Which objective(s) does the Commission pursue?

The Internal Security Fund is set up to facilitate cross border cooperation and exchange of information between Member State law enforcement officials and other relevant authorities, in particular:

• by enabling the interoperability of the different EU information systems for security making borders and migration management more effective and efficient

• by facilitating joint operational actions

• by providing support for training, for the construction of essential security relevant facilities, for the setting up the collection and for processing of passenger name records in line with the relevant EU acquis and the purchase of necessary technical equipment.

The Fund aims at intensifying cross-border operational cooperation in relation to the prevention, detection and investigation of cross-border crime. It also aims at supporting efforts for strengthening the capabilities to prevent such crime,  including terrorism,  in particular through increased cooperation between public authorities,  civil society and private partners from across the Member States.

Estimated savings and benefits

The new regulatory framework for the 2021-2027 programming period foresees a number of major simplifications.

The fragmentation of the current rules governing the different EU Funds managed jointly by the Member States and the EU has made the life of the authorities managing programmes complicated and discouraged potential project promoters from applying for different sources of EU funding. This has been particularly relevant in areas where complementarity between different EU Funds is needed.

The proposed Common Provision Regulation (CPR) for 2021-2027, laying down the implementation rules for funds managed jointly by Member States and the EU – shared management, including the Internal Security Fund, aims at developing a coordinated and harmonised implementation of Union funds. The proposed regulation is a clear step forward in terms of achieving a single rulebook for funds under shared management, which is a demand of beneficiaries and programme authorities and has been identified as a clear issue to be addressed. The single rulebook is even more important taking into account that migration and security are not only covered by the Asylum and Migration Fund, the Internal Security Fund and the Border Management and Visa Instrument but also by the Cohesion Policy Funds. This approach brings clear improvements to decreasing the administrative burden.

Even though the fund's specific regulation will add certain provisions necessary to cater for the particularities of individual funds, the single rule book approach will provide at least the following benefits for funds such as Internal Security Fund:

The single rule book approach will provide at least the following benefits:

• Alignment of rules facilitates access to funds, simplifies implementation and reduces risk of errors;

• Risk of implementation delays is reduced by providing templates and implementation rules upfront;

• There will be only one strategic document, the Partnership Agreement (PA), per Member State covering seven shared management funds to steer negotiations on programming;

• A common approach will give a push for the use of simplified cost options;

• Technical assistance will be reimbursed by using a flat rate without requesting supporting documents;

• Time consuming, laborious designation procedure for the managing/responsible authority is not required anymore;

• Audit burden is reduced due to risk-based approach requiring less audit for well-functioning systems;

• Reporting from Member States to the Commission is based on aggregated data instead of reporting on all financial transactions at project level which will reduce reporting burden;

• Payment system between Member States and the Commission is streamlined and simplified, for instance by decoupling accounts from payment claims and by accepting aggregated financial data as basis for interim payment to Member States.

Audit and control procedures are simplified. In the beginning of the programming period, there will be no need to repeat the time-consuming designation process of the authorities as in the 2014-2020 period. Member States can roll over the existing implementation system. For programmes with a well-functioning management and control system and a good track record (a low error rate), the Commission proposes to rely more on the national control procedures in place. The single audit principle is extended. This means that beneficiaries of the Funds should only be subject to a single check rather than multiple, potentially not fully coordinated, audits.

Synergies and Complementarities. Security is a cross-cutting issue and the new Internal Security Fund cannot provide an effective EU response without other funding instruments, including the European Structural and Investment Funds and external instruments. Synergies of the Internal Security Fund with other related instruments will be established in particular on the following aspects: border management and customs control equipment, security of infrastructure and public spaces, cybersecurity (cybersecurity is a key theme of the Digital Europe Programme, with the Fund focusing on cyber-crime), the prevention of radicalisation, and the external dimension of security. Effective coordination mechanisms are crucial to maximise the achievement of policy objectives and to exploit economies of scale. This will result in complementarity and clarity between the scopes of intervention of all instruments, including clarity for beneficiaries. 

Savings and benefits are mainly of qualitative nature and cannot be quantified at this stage.

Outcome of Legislative Procedure

Overall, the agreement reached among the co-legislators preserved the objectives of the original Commission proposal, although the agreed position offered slightly less flexibility and less simplification than what was initially proposed. The agreement maintained the same level of ambition as the initial proposal and provided a workable legal base for the implementation of Fund’s objectives.

The main changes in the agreement limiting slightly flexibility and simplification of the initial proposal were the following:

Minimum percentages: Minimum percentages for the allocation of funds towards the specific objectives, as follows: 

(a) At least 10% of the resources to Member State programmes allocated to the specific objective on information exchange; 

(b) At least 10% of the resources to Member State programmes allocated to the specific objective on operational cooperation.

Non-eligible actions that should be eligible in emergency situations: Only actions limited to the maintenance of public order at national level could become eligible for funding in the case of an emergency situation.

Maximum percentage for equipment, means of transport and security relevant facilities and eligibility of standard equipment: The percentage of the allocation that Member States can spend on equipment, means of transport and security relevant facilities was raised to 35% (from 15% in the Commission proposal). It was also agreed to include only a recital and not an article as regards the non-eligibility of standard equipment, means of transport and security relevant facilities.

Moreover, some other changes, which do not have REFIT impacts, were made such as the percentages of the Thematic Facility, Mid-Term Review and initial allocations were slightly revised, as well as, the maximum ceiling for the operating support. In case of action in and in relation to third countries Member States need prior approval of the Commission.    

Estimated savings and benefits

Outcome of legislative procedure and changes presented above should not have significant financial impacts, neither positive nor negative. Savings and benefits describe below, in particular relating to the Common Provision Regulation, remained valid.