by the Member States’ national budget), an additional EU funding of EUR 336.8 million was supporting the Member States with the purchase of border surveillance equipment (such as coastal and off-shore patrol vessels, thermo-vision vehicles, fixed wing airplanes) to be put at the disposal of Frontex.  

Furthermore, the 2021-2027 Border Management and Visa Policy Instrument (BMVI), which is part of the EU Integrated Border Management Fund prioritised and will continue to support the operationalisation of the EBCG. Thus, following a BMVI Specific Action launched in October 2022, a total EU contribution of EUR 201.1 million is added to Member States BMVI programmes to purchase technical equipment (such as coastal and offshore patrol vessels, patrol cars, fixed wing aircraft, vertical take-off and landing remotely piloted aircraft, etc.), to register it in the Technical Equipment Pool and put it at the disposal of Frontex to increase its operational capacity, in accordance with Article 64(14) of the Regulation (EU) 2019/1896. A similar BMVI Specific Action will be launched in 2024.

This additional EU funding represents a major and targeted support to Member States to deliver on the operationalisation of the EBCG.

In addition, BMVI operating support is funding certain costs of Member States to the extent that they are not covered by the Frontex in the context of its operational activities (such as staff costs, including training, maintenance or repair of equipment and infrastructure, etc.). It can also cover entirely (100% EU funding rate) the running costs incurred by the host Member State when participating, for example, to a joint operation or a rapid border intervention, a return operation or a return intervention takes place.

A significant proportion of resources from national budgets is allocated to IT-related activities, particularly for EUROSUR upgrades. The amount of IT-related funds for Member States is consistent with the increasing investments of Frontex in IT systems for situational awareness, information exchanges and security, and these activities are expected to increase in the coming years, based on the Frontex Information Management Framework. While Frontex handles a considerable portion of IT investments, Member States are responsible for developing national modules to connect with EU systems and facilitate information exchange.

The quantification of the inefficiencies arising from the Regulation and its implementation is difficult, and Frontex itself has not carried out detailed estimates, but the main identified issues related to the structure and deployment of the SC, the lack of clearly developed logistics concepts, the lack of an acquisition strategy, and delays in developing a clear vision for the deployment of the SC 248 .

One key issue is the administrative burden Member States face in relation to the reimbursement of Category 2 and Category 3 officers, including travel costs and other expenses, which are often insufficient to cover the full costs or to motivate experienced officers to be deployed. Recent changes in reimbursement reporting requirements for Member State staff have reportedly increased the administrative burden on Member States 249 .

Member States have pointed out to similar issues with regard to the financial support under Article 61 (Category 2 officers seconded to the SC), considering the system as cumbersome and the level of financial support as inadequate to maintain staffing levels and meet national needs. The administrative workload leads to a mobilisation of resources that could be used more effectively by Member States. Moreover, the correction coefficient for reimbursement under Article 61 250  does not adequately account for changes in the costs of living. This issue does not derive from the Regulation per se but affects the efficiency of its implementation.

In terms of possible actions to achieve simplification and cost reduction, the following issues could be addressed:

·the streamlining and simplification of obligations on Member States relating to the multiannual strategic planning process of Frontex, and in particular of the operational plans;

·possible simplification of the financial support and reimbursement schemes for the preparation and deployment of Category 2 and Category 3 officers 251 , as well as for the financial support linked to Article 61.

4.1.4. Standing Corps

This section presents the evaluation findings related to the Standing Corps (SC). These findings support and contribute to the review of the SC, in particular the review of the overall number and composition of the SC, including the size of individual Member State contributions, expertise, professionalism and training of the SC, as well as of the necessity to maintain the reserve for rapid reaction 252 .

Deployments of SC

The establishment of the SC has been one of the most essential novelties of the EBCG Regulation with its main objective to support Member States in the management of the Union external borders, migration management, and returns.

SC is a new concept. It is growing into a total of 10 000 fully equipped operational staff by 2027, thus ensuring constant and timely availability of the resources. The objective of the SC is to remedy the shortcomings of the previous pooling mechanism of the resources of the Member States. The contributions of each Member State to Categories 2 and 3 are gradually increasing from 2021 to 2027. The number of SC Category 1, which is recruited by the Agency is increasing in parallel. 

Member States consider the deployment of the SC to be relevant in terms of needs. This is primarily because SC offers additional resources, when needed.  

The deployments correspond mostly to the operational needs. Recently, the deployments have increased proportionally most in Central and Western Mediterranean, Eastern land borders and Western Balkans and the operational area of the Eastern Mediterranean migratory route has also seen an increase in deployments. Additionally, SC has provided significant and welcome support to the return operations.

Number and composition of the SC

Beyond the Agency, the EBCG includes the national authorities responsible for border management, including coast guards where relevant, and the national authorities responsible for returns.

Three main groups of national authorities contribute to the SC: law enforcement and border management authorities, defence authorities, and authorities with other duties. Most of the SC (97%) are seconded (Category 2) or nominated (Category 3) by national authorities with law enforcement and border management duties. These include police forces, border and coast guards, as well as entities with mandates concerning migration, integration, return management, and customs. A minority of the SC is nominated or seconded by defence authorities (1.8%).

The overall number of the SC meets the operational needs in the foreseeable future. The building up of the SC is evolving gradually until 2027. So far, there has not been any evidence of factors that would impact the objective set in the Regulation. There are no changes in the operational environment either that would change the planning parameters to alter the objective of 10 000.

The decision on the size of the SC was based on the operational needs analysis and actual deployments at the time of the preparations of the Regulation. At the time, Member States had in the pool for deployments of the joint operations 7 000 individuals. Additionally, the number of border guards nominated for the rapid reaction pool was 1 500 and the number within three return pools was 1 500. That was the number of personnel considered to cover the foreseen operational needs. In line with this total number, by 2027, SC will include 253 3000 statutory staff of Frontex in Category 1 and 7000 from the Member States in Categories 2 and 3.

Even if there were delays in setting up the Category 1, the recruitment, training, equipping and deployment have been catching up. The recruitment of Category 1 staff was significantly delayed by the COVID-19 pandemic. Nevertheless, significant progress has been made. In 2021 Agency counted 495 deployable team members. In 2022 the number was already 678, reaching 970 SC Category 1 staff as of September 2023.

In 2023, the size of the SC is planned to reach 7 500 members. 254 The overall situation of SC staffing as of September 2023 counts 970 employed Category 1, 450 seconded Category 2 and 3899 nominated Category 3 255 . 

However, when it comes to the composition of the SC, even if Member States consider the profile categories 256 to be adequately defined in terms of their roles and responsibilities, there are gaps in the availability of certain specialised experts. This is especially the case in respect of certain profiles such as dog handlers and advanced level document officers (ALDOs). The gaps in the composition of the SC can be fixed with the long-term recruitment and training plans on European level, as a part of better strategic planning.

The geographical composition of Category 1 does not represent an EU-wide border uniformed service, nor does it reflect the diverse national backgrounds and working cultures of all Member States in a representative way. This is mainly due to different working conditions and pays in the Member States 257 .  

Effectiveness of deployment of SC

Overall, the effectiveness of the deployment of SC has been satisfactory. Even if the deployment of Category 1 staff has been effective to some extent, there are still several factors that limit this effectiveness 258 . 

The deployment of Categories 2 259 and 3 260  appear to be more effective. SC staff of Categories 2 and 3 have received very positive feedback from Member States. National authorities value their background, professionalism, and operational support. 

For Category 2, the length of deployment is particularly valued by the national authorities who receive them, however it creates difficulties in recruitment for Member States who second Category 2 staff to the Agency. For Category 3, Member States consider these officers useful to fill gaps in busy or intense periods, such as holidays. Shorter length of deployment was noted as an issue in the context of participation in joint operations as by the time an officer becomes familiar with the host State’s procedures, they must leave, making the deployment less efficient.

The Agency recognises that the current deployment system is not efficient and is considering improvements, such as deploying teams rather than individuals. This will be developed as part of the work on the definition of chain-of-command structures. In 2023, Frontex has been piloting a new chain of command structure, with a view of deploying teams rather than individuals. This is also linked to the restructuring Frontex headquarters, to ensure lean and effective business processes. Proposal in this regard has been discussed with the Frontex MB at the end of 2023.

At the same time, integrated planning is under development. This will have an impact to the operational, contingency, and capacity development plans. There is still room for improvement to ensure that all the necessary plans are coordinated on European level and that the plans of Frontex and Member States are synchronised 261 .

The Regulation 262 requires that the deployment of the SC focuses on operational tasks at the operational areas. This provision puts a limit to the possible deployment of SC to the Agency’s headquarters. At the same time, it seems that the Agency lacks certain staff at the Frontex headquarters that would facilitate the overall management of the SC and related support functions. In Frontex’s view, only 4% statutory staff for supportive or monitoring functions are insufficient 263 . Others suggest that the revision of the internal processes and procedures of the Agency, including the development of clear concepts and business processes in terms of the present and future needs for general administrative support, operational support, and size of operational activities could significantly increase the effectiveness of the Agency’s headquarters. A clear overview is likely to emerge as a result of the ongoing development of a new command structure of the SC and the upcoming wider re-organisation of the Agency to align its structure better with its mandate (see section 4.1.2.1). In the meantime, the deployment of some operational staff of the SC to the Agency’s headquarters can only be justified for certain narrowly defined profiles 264 .

The reserve for rapid reaction (SC Category 4) has not been relevant to supporting Member States with border management tasks, as no Category 4 staff were deployed in 2021, 2022 or 2023 so far. Annex I to the EBCG Regulation foresees phasing out this reserve, with Category 4 no longer containing any SC staff from 2025. Category 4 has been a temporary bridging solution, while the SC in the Categories 1 – 3 has been increasing to become large enough to address any unforeseen needs. During the evaluation period, in cases where rapid border interventions were needed, resources from other categories (especially Category 3) were available and sufficient to cover the needs.

The size of individual Member States’ contribution

The size of individual Member States’ contributions to the SC appears largely adequate to meet the objectives of the Regulation. The Agency has been able to answer all the requests for assistance by Member States. Where needs have not been met, this is due to the type (i.e. profiles), rather than the size, of the contributions. The latter should be tailored and adapted to deployment needs during implementation. The non-activation of the Category 4 to date also indicates that the available resources in Categories 1, 2 and 3 have been sufficient to meet the needs.

Member States' obligations to contribute to the Standing Corps, including the individual Member States contributions, are based on the distribution key agreed for the rapid reserve pool established by the previous EBCG Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2016/1624). The Commission’s proposal for that Regulation based the distribution on at least 3% of a border guard force of a Member State without land or sea external borders, and at least 2% for Member States with land or sea external borders. This proposal could not gather support in the Council negotiations. Instead, intensive negotiations within the Council led to a distribution key that is applied to the current distribution in annexes II-IV of the Regulation. As regards the proportionality of national contributions to the SC, the current distribution of the contribution requirements is taking into account the size of the Member States, population, resources and national capabilities to contribute. When looking at only the national territory and share of EU population, the analysis found that most Member State contribute a fair share to the SC, while five Member States contribute more (HR, DK, HU, LV, RO) and two Member States contribute less (FR and ES). However, the analysis also found that the size of the national contributions is proportionate to national capabilities, with a span of individual contributions varying from a minimum of 0.14% to a maximum 1.5 % of the national law enforcement capacities 265 . 

Expertise, professionalism and training of the SC

Frontex implemented a range of training activities for Member States and third countries and met most internal training targets. Although Frontex successfully delivered assistance (including by establishing common training standards), almost half of the Member States noted the lack of training for Categories 2 and 3 staff, or for Member States’ own staff. The effectiveness of the implementation of training activities was hindered by implementation issues, as well as by some legislative issues. The biggest training-specific issues were: (1) insufficient capacity within Frontex to deliver all training activities, (2) the lack of high-quality trainers (partly due to the lack of a trainer profile in the SC and to inadequate compensation for trainers), and (3) difficulties in finding and managing host training centres.

Following their recruitment, Category 1 staff must undergo necessary border guard- or return-related training, taking into account their previous qualifications and professional experience. The training is mandatory before deployment.

The majority of Category 1 staff reported that the training was effective in preparing them to perform specific tasks, such as border checks and border surveillance-related tasks, including refusal of entry, authorisation of entry, and patrolling. However, several national authorities reported that SC Category 1 staff are not sufficiently experienced at the time of their deployment 266 . They noted that Category 1 staff needs additional training, particularly those without a law enforcement background. This means that the training requirements and training curricula need further improvement.

As explained above, national authorities value the expertise, professionalism and operational support provided by deployed Categories 2 and 3 staff. As regards Category 1 staff, a number of implementation issues seem to impact the effectiveness of their deployment.

Firstly, there are some inefficiencies in the selection of the Category 1 staff to be deployed by the Agency, as well as some concerns about their background skills and competences. According to several Category 1 SC officers interviewed and representatives of Member States, the statutory staff deployed often have different skills from those needed in the field.

Another limiting factor is that Category 1 staff is unable to perform certain tasks; e.g. the EBCG Regulation does not contain detailed rules on obligations related to executive powers, use of lethal force and carrying firearms. Different Member States have different legislation dealing with the powers and treatment of officers/vehicles with law enforcement status and not all have adjusted their legislation to enable the full implementation of the Regulation. In such cases Category 1 staff may only be able to provide limited support to the local authorities.

The limited English-speaking staff at local level in Member States means that deployed SCOs cannot effectively carry out their duties unless paired with English-speaking local officers. In some contexts, such as the Eastern border, knowledge of Russian or Ukrainian is a useful skill; however, the deployment does not systematically reflect the staff’s language skills.

Finally, logistical concerns were reported as obstacles in the efficient implementation of duties, including carrying weapons and appropriate winter uniforms. E.g. in the absence of logistical hubs in the Member States, Category 1 staff must collect their weapons at the Frontex headquarters in Warsaw and then can travel only on the day of deployment, and not the day before. Moreover, all Category 1 staff received full-service uniforms, and 250 were also equipped with protective glasses, flashlights, tactical belts, gloves and multitool kits as well as with bulletproof vests and helmets where needed 267 . The gaps with the personal equipment have been gradually closing.

4.2.How did the EU intervention make a difference and to whom?

The objective of Union policy in the field of external border management is to develop and implement European integrated border management at national and Union level, which is a necessary corollary to the free movement of persons within the Union. 268  Frontex’s new mandate, as introduced by the EBCG Regulation, contributes to achieving the objectives of the EBCG as a whole, as it supports Member States to implement effective border management. In addition, the establishment of the EIBM multiannual strategic policy cycle by the Regulation contributes to reaching the objective of ‘the gradual establishment of an integrated management system for external borders’, defined by Article 77(2)(d) of the TFEU. 

Frontex’s mandate has been designed in the framework of shared responsibility, with Frontex’s tasks designed to ensure support to Member States in the effective management of the external borders and returns. To date, the key areas of support from Frontex to Member States have been deployments of the SC, operational support, situational awareness, return, capacity-building, deployment of technical equipment, and international cooperation.

For a great majority of Member States, the areas of Frontex’s mandate considered most conducive to addressing the specific needs and challenges at the external borders include: 1) situational awareness (especially monitoring migratory flows and carrying out risk analysis 269 , as well as supporting the development and operation of EUROSUR 270 ); 2) return 271 ; and 3) joint operations 272 . A majority of Member States also highlighted: 4) international cooperation (with third countries) 273 ; capacity-building (training 274 and technical assistance) 275 , as well as the management of the False and Authentic Documents Online (FADO) system 276 .

The ability of the Agency to provide situational awareness products is viewed positively by the Member States and perceived to provide added value. EUROSUR situational awareness products, which serve various stakeholders, and EUROSUR Fusion Services products (including maritime and aerial surveillance), add significant operational value to Member States lacking such capabilities, as well as Member States requiring additional capacity for these analyses. Risk analysis products provide wide coverage across thematic and geographical areas and provide Member States with a comprehensive view of risks at all EU borders.

The emphasis of the EBCG Regulation on fundamental rights has enabled the Agency to develop and implement a robust framework for continuous monitoring of the Agency’s compliance with EU and international law, and in particular with all relevant fundamental rights obligations. This framework includes the role of the FRMs, the independent office of the FRO, but also mechanisms such as the SIRs and complaints mechanism, all of which have been discussed in greater detail above. These contribute to ensuring that the Agency can uphold EU values in its activities and operations, and may be replicated at national level by Member States, particularly in the context of implementing the EBCG-wide overarching components of the Fundamental Rights Action Plan or the development of national EIBM strategies, which should feature the respect for fundamental rights as an overarching component. Additionally, Frontex has contributed significantly to the development of an EBCG-wide culture of respect for fundamental rights in border management. This ongoing objective is being pursued through several avenues, including chiefly the advisory role of the FRMs, who make themselves available to Agency and Member States staff on matters concerning fundamental rights compliance, and the contribution by the Agency to Member States’ trainings and training programmes: fundamental rights components and considerations are embedded throughout all Frontex training curricula, in a way that is practical and operationally relevant.

Frontex’s enhanced mandate in return has been positively received and the Agency has become an essential actor in the common EU system for returns, taking on new responsibilities in relation to the return of with no legal right to stay in the EU. In addition to assisting with returns, including voluntary returns, the Agency also contributed to harmonisation and capacity-building of national IT return case management systems and their digitalisation and modernisation in line with the RECAMAS model. Post-return reintegration activities also provide significant EU added value, especially as some Member States may lack presence to support reintegration in certain third countries.

As a result of the ongoing establishment of the SC, the Agency is able to deploy staff and equipment in response to needs identified by Member States through joint operations and rapid border interventions. Frontex brings EU added value to the Member States by providing additional human resources and equipment, as well as coordinating joint operations and other operational activities. At an EU strategic level, the EBCG Regulation provides for a mechanism to allocate or relocate resources (assets or personnel) to the sections where irregular migration flows are of greatest concern. Even though this process is not entirely running smoothly yet, and the scale of support will continue to grow, past and ongoing joint operations or RBIs have supported Member States effectively.

The implementation of EIBM requires collective actions by both national authorities and the EU. It should be developed at EU and national level, in the context of shared responsibility between Frontex and Member States' national authorities 277 . As the Commission Communication on the EIBM and the TO-EIBM are yet to be translated into the Member States’ national EIBM strategies, the assessment of EU added value is not possible at this stage. The Commission will carry out an evaluation of the multiannual policy cycle four years after its adoption 278 .

The development of integrated capability planning (national capability development plans, Agency’s multiannual acquisition strategy and other multiannual plans, and capability roadmap) should lead to more effective development of capabilities across Member States. However, this is still work in progress, no definite conclusion can be drawn on its added value.

Member States consider that the training of the EBCG, in particular the common training standards provided by Frontex, have contributed to improving the training of national border guards 279 , developing and strengthening border management capabilities in their Member State 280 , facilitating cooperation among Member States’ border and coast guards’ training institutions 281 , mainstreaming fundamental rights in national training programmes 282 , and ensuring a harmonised and common approach to EU border and coast guard training in the Member States.

As the implementation of EIBM as the shared responsibility of national authorities and Frontex 283 , there is overall consensus among Member States that the objectives of the EBCG Regulation could not be achieved sufficiently by Member States alone. The majority of Member State respondents felt that this was particularly true in the areas of: 1) returns 284 ; 2) risk analysis contributing to a comprehensive situational awareness 285 , and 3) border control measures at the external borders 286 . Some Member States highlighted that measures within the Schengen area remain primarily the competence of Member States 287 . The activities of the Agency at the external border and in return should always complement the efforts of Member States 288 , 289 .

4.3.Is the intervention still relevant?

The continued migratory pressure and outlook for the next decade indicate that the Regulation will remain relevant 290 . While the absence of clearly defined objectives in the Regulation makes the comparison between the original objectives and the future needs less straight-forward, trends in threats and risks of irregular migration and cross-border criminal activities have remained high since 2019 and are likely to continue, making it highly probable that the EBCG Regulation remains relevant to the current and emerging needs and challenges in external border management. Member State authorities largely agreed with this, highlighting in particular the tasks that are seen as part of the core Frontex mandate, i.e. external border management and return. However, it is difficult to fully assess the extent to which the EBCG Regulation addresses needs and challenges in external border management, due to its ongoing implementation.

The main underlying objective of the Regulation can be interpreted as the implementation of EIBM at national and Union level. By defining the key components of EIBM, the Regulation sets the objectives of and the scope for the Agency’s activities in support of the implementation of EIBM as a whole. The strategic guidance for the EBCG comes from the EIBM multiannual strategic policy cycle; however, the Commission’s Communication was finalised only in March 2023, the TO-EIBM adopted in September 2023, and they are in the process of being translated into the national strategies by the Member States 291 . Therefore, its relevance and impact cannot be evaluated yet.  

The EIBM multiannual strategic policy cycle also only serves to further emphasise the continued relevance of the Agency’s work on compliance with fundamental rights, as the respect for fundamental rights is an overarching component of EIBM. Despite some setbacks and delays, overall, since the entry into force of the EBCG Regulation, Frontex has made significant progress in the implementation of all aspects of its multifaceted framework for good governance and compliance with fundamental rights, as exemplified by the successful – albeit delayed – recruitment of 46 FRMs, six more than are requested by the EBCG Regulation. At EBCG level, the Agency has a key role to play in encouraging the development of a culture of respect for fundamental rights in all components of the EBCG, including the national authorities of the Member States. Ongoing processes involving the Member States, such as the implementation of the overarching components of the Fundamental Rights Action Plan, as well as the development of the national EIBM strategies, assures the continued relevance and need for the Agency’s work and assistance in this realm.

Frontex’s activities themselves also remain relevant in addressing the needs and challenges present at the EU external borders, although there is room for improvement to increase effectiveness in some aspects of their operations 292 .  As explained in section 4.2, Member States consider that the most relevant activities of the Agency are in the areas of situational awareness, returns and joint operations.

In addition, the majority of Member States agreed that the implementation of the EUROSUR framework has been effective in terms of information exchange to improve situational awareness 293 , but less so in better detecting, preventing, and countering irregular immigration, or contributing to the protection and saving lives of migrants 294 . 

In addition, Frontex’s work in the external dimension (including working arrangements and deployments on the basis of status agreements) is relevant in helping to implement measures in third countries, especially countries of origin and transit of irregular migration, and measures in neighbouring countries. Frontex has also continued to build partnerships and synergies with relevant international organisations.

One specific area where it is difficult to assess the relevance of the Agency’s activities is their contribution to fight against cross-border crime. While the TFEU and the EBCG Regulation limit the Agency’s mandate in this respect, the lack of a definition of the possible ‘operational assistance’ that the Agency can provide in the detection, prevention, and combating of cross-border crime leaves the exact interpretation open. However, the applicable legislation is clear that the Agency’s mandate does not include ‘investigations’ or ‘support to investigations of crime’, which clearly fall within the remit of Europol and Eurojust.

Overall, Frontex has undertaken significant effort to provide human and technical resources to enhance the Member States’ ability to tackle migratory challenges or challenges related to cross-border crime. This stage of the implementation of the Regulation allows a preliminary assessment of their relevance but a full assessment will only be possible once the Agency’s mandate is fully implemented.

Conclusions and lessons learned

Overall, the EBCG Regulation remains relevant to addressing current and future emergencies at EU external borders. Irregular migration continues to be a major challenge and is at the top of EU’s policy and political agenda, requiring a common and coordinated response by all Member States. The Regulation contributed to the effective development and implementation of all components of EIBM and, despite the short timeframe so far, has resulted in the establishment and deployment of the first-ever EU uniformed service – the EBCG Standing Corps.

Stakeholders agreed that the objectives of the EBCG Regulation could not have been achieved sufficiently by Member States acting alone. Frontex’s new mandate, as introduced by the EBCG Regulation, contributes to achieving the objectives of the EBCG as a whole, as it supports Member States to implement effective border management, in the context of their shared responsibility. As such, the evaluation confirms the EU added value of the Regulation.

The EBCG Regulation is to a large extent legally coherent internally and externally, however, the evaluation identified some smaller inconsistencies in both respects.

The effectiveness of the Regulation and Frontex’s activities across various thematic areas was impacted by a number of external (e.g. the Covid pandemic) and internal factors. Some of those stems from the Regulation itself, such as a lack of sufficient legal clarity or gaps, while others are the product of organisational, technical, logistical, and operational shortcomings in the implementation of the Regulation by Frontex and to some extent by the Member States. Effective implementation was also impacted by some wider legal limitations identified in national and broader EU legislation.

Overall, the fact that the implementation of the EBCG Regulation has a significantly longer timeframe than this evaluation can cover, creates an important limitation to the conclusiveness of the assessment of the Regulation under the evaluation criteria. 

Scope and objectives of the EBCG Regulation

While the scope of the Regulation covers the entire EBCG, the governance framework and fundamental rights safeguards contained in the EBCG Regulation apply largely only to Frontex. The EIBM multiannual policy cycle aims to improve integrated border managements in the EU, however its implementation has just started, therefore its impact cannot be assessed yet.

The EBCG Regulation does not have clearly defined objectives (beyond its recitals) which makes the achievement of those objective less measurable.

However, the evaluation found that the Agency’s operational activities provide significant support in the management of external borders and returns that is appreciated by Member States. The same applies to the Agency’s activities in third countries based on status agreements and working arrangements.

The area where the achievement of the objectives of the Regulation appear hindered to some extent is related to the status of the SC, in particular Category 1. While the Regulation has never intended to, nor can it, provide Frontex with a law enforcement mandate 295 , the SC works together with national authorities that do have law enforcement powers, and are subject to specific national frameworks regulating in particular their working conditions and the use of force. The application of the EU Staff Regulations to the Category 1 SC staff presents challenges, as the Staff Regulations were not intended to meet the needs of an operational service with executive powers, resulting in inconsistencies in areas such as working conditions, selection procedures, deployment locations, leave entitlements, disciplinary measures, etc. It appears however that the Staff Regulations provide possibilities to address the majority of the identified problems without the need for changes in legislation (e.g., Commission decisions and/or MB decisions). 

The absence of a law enforcement mandate and a corresponding legal base have also generated various interpretations of the exact boundaries of Frontex’s tasks in contributing to the prevention, detection and countering cross-border crime. While more nuanced provisions in the Regulation could facilitate its application, the ‘Schengen’ legal bases in the TFEU provide a clear answer to the question while only migrant smuggling, trafficking in human beings and terrorism are mentioned among the tasks of the Agency in the Regulation, and no other forms of crime 296 .

Governance and organisational structure of Frontex

The governance structure of Frontex is well-established within the EBCG Regulation. It includes clear tasks for the MB, ED, and oversight by the European Commission, EP, and the Council, in line with the Common Approach on Decentralised Agencies. Additional processes have been put in place to ensure improved follow-up to FRO’s recommendations by the MB and ED. However, the fact that the primary responsibility of external border management is preserved by Member States also means the existing governance framework covers only Frontex and not the EBCG as a whole.

Some problems have been identified in relation to the implementation of the Regulation. Firstly, return authorities are not sufficiently represented in the MB as Member States’ delegates typically come from border management authorities, which are not necessarily responsible for returns. In addition, the agenda of the MB is overburdened which leaves little room to provide the Agency with strategic guidance.

The European Parliament is yet to make use of Article 112, which provides for cooperation with national parliaments that would significantly increase the scrutiny of the EBCG as a whole, including national authorities.

Finally, Frontex is currently working on a new organisational structure that is more closely aligned with its new mandate, since the current structure proved to be partly inadequate to support the effective deployment of the SC. The ongoing development of operational command-and-control processes, if integrated and aligned with operational and administrative support divisions and units, as well as with the executive leadership, should lead to more effective and efficient coordination and use of resources.

Operations

The operational support provided by Frontex is valued by Member States and has contributed to achieving the objectives of the EBCG. Frontex provides added value by offering additional human resources and technical equipment to Member States and third countries facing migratory challenges, as well as through the standardisation of procedures and harmonisation of operational good practices at EU level.

However, a range of legal and practical factors limits the effectiveness of Frontex’s operational response.

Firstly, as explained under scope and objectives, the treatment of Category 1 SC staff as regular staff subject to the EU Staff Regulations is perceived as operationally disruptive and limiting the overall added value of the SC.

Secondly, the lack of a clear command-and-control structure for the SC hampers operational effectiveness. Multiple reporting channels, including the functional line of reporting and the Coordinating Officer, create inconsistencies. Frontex is currently developing a pilot for a new command-and-control structure to increase effectiveness.

Thirdly, while the situation has improved during the evaluation period, the availability of different profiles does not fully correlate with the needs of the Agency and of Member States. Frontex reports major gaps for certain profiles (e.g. dog handlers, ALDO).

Fourthly, several organisational issues limit the operational effectiveness of Frontex, including practical issues with weapons transportation and the lack of equipment, uniforms and advanced logistical support during deployments. In addition, deployments to Member States are also made more problematic by language barriers.

Finally, the effectiveness and efficiency of Frontex operations at border crossing points is impacted by the limited access to key databases by the SC, including SIS and national databases. This is only partially a language limitation; it is rather due to the fact that only four Member States adapted legally and technically their systems and procedures to allow SC staff to effectively conduct border checks and query the necessary databases.

Return

Frontex has become an essential actor in the common EU system for return, taking on new responsibilities and tools related to return of people who have no legal right to stay in the EU. Frontex has effectively supported Member States through all phases of return procedures. Stakeholders at EU and national level value Frontex’s operational and technical assistance on return, particularly organising JROs and providing other return-related support. For Member States, Frontex support in return is also believed to bring time savings and reduced administrative burden, as well as financial savings.

While there is no incoherence between the EBCG Regulation and the Return Directive, the term ‘assisted was voluntary return’ was introduced in the EBCG Regulation without being defined. The implementation of Frontex’s mandate on return could be facilitated by some additional clarity in this respect.

The EBCG Regulation does not provide separately for the processing of personal data in the context of return activities, despite the expanded mandate of the Agency. While Chapter V of the EU DPR provides a derogation for ‘important reasons of public interest’ for the transfer of personal data to third countries, that the Agency currently relies on, Frontex would need to negotiate arrangements with third countries should there be regular or structural data transfer in the future.

As far as implementation is concerned, return is not fully embedded yet in some of Agency’s key activities, such as vulnerability assessments and risk analysis.

Situational awareness

Situational awareness tasks of Frontex remain one of the highest EU added value activities of the EBCG Regulation. Frontex produces multiple risk analysis products, and is progressing towards providing a fully up-to-date, reliable and actionable information through 24/7 (near) real-time situation and crisis monitoring surveillance. Lack of access to intelligence data from Member States (as well as EU sources, such as the EEAS Intelligence Centre) and limitations on collection of open-source intelligence and certain categories of data (such as on incidents linked to secondary movements, especially outside border areas) restrict the level of situational awareness at the EU borders. Frontex is, and should remain, an important contributor to EU-level situational awareness related to regular and irregular migration towards and within the European Union.

EUROSUR has contributed to establishing a European situational picture, providing a common framework for information exchange, improving situational awareness and increasing reaction capabilities. The volume, quality, flow, and speed of the data exchanged has increased in recent years. However, EUROSUR is impacted by inconsistent national implementation, as not all Member States report border events with the same completeness or regularity. NCC practices differ in incident formats and timing, leading to lower quality data.

Stakeholders question the added value of upgrading the EUROSUR communication network to CONFIDENTIEL UE/EU CONFIDENTIAL classification level, due to very limited categories of information requiring such level and the high implementation costs.

There is a lack of clarity as to the type of personal data that EUROSUR can process, as Articles 28 and 89 of the EBCG Regulation are not fully aligned. This leaves room for various interpretations. The EDPS is currently working on an opinion on EUROSUR. It is yet to be seen if the implementation of the new MB decisions on the Agency’s data processing activities will sufficiently address this issue.

Vulnerability assessment is valuable, allowing Frontex to monitor vulnerabilities in Member States’ border management capabilities and follow up with a coherent reporting system. The complementarity between vulnerability assessments and Schengen evaluations has been broadly achieved, although a few Member States point to some overlaps in data collection.

The enforcement of the outcome of the vulnerability assessment process needs to be strengthened to ensure that recommendations are followed up and acted upon, and their implementation is reported by Member States.

Finally, inconsistency of definitions between the methodologies underpinning risk assessments (CIRAM) and vulnerability assessments (CVAM) limits the contribution of vulnerability assessments to risk analysis.

Capability development

Capability-building is a key activity of the Agency both in terms of human resources and technical equipment 297 .

The EBCG’s integrated capability development planning is not sufficiently advanced. Many Member States submitted their national capability development plans with significant delay, the Agency’s multiannual acquisition strategy was adopted and being implemented with significant delay, therefore the capability roadmap for the EBCG could not be developed yet. Accordingly, it is too early to evaluate and draw conclusions on the process established by the Regulation.

The EBCG Regulation does not go into details on the strategic direction of capability planning. Overall, building up the Agency’s own capabilities in terms of technical equipment is rather difficult due to a lack of understanding of the capability needs of the EBCG, delays in capability planning and the lack of a strategic direction and vision for the long-term development of capabilities at the Agency. In addition, there are some legal requirements (outside of the EBCG Regulation) that create major difficulties for the Agency with the purchase of highly specialised equipment requiring multiannual delivery, such as the annuality principle and the staff hiring matrix that does not enable the Agency to hire highly specialised staff. Finally, current implementation problems include the lack of sufficient integration between acquisition and logistics; lack of logistical infrastructure for new equipment; issues with customs and transportation, with the recognition of equipment across Member States’ jurisdictions and issues with the registration and maintenance of vehicles in the Member States.

Frontex supported capability development in research and innovation by promoting and delivering standardisation and harmonisation of border management capabilities, promoting, and delivering innovation in border management capabilities, and executing and supporting research.

Cooperation with EU institutions, bodies, offices, agencies and third countries

Frontex’s cooperation with EU institutions works well. The Agency has negotiated numerous working arrangements with other EU agencies (e.g. EFCA, EMSA) and conduct effective cooperation on that basis. Inter-agency cooperation with other Union agencies, notably with the EU Agency for Asylum and with Europol and with the Commission in the context of implementing the relevant provisions of the Regulation on migration management support teams, as well as with other Union Agencies implementing EU policies in the justice and home affairs area (FRA, eu-LISA, EUAA, EMCDDA, CEPOL and Eurojust) should be further strengthened. Such cooperation should be aimed at gaining efficiency both in administrative and operational terms. In particular, strengthening the cooperation with FRA should be prioritised in order to reinforce the fundamental rights culture in all activities of the Agency. Furthermore, a new working arrangement should be signed with Europol to enhance the Agencies’ ability to work better together in countering cross-border crime, in particular migrant smuggling and trafficking in human beings.

The work of Frontex in the area of external cooperation is viewed positively by Member States and is seen as effective and efficient. Frontex’s work is coordinated with the Commission and relevant EU agencies to ensure that it contributes to the wider objectives of EU external action. Nevertheless, some implementation challenges have been identified, as well as limitations on cooperation set by the EBCG Regulation itself.

Frontex has faced delays in the conclusion of new working arrangements with third countries, in line with the EBCG Regulation. While the new model working arrangement was adopted by the Commission in 2021, its revision is pending due to ongoing discussions between the Commission and the EDPS on provisions regarding the protection of personal data. The new model status agreement was adopted by the Commission in 2021 as well, enabling the EU to sign new status agreements, and Frontex to launch joint operations to North Macedonia and Moldova. A new status agreement was signed with Montenegro and Albania, with negotiations currently ongoing with Serbia.

The exhaustive list of international organisations set by the EBCG Regulation may have somewhat limits Frontex’s ability to develop new partnerships in response to emerging needs.

Fundamental rights

In implementing the EBCG Regulation, Frontex established numerous safeguards to protect and promote the respect of fundamental rights, by adopting and/or implementing rules and procedures. The main conditions set by the Agency include the Fundamental Rights Strategy and implementing Action Plan, the activities of the Fundamental Rights Office (including contributing to a wide range of Agency tools and procedures such as operational plans, the work of the FRMs, as well as relevant MB Decisions on the complaints mechanism, SIR mechanism, supervisory mechanism on the use of force, independence of the FRO, etc.), data protection safeguards, and DPO activities.

The analysis highlighted the EBCG Regulation’s lack of clear delineation between the responsibilities of Frontex and the Member States, and the respective obligations in the area of compliance with fundamental rights. Should such precise delineation be possible to define in the context of shared responsibility, it would bring more clarity on the scope of the mandate of the FRO and for the FRMs’ monitoring activities. Some clarification was brought by the SOP on FRMs in 2023, although its effect is still to be seen.

Article 46 of the EBCG Regulation leaves discretion to the ED’s decision. The adoption of the 2022 SOP on Article 46 provided clarity on the steps and the information that the ED has to take into account before taking a decision. The solution established in the Regulation, as complemented by the SOP, appears overall balanced. Stakeholder views vary whether the decision-making power outlined in Article 46 should be with the ED alone or assigned to, or otherwise involve, other actors (e.g. MB, Commission or Council). On the one hand, by assigning the decision to trigger Article 46 to the ED, the EBCG Regulation may risk placing excessive public and political pressure on the ED alone. On the other hand, the potential involvement of political actors could lead to the further politicisation of the process (with the risk of having actors in practice blocking the possibility of triggering Article 46 altogether).

The mechanism for serious incident reporting is not regulated in the Regulation. The Agency successfully developed this mechanism (SOP in 2021) that is an important instrument in the toolbox of the FRO to map and indicate challenges and monitor the Agency’s compliance with fundamental rights. There are some factors, however, that limit the effectiveness of the SIR mechanism, such as the limited sources of information, limited cooperation and follow-up from national authorities, lack of redress opportunities).

Data protection framework

The evaluation found that initially, the Agency, had a broader interpretation of its scope of personal data processing activities than it was intended by the EBCG Regulation. However, the origin of this interpretation cannot generally be attributed to gaps in the rules on processing of personal data. However, one difficulty in implementation may derive from the allocation of responsibilities between the Agency and the Member States, because the EBCG Regulation (Article 88) requires the Agency and the host Member State to determine in a transparent manner the responsibilities for compliance with data protection obligations before each joint operation, return operation, return intervention, pilot project, rapid border intervention or migration management support team deployment. The MB decisions on personal data processing were revised by the Agency, following strong criticism by the EDPS. The new MB decisions aim to address the data protection aspects of the Agency’s operational activities. However, as these were only adopted in early 2024, their impact cannot be assessed yet.

Stakeholders pointed to interpretation issues in relation to Frontex’s limited supporting role in the fight against cross-border crime and on the purpose (and limits) of processing operational personal data. The explicitly narrowed possibilities for Frontex to process operational personal data frame its role and scope of responsibilities in this area.

Use of resources

The allocation of human and financial resources to Frontex has been broadly in line with the tasks assigned to the Agency by the EBCG Regulation and with its strategic and horizontal objectives, although Frontex has faced a significant challenge in implementing its increasing financial resources. Despite reductions from its initial annual budgets, the Agency has released different amounts of its EU contributions each year. At the same time, the Agency has largely been able to adapt its budgetary management to the new mandate and the expected operational results over time. Moreover, it has been mostly able to spend the amounts carried over from the previous year, although some problems persist with the management of the budget assigned to 'Agency equipment' and 'strengthening capacities'.

Costs and benefits generated by the EBCG Regulation

The potential costs for Member State linked to the implementation of the EBCG Regulation appear to be in the form of increased funding to certain activities, such as the upgrade of IT systems, and compliance with the multiannual strategic planning process of Frontex, including developing operational, contingency and capability plans.

Member States can benefit from EU funds, especially the Internal Security Fund – Borders and Visa (ISF-B) for and the most recent funding for border management, the Border Management and Visa Policy Instrument (BMVI), for the development of the European integrated border management. The availability of these funds is of direct benefit to Member State, enabling them to acquire assets and undertake activities that they would not otherwise have had access to.

Potential benefits for businesses and citizens are difficult to measure, with evidence remaining limited and, as some are indirect effects, hard to quantify.

The benefits of the EBCG Regulation for Member States can only be expressed in operational terms (explained in the previous sections). Both Frontex and EIBM delivers significant contribution to the management of the EU’s external border and in return operations, which leads to results that Member State could not have achieved on their own.

Standing Corps

The conclusions and lessons learnt are explained in the Commission Report to the EP and to the Council on the evaluation of the EBCG Regulation, including a review of the SC 298 and in Annex IIIb.

1. Lead DG, Decide reference, Work Programme reference

DG Migration and Home Affairs (DG HOME) is the lead DG. The agenda planning (Decide) reference assigned to the evaluation and the review is PLAN/2022/1328. There is no reference to the evaluation and the review in the Commission Work Programme 2023.

2. Derogations granted and justification

In conducting the evaluation and the review, no exceptions from the usual procedural requirements described in the Better Regulation Guidelines were required. Public consultation did not take place as the evaluation and the review of the Standing Corps focused on structural and operational matters of the European Border and Coast Guard (EBCG) and it was concluded that a public consultation would not bring specific added value. However, as part of the evaluation and the review, the public was given the possibility to respond to the call for evidence. Furthermore, extensive targeted consultation of relevant stakeholders was planned and took place during the evaluation process.

3. Organisation and timing

The call for evidence for the initiative was published on the Commission’s ‘Have Your Say’ webpage 299 and was open between 5 September and 3 October 2022. The Terms of Reference (ToR) for engaging an external contractor to carry out the study to support the evaluation of the European Border and Coast Guard Regulation and the review of the Standing Corps were drawn up in July of the same year. A request for service was issued on 1 September 2022, and a contractor selected by an evaluation committee consisting of staff from DG HOME in November 2022 300 . The kick-off meeting for the study took place on 14 December 2022 and the final report was submitted, after one-month extension, on 25 July 2023.

In line with the Better Regulation Guidelines, an Inter-Service Group (ISG) was set up within the Commission to accompany the evaluation process. Several Directorates-General (DGs) within the Commission and the European External Action Service (EEAS) were invited to nominate representatives to the ISG 301 .

DG HOME chaired the ISG meetings. The ISG was regularly consulted over the course of the evaluation process, typically in conjunction with the submission of specific draft reports by the contractor responsible for carrying out the external study. These consultations took place both in regular meetings, and via written consultations. The following list provides an overview of the ISG’s work over the course of the evaluation and review process:

·The ISG was convened for the first time on 12 July 2022 in order to receive a presentation of the evaluation of the EBCG Regulation and the review of the standing corps and to discuss and provide feedback on the draft ToR prepared for the external contractor. The meeting also served as an opportunity to discuss and comment on the call for evidence and the draft consultation strategy, which e.g. described how the external contractor should carry out targeted consultations with relevant stakeholders in the context of the study, in cooperation with and under the supervision of DG HOME and the ISG. The participants were invited to provide additional written feedback after the meeting;

·On 23 December 2022, the ISG received the draft Inception Report for written comments and subsequent approval. As per annex 3 to the draft Inception Report, the minutes of the kick-off meeting between the external contractor and DG HOME that took place on 14 December 2022 were shared with the members of the ISG. On the basis of the ISG’s written feedback, the draft Inception Report was further revised by the external contractor;

·On 18 January 2023, a revised draft of the Inception Report was circulated by email to the members of the ISG for additional comments, and was subsequently accepted in February 2023 after revisions were made to reflect the additional comments of the ISG;

·The ISG received the draft Interim Report on 22 March 2023 with the possibility to provide written feedback. Furthermore, the ISG was convened on 29 March 2023 to receive a presentation by the contractor of this draft Interim Report and to flag potential issues;

·In March 2023, at the request of the contractor, DG HOME agreed to extend the deadline of the submission of the Final Report by four weeks, due to the delayed response of some stakeholders to the contractor’s surveys;

·On 26 April 2023, a revised draft Interim Report was submitted to the ISG for possible additional comments. On 3 May 2023, following the consultation with the ISG, the revised Interim Report was accepted by the Commission, under the condition that the comments of the ISG to the revised Interim Report are subsequently taken into account in the draft Final Report;

·On 31 May 2023, the draft Final Report was submitted by the contractor to DG HOME and was circulated by e-mail to the members of the ISG for final review with subsequent feedback provided by DG HOME for the finalisation of the report;

·The ISG held a meeting on the draft Final Report on 19 June 2023. This consultation was followed by a final discussion on the comments to the draft Final Report between the study team and DG HOME on 22 June 2023;

·On 30 June 2023, the external contractor re-submitted draft Final Report to DG HOME for the final round of comments. Following the submission of comments, the final version of the study for the acceptance by the Commission was received on 25 July 2023;

·The Commission accepted the Final Report on 26 July 2023; 

·The ISG was consulted during the drafting of this Staff Working Document.

4. Consultation of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board

Not applicable; the evaluation and the review were not subject to consultation and scrutiny of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board.

5. Evidence used together with sources and any issues regarding its quality

The evaluation and the review primarily drew on the supporting study entitled “Study to support the evaluation of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) and review of the Standing Corps” 302 , commissioned by DG HOME in 2022 and carried-out by the external contractor (ICF). The objectives of the study were to provide the necessary data, analysis and assessment for the Commission’s evaluation of the EBCG Regulation, to identify the EU legislation, including the fundamental rights framework, applicable to Frontex, to assess the coherence of the legal framework applicable to the EBCG and particularly to Frontex, and to assess the compliance of the Agency with the objectives and provisions of the Common Approach on Decentralised Agencies. The study assessed the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, and EU added value of the EBCG Regulation, and supported the review of the Standing Corps (SC), including the functioning, composition, size of Member States’ contributions, number of the staff members, level of training, expertise, and professionalism.

The study was guided by an evaluation framework setting out the guidelines and principles for the analysis. Beside an in-depth review of relevant documentation, including legal documents, policy and strategic documents, programming and internal business documents, Agency’s outputs and publications, financial and other documents. the study also relied on extensive targeted consultations in the form of surveys and interviews with relevant stakeholders, as well as on field visits to Frontex operations. More specifically, the external contractor conducted three surveys targeting Member States, Frontex SC staff, and Fundamental Rights Monitors (FRMs). ICF also conducted 149 interviews with stakeholders, five field visits (to Bulgaria, Finland, Greece, Italy, and Romania) to Frontex’s operations, and a visit to Frontex’s headquarters in Warsaw.

During the process, the Commission provided updates and consulted Member States in the Frontiers Working Party of the Council on 2 February, 12 April, 26 May and 13 July 2023, with Member States having the possibility to provide comments, including written comments, and exchange views. Furthermore, Strategic Committee on Immigration, Frontiers and Asylum (SCIFA) provided input to the evaluation at its informal meeting on 13 July 2023.

The Commission also provided an update to and received comments from the Frontex Scrutiny Working Group (FSWG) of the LIBE Committee of the European Parliament (EP) on 27 April 2023.

With regard to quality assurance, the wide scope of the study posed certain challenges, particularly during the analysis phase of the study. However, close consultations with DG HOME and the ISG and identification of key priority areas, helped the analysis to remain focused throughout the process. The complexity and the technical nature of some of the evidence collected was resolved by involvement of external panel of experts with appropriate knowledge (e.g., on fundamental rights and data privacy, migration and security, border management and EUROSUR), to guide the analysis. Internal quality assurance by the project director and QA managers with relevant thematic and methodological expertise was also provided by ICF.

The fact that the implementation of the Regulation is still on-going created constrains for a full analysis and for the conclusiveness of the findings. This limitation is however acknowledged across the reporting areas examined in the evaluation and in the review.

6. Use of external expertise

Apart from the study carried out by the external contractor, the Commission Expert Group on the implementation of the European Border and Coast Guard Regulation was consulted twice. On 6 April 2022, the Group discussed the upcoming review of the SC and the evaluation of the EBCG Regulation. The Commission presented the legal framework and provided an overview of the process including the involvement of the Member States and the Agency. A follow-up meeting of the EBCG Expert Group was organised on 17 January 2023. The purpose of the meeting was to present the external contractor and assure the engagement of Member States in the evaluation process.

On the request of the Commission 303 , the Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA) and Frontex’s Consultative Forum on Fundamental Rights Matters (CF) submitted their contribution on the Regulation’s impact on fundamental rights and freedoms. In its contribution of 15 May 2023, the FRA highlighted six priority areas relating to fundamental rights which may require legislative adjustments and assessed that the evaluation and review offer an opportunity to reflect on how best to improve the fundamental rights situation at the external borders of the EU. The contribution of the CF, submitted on 2 June 2023, outlined their main observations with regards to enhanced implementation of the fundamental rights safeguards of the Regulation. It concluded that enhanced implementation or potential amendments should lead to eliminating gaps in responsibility and accountability.

Additional information on the stakeholder consultation is provided in Annex V.

1. Methodology and analytical model

The supporting study, conducted by the external contractor was guided by a methodological approach, which was divided into four tasks, in line with the original ToR: 1) Inception; 2) Data collection; 3) Analysis; 4) Reporting.

Figure 1: Overview of the methodological approach

Source: ICF elaboration

The inception task started with the project set up and contractor’s team mobilisation to establish project processes and protocols. This included setting-up communication with the external panel experts, who advised the study team across key tasks of the study. The expert panel was composed of experts in 1) fundamental rights and data privacy; 2) migration and security; 3) border management, and 4) EUROSUR.

A kick-off meeting of the external contractor with DG HOME was held on 14 December 2022 to ensure a common understanding of the objectives of the study. Seven scoping interviews were carried out with the European Commission, as well as with key stakeholders within Frontex.

The study team also conducted a preliminary assessment of available sources and prepared a secondary data collection plan, including reviewing secondary sources and developing a list of internal Frontex documents and data required to answer some of the evaluation questions.

The preparatory work helped in the development of a baseline analysis, an overview of the situation prior to the adoption of the EBCG Regulation. It also led to the revision of the original intervention logic, refinement of the evaluation framework and of the methodology. In the process, the study team also refined its stakeholder engagement plan, reprioritising certain stakeholders and redesigned some of the initial data collection tools to engage different groups of stakeholders, and adjusted certain analysis tools. 

The inception task was finalised with the submission and acceptance of the Inception Report by the Commission in February 2023.

The data collection task started with desk research and an in-depth review of relevant documentation, including legal documents, policy and strategic documents, Frontex programming and internal business documents, Agency’s outputs and publications, financial documents, etc., relevant for the main thematic areas of Frontex’s mandate (e.g. returns, operations, fundamental rights, capacity-building, cooperation, situational awareness, SC). The study team used desk research to map available data sources and evidence against the evaluation questions and to identify key data gaps. In interviews with Frontex divisions and units, the study team explored the availability of additional data to address these gaps. This process continued throughout the study. Identification of information gaps consequently informed stakeholder consultation and the need to request additional statistics and data from other stakeholders.

Beside the review of the relevant documents the study also relied on the extensive targeted consultations in the form of surveys and semi-structured interviews with relevant stakeholders, as part of the next step in the data collection exercise. These surveys targeted three stakeholder groups, namely Member State authorities, including Schengen Associated Countries (SACs), SC staff, and FRMs. The surveys collected factual information about the implementation of specific activities and results of the EBCG, as well as opinions and views on the five evaluation criteria and key evaluation questions. National authorities were asked to consult all relevant internal departments and authorities to ensure that they could provide comprehensive answers to the different elements of the evaluation and present a consolidated national response. Interviews targeted Frontex staff, Member State authorities, EU-level stakeholders (including the Commission, EP, EU agencies), civil society and international organisations, and third countries’ authorities.

Both, surveys and the interview questionnaires were developed and refined by the external contractor in consultation with DG HOME and the ISG to ensure that the questions were fine-tuned to the needs of the study and captured all relevant elements. The interview questionnaires were further fine-tuned in line with emerging evidence (including after the submission of the Interim Report, to address outstanding data gaps). In both cases, the external panel of experts also provided feedback.

In addition, six thematic case studies were conducted by the team and with the support of relevant external experts. Thematic case studies focused on deployment, capacity-building, return, EUROSUR, fundamental rights and governance, thus supporting an in-depth assessment of the main pertinent themes of the evaluation. Building on the data collection activities, the study team analysed Frontex activities along these thematic areas, identifying possible challenges, and their possible links to the EBCG Regulation and/or its implementation. The results of the case studies fed into the corresponding evaluation questions.

The data collection task concluded with five field visits to Frontex operations, as well as a sixth final visit to Frontex headquarters in Warsaw. Several of the external panel experts with previous border management expertise took part in the field visits. The final visit to Frontex headquarters was the closing step of data collection phase. Among others, the visit allowed the team to address final data gaps.

The analytical task included several steps. Firstly, the data collected was systematically mapped against the evaluation (sub-) questions, judgement criteria and indicators in the evaluation framework. This allowed the study team to reflect on the quality of the data collected and identify potential gaps that needed to be filled to provide robust answers to the evaluation questions. This information was then filled in by targeted search in the collected documentation or by requested follow-up information.

The evidence gathered was analysed by qualitative analysis of information and stakeholder feedback and quantitative analysis of the survey results, data and statistics.

Subsequently, the study team synthetised and triangulated all data collected. These triangulation methods reduced systematic bias and distortion during data analysis thereby improving the credibility of the findings. The triangulation of data set the stage for analysis of evaluation criteria. The study team worked to provide answers to all the evaluation questions in the evaluation framework. All drafters started by structuring their responses along the evaluation questions, although the questions were grouped thematically (and not by evaluation criterion).

In the final, reporting stage, the study team submitted three reports to the Commission. The reports were reviewed by the external panel of experts assembled to support the study team, as well as by the project director and quality assurance managers before submission. Furthermore, each report underwent review by the ISG before finalisation. The three deliverables are: 1) Inception report; 2) Interim report; 3) draft Final Report.

Initially validation workshop was foreseen, however a formal meeting between the study team and DG HOME was subsequently organised on 22 June 2023, to discuss emerging findings and conclusions and to fine-tune the conclusions and recommendations. This was preceded by an ISG consultation of the draft Final Report on 19 June 2023, which allowed for a wider discussion on comments provided to the draft Final Report.

2. Limitations

In the initial phases of the study, the limitations were mostly related to timing issues as both inception and data collection tasks coincided with holidays period, which led to potential delays. Furthermore, initial response rate to survey from certain stakeholders was low, and submission of some key data delayed. This resulted in delaying certain activities, such as field visits. Nevertheless, the quick mobilisation of the team at inception, swift organisation of the kick-off meeting as well as responsiveness by the ISG in providing the necessary feedback allowed to close the inception stage relatively quickly.

Repeated reminders to the stakeholders to provide responses and to follow-up on missing data together with the extension of the deadline for survey submission ensured that sufficient data was finally collected during data collection phase. In addition, during the field visit to the Frontex headquarters the study team had the possibility to address any remaining data gaps.

The tight timeline of the study and delays in earlier phases of the process left the contractor with shorter time to conduct the analysis. Nevertheless, the consequent extension of the study by one month allowed for sufficient time to finalise not only data collection but also the analysis.

In addition to the limited time, the wide scope of the study (including large scope of Frontex mandate, wide external legal framework, etc.) posed a challenge for the contractor, particularly during the analysis phase. Close consultations with DG HOME and identification of key priority areas, helped the analysis to remain focused throughout the process.

Another issue linked with data referred to the difficulties in quantifying most of the financial and human resources received by Member States and to consequently do a full analysis of costs and benefits generated by the EBCG Regulation. To mitigate this limitation, it was agreed to re-focus on costs incurred by Frontex and the use of relevant EU funds by the Member States and the qualitative evidence was used to identify costs and benefits for Member States.

Divergent opinions of key stakeholders were addressed by the triangulation of evidence and balancing out different opinions during consultation process with the expert panel. The complexity and the technical nature of some of the evidence collected was resolved by involvement of external panel of experts with appropriate knowledge to guide this kind of analysis. Internal quality assurance by the project director and QA managers with relevant thematic and methodological expertise was also provided by ICF throughout analysis and reporting phase.

The fact that the implementation of the Regulation is still on-going created constrains for a full analysis, however, this limitation is acknowledged across the reporting areas that are still being implemented.