Template for preparation by Member States of the
EVALUATION REPORT ON IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTIONS
CO-FINANCED BY THE EUROPEAN RETURN FUND
(Report set out in Article 50(2) (a) of Decision No 575/2007/EC)
Please fill in the enclosed template
(preferably in English, French or German)
and submit it to the Commission no later than 30 June 2010
Template
Evaluation report on Implementation of actions co financed by the European Return Fund
1
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
1. The enclosed template is intended to assist Member States in the preparation of the
evaluation report which they have to submit to the Commission no later than 30 June
2010, as set out in Article 50(2) (a) of Decision No 575/2007/EC.
Please always use this format, as this is the only way to ensure a homogeneous
evaluation across all Member States and for the Community wide evaluation
subsequently.
You are free to add any further document you think can be useful in the context of this
evaluation. If so, enclose them as an annex, but not as part of this template.
2. When filling in this template please be as concrete as possible, providing facts,
examples, figures, etc. - It is essential that the description can easily be understood by
those who are familiar with the RF, but not necessarily familiar with the national
programme concerned. Wherever relevant highlight national specificities.
3. A maximum length of description is indicated for many items. As far as possible this
limit should be respected.
4. The analysis and assessment of the annual programmes under review start with a
summary of the most important features of the multiannual programme and of the
programmes approved by the Commission. The reason we ask for this is that we need
to have a homogeneous presentation for the subsequent Community wide report. In
this context, we think you are the best placed to identify the most relevant features of
your programmes.
5. When your opinion is asked for, please explain the reasons on which your opinion is
based.
6. As the content of this mid term evaluation report is on implementation it is not required
to have recourse to evaluation expertise: the report can be prepared by the
Responsible Authority itself. However, for your convenience, you may choose to have
recourse to evaluation expertise.
In any case please fill in first the questionnaire on the first page of the template.
Whether you had recourse to evaluation expertise or not, the evaluation report must
always be signed by the Responsible Authority. The Responsible Authority remains
responsible for its content.
Template
Evaluation report on Implementation of actions co financed by the European Return Fund
2
EVALUATION REPORT ON IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTIONS
CO-FINANCED BY THE RETURN FUND
(Report set out in Article 50(2) (a) of Decision No 575/2007/EC)
Report submitted by the Responsible Authority of: (Member State)
POLAND
Date:
30-06-2010
Name, Signature (authorised representative of the Responsible Authority):
Grzegorz Polak, Deputy Director,
Department of European Union and International Cooperation
Ministry of Interior and Administration
Name of the contact person (and contact details) for this report in the Member State:
Monika Cieślak – Kondraszuk,
e-mail: [email protected],
tel. +48 22 60 118 12
Template
Evaluation report on Implementation of actions co financed by the European Return Fund
3
GENERAL INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED BY THE
RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY ON EVALUATION EXPERTISE AND ON
METHODOLOGY
- Did you have recourse to evaluation expertise to prepare this report?
Yes/ No
- If yes, for what part(s) of this report? n/a
- Please explain what kind of evaluation expertise you had recourse to: N/A
* In-house evaluation expertise (for instance, Evaluation department of the
Ministry, etc.) : (please describe)
* External evaluation expertise: (please describe)
Brief description of the methodology used by the evaluation expertise
Important remark
Any evaluation expertise must be obliged by the Responsible Authority to:
- use this template, exclusively
- fully comply with any instruction, methodological note, maximum length, etc.
set out in this template.
Template
Evaluation report on Implementation of actions co financed by the European Return Fund
4
EVALUATION REPORT ON THE RESULTS AND IMPACTS OF ACTIONS
CO-FINANCED BY THE EUROPEAN RETURN FUND
CONTENTS
1.
SUMMARY OF THE MULTIANNUAL PROGRAMME: ANALYSIS OF
REQUIREMENTS IN THE MEMBER STATE AND STRATEGY TO ACHIEVE
THE OBJECTIVES
2.
SUMMARY OF THE ANNUAL PROGRAMMES 2008 AND 2009
(EXCLUDING TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE MEASURES AND INFORMATION
AND PUBLICITY)
3.
IMPLEMENTATION OF
THE PROGRAMMES IN THE “AWARDING BODY”
METHOD
4.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROGRAMMES IN THE “EXECUTING BODY”
METHOD
5.
SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECTS FUNDED IN THE “AWARDING
BODY” METHOD AND IN THE “EXECUTING BODY” METHOD
6.
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE - INFORMATION AND PUBLICITY
7.
ASSESSMENT OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ANNUAL PROGRAMMES
2008 AND 2009
8.
OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF THE RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY ON THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RF PROGRAMMES 2008 THROUGH 2009
Template
Evaluation report on Implementation of actions co financed by the European Return Fund
5
Part I
Summary of the Multiannual Programme 2008-2013
ANALYSIS OF REQUIREMENTS IN THE MEMBER STATE AND
STRATEGY TO ACHIEVE THE OBJECTIVES
Reference documents to be used for this part:
- Your multiannual programme 2008-2013 as approved by the Commission,
in particular Parts 2 and 3 of the multiannual programme
- Any external evaluation of relevance to the items addressed below, if available
- Any other relevant information available to the Responsible Authority
Template
Evaluation report on Implementation of actions co financed by the European Return Fund
6
1.
ANALYSIS OF REQUIREMENTS IN THE MEMBER STATE
Please provide a summary of Part 2 of your multiannual programme (“Analysis
of requirements in the Member State”)
A concise, but very concrete description is required. It is essential that the
description can easily be understood by those who are familiar with the RF, but
not necessarily familiar with your national programme. Wherever relevant
highlight national specificities.
Maximum length: 1 page in total, broken down as set out below
- The requirements in the Member State in relation to the baseline situation
1. Increased funding of assisted voluntary return due to a possible deficit of national
resources for this purpose;
2. Increased needs related to the implementation of forced returns by land and air, also
with an escort – especially regarding third countries` citizens, whose expulsions are
particularly difficult (e.g. African countries);
3. Increased operational cooperation between Member States in the field of return
measures through organising common charter flights with the aim of expelling
foreigners. Confirmation of foreigners` identity by experts on identification, coming
from the country of origin of illegal migrants;
4. Established contacts by national experts with the representatives of the countries of
origin of illegal migrants aiming at commencing cooperation in the field of illegal
migration;
5. The harmonization of procedures and standards in area of return programmes.
- The operational objectives of the Member State designed to meet its
requirements
1. Strengthening of voluntary and forced return;
2. Broadening/ strengthening of cooperation between Member States in the field of
return;
3. Enhancing cooperation with third countries at identifying foreigners with the resulting
increase in the number of expelled persons;
4. Enhancing the competences of national representatives as regards returns organisation
and realisation, including cooperation with international partners.
Template
Evaluation report on Implementation of actions co financed by the European Return Fund
7
2.
STRATEGY TO ACHIEVE THE OBJECTIVES
Please provide a summary of Part 3 of your multiannual programme (“Strategy
to achieve the objectives”), broken down by Priority (each of the four Priorities
as defined in the Strategic Guidelines of the Commission - Decision
C(2007)5822 of the Commission) as set out on the next pages.
Under each Priority, describe:
- the objective(s) pursued
- examples of key actions
- key actions considered as implementing specific priorities under the chosen
priority
Finally list in a separate item all quantified objectives set out in Part 3 of your
multiannual programme.
A concise, but very concrete description is required. It is essential that the
description can easily be understood by those who are familiar with the RF, but
not necessarily familiar with your national programme. Wherever relevant
highlight national specificities.
A maximum length is indicated for each item.
Template
Evaluation report on Implementation of actions co financed by the European Return Fund
8
Priority 1: Support for the development of a strategic approach to return
management by Member States
Operational objective: Strengthening of voluntary and forced return
Activities of this operational objective aim at prompt delivery of information concerning
asylum and migration procedures to third countries citizens and at encouraging them to use
the opportunity of voluntary return, as well as return facilitated by special supporting
programmes ensuring returns effectiveness with giving them permanent character at the same
time.
Key tasks of this operational objective include:
1. Support for the assisted voluntary return programme via: promotional activities for possible
beneficiaries and dissemination of information about possibility and conditions for
voluntary return, return advising, travel arrangement to country of origin (including:
assistance in assembly of relevant travel documents, providing shelter before departure or
during travel, medical care for the returning), re-integration assistance in the country of
origin after the return (including cash assistance for installation in the first days after the
return), re-integration assistance monitoring and evaluation, providing special procedures
and assistance for groups requiring special treatment (such as: the minors, unattended
minors, the disabled, the elderly, sick, pregnant women, single parents of minors, persons
previously experiencing tortures, rape or other serious forms of psychological, physical or
sexual violence, human trafficking), preparation and updating of the information
concerning countries of immigrants origin, developing and running a database containing
voluntary return data;
2. Support for forced return via: continuation of the expulsion of foreigners by air and land,
implementation of assisted travels to the state order and other activities related to
foreigners expulsion, continuation of individual charter flights organisation.
Priority 2: Support for the cooperation between Member States in return
management
Operational objective: extension/strengthening of cooperation between Member States
in return management
Activities of his operational objective aim to intensify and improve cooperation with Member
States’ services and FRONTEX in field of returns implementation of third countries citizens,
and to apply common standards in scope of returns of immigrants and to meet an obligation of
international instruments related to treating returning persons.
The key measures of this objective include the following:
1/ organisation of joint charter flights;
2/ contribution to other measures connected with preparation of joint return operations (e.g.
transit transport and land transport leading to realization of a joint charter flight,
Template
Evaluation report on Implementation of actions co financed by the European Return Fund
9
administrative tasks necessary to qualify a foreigner for a joint charter, workshops, study
visits);
3/ financing travel, food and temporary accommodation of returnees in joint return operations.
Priority 3: Support for specific innovative (inter)national tools for return
management
Operational objective: increased cooperation with third countries as regards
identification of foreigners and, what results from it, an increased number of removed
people
Activities of this operational objective aim at operational cooperation with consular
authorities and immigration services of third countries with a view to obtaining travel
documents and ensuring speedy removal procedures.
The key measures of this objective include the following:
1/ visits from experts from third countries conducted for the purpose of confirmation of
foreigners’ identity;
2/ study visits of domestic experts in the illegal immigrants’ countries of origin.
Priority 4: Support for Community standards and best practices on return
management
Operational objective: Enhancement of the competences of national representatives as
regards returns organisation and realisation, including cooperation with international
partners
Activities of this operational objective aim at education and training of staff of the competent
administrative, law enforcement and judicial bodies, secondments of these categories of staff,
in order to ensure an effective and uniform application of common standards on return.
The following key measures compose the objective:
1/ organisation of training seminars/workshops/meetings/ conferences on common standards
for realisation of returns by the entities dealing with implementation of return programmes
(including: development of accurate mechanisms and tools for evaluation of return policy as
well as evaluation/monitoring of return programmes);
2/ organisation of training seminars on control of eligibility of stay and employment at the
regional level between competent Border Guards, Police, National Labour Inspectorate and
Customs Offices;
Template
10
Evaluation report on Implementation of actions co financed by the European Return Fund
3/ organisation of seminars on common return actions with representatives of competent
bodies of other Member States;
4/ development of a best practices manual on verification of foreigners identity, returns and
standards of foreigners stay in detention centres preceding forced return;
5/ organisation of series of arrangement seminars/workshops for entities dealing with
voluntary returns to develop integrated immigrants return plan;
6/ organisation of seminars and workshops participated by representatives of institutions
engaged with the voluntary return assistance programme and local and regional authorities,
NGOs, migrants societies and home countries diplomatic posts;
7/ organisation of training seminars and expert meetings for entities dealing with
implementation of voluntary return programmes and representatives of justice administration
regarding legislation and appraisal of forced return decisions appealed against;
8/ organisation of training seminars regarding human right standards in relation to
returnees/return operations;
9/ providing better communication and development of communication instruments and
methods for exchange of best practices concerning return management;
10/ implementation of return policy research studies/projects.
Template
Evaluation report on Implementation of actions co financed by the European Return Fund
11
Finally, list the most important indicators set out in Part 3 of the
multiannual
programme
2008-2013
and
the
corresponding
quantified/qualitative targets, broken down by Priority :
Priority 1
(Main indicators, targets)
Operational objective: Strengthening of voluntary and forced return
Indicators:
1. Number of persons expelled - in relation to the number of issued obligation to return
decisions.
2. Number of persons, who used voluntary return – in relation to previous year.
Priority 2
(Main indicators, targets)
Operational objective: extension/strengthening of cooperation between Member States
in return management
Indicators:
1. Number of implemented joint charter flights in relation to previous year.
2. Number of foreigners expelled within framework of joint charter flights – in relation to
previous year.
Priority 3
(Main indicators, targets)
Operational objective: increased cooperation with third countries as regards
identification of foreigners and, what results from it, an increased number of removed
people
Indicators:
Number of identified people identified during the visit of experts conducted for the purpose of
confirming identity – in relation to questioned foreigners.
Template
Evaluation report on Implementation of actions co financed by the European Return Fund
12
Priority 4
(Main indicators, targets)
Operational objective: Enhancement of the competences of national representatives
as regards returns organisation and realisation, including cooperation with
international partners
Indicators:
1. Number of implemented trainings/ seminars/ workshops/ conferences.
2. Number of trained employees of governmental institutions.
------------------------------
Template
Evaluation report on Implementation of actions co financed by the European Return Fund
13
Part II
SUMMARY OF THE ANNUAL PROGRAMMES
2008 AND 2009
(excluding Technical Assistance measures and Information and Publicity)
Reference documents to be used for this part:
- Your annual programmes 2008 and 2009 as approved by the Commission, in
particular the description of actions
- All other relevant information available to the Responsible Authority
- Any external evaluation of relevance to the items addressed below, if available
Please provide a summary of the actions contained in your annual programmes
2008 and 2009 (based on the description included in item 1 of each action –
purpose and scope), broken down by Priority (each of the four Priorities as
defined in the Strategic Guidelines of the Commission - Decision C(2007)5822
of the Commission) as set out on the next pages.
Under each Priority describe separately actions/projects implemented under the
“awarding body” method, on the one hand, and those under the “executing
body” method, on the other hand (where applicable).
No breakdown per year is required, however you will be asked to highlight any
significant change to the actions of the programmes concerned in a specific item
(see the template on the following pages).
A concise, but very concrete description is required. It is essential that the
description can easily be understood by those who are familiar with the RF, but
not necessarily familiar with your national programme. Wherever relevant
highlight national specificities.
A maximum length is indicated for each item.
Template
Evaluation report on Implementation of actions co financed by the European Return Fund
14
1.
Summary of actions under Priority 1 in the annual programmes, 2008 and
2009
Actions to be implemented under the “awarding body” method
The projects implemented are aimed at supporting returns of foreigners to their country of
origin and allowing organising a life in the country by returning persons and families. The one
and only beneficiary who realise projects in the first priority is IOM (International
Organisation for Migration). IOM has been realising 3 projects within the 2008 programme.
Moreover projects cover the interested foreigners with information on return programmes,
conducting the verification of the eligibility of a foreigner to participate in a project, taking
necessary procedural steps allowing foreigners staying in the territory of the Republic of
Poland illegally to participate in the programme. Activities connected with promotion aiming
at spreading information concerning voluntary returns. Additionally, IOM conduct training
for employees of centre for refugees.
The projects include cost connected with purchasing tickets for the leaving foreigners
(airplane, railway and other tickets), the costs connected with the procedure of issuing
documents for foreigners or updating documents in terms of prolonging their validity periods,
entering children in the documents and in all cases when the need to translate documents
arises. Also accommodation before leaving and during the travel is guarantee. In justified
situations, the costs cover also medical examinations allowing establishing the health
condition of the foreigner and proving there are no reasons why the foreigner should not
travel, as well as the costs of getting to airports, railway stations or other places of departure.
The action covers preparation and update of information concerning the immigrants’ countries
of origin and preparing and maintaining a database of voluntary returns. According to
assumptions the database includes information concerning persons covered by the programme
of voluntary returns. IOM also held a conference to promote the idea of voluntary returns
among NGO’s and public bodies.
For special treatment groups IOM ensure special procedures and support special means. The
group includes: minors, the disabled, the elderly, individuals experiencing health problems,
victims of trafficking in humans, single parents of minors, and victims of violence.
Foreigners also receive financial support of PLN 350. The main aim of such actions is to help
the persons covered the voluntary return programme in acclimatizing in the new place of
settlement, among others: help in finding an employment and living place. The action causes
the reduction of repeated returns. Financial support is aimed to be a kind of incentive
stimulating foreigners to stay in the country of origin. In order to manage financial means in
effective and reliable way, it is planned to maintain activities connected with evaluation and
monitoring of financial support. Additionally, people covered the voluntary return programme
have possibility to receive reintegration assistance (6500 PLN) necessary to create their own
business.
The main idea of voluntary returns is to encourage the foreigners to participate in such a
programme. The result of that should be the lower level of repeated returns. Thanks to the
Template
Evaluation report on Implementation of actions co financed by the European Return Fund
15
planned database the member state will have information concerning the persons participating
in the programme of voluntary returns.
Actions to be implemented under the “executing body” method
PROJECTS – Organising forced returns (2008) and Organising forced returns – continuation
(2009).
The project consists of five modules:
1. Expulsions by air (on scheduled flights), particularly to Eastern European countries
(mainly to the Commonwealth of Independent States) and to Asia, Africa, and South
America;
2. Holding Polish charter flights with the participation of CASA military airplanes to
countries nearby;
3. Organising Polish charter flights on an airplane chartered from private civil carriers to
distant countries;
4. Escort foreigners to borders (by land expulsion);
5. Co-financing other actions connected with expelling a foreigner.
2.
Summary of actions under Priority 2 in the annual programmes, 2008 and
2009
Actions to be implemented under the “awarding body” method
Not applicable
Actions to be implemented under the “executing body” method
PROJECTS – Strengthening of cooperation between Member States in return management
(2008) and Strengthening of cooperation between Member States in return management –
continuation (2009).
The project consists of three modules:
Module 1: Organisation of joint charter flights
In case when a few Member States are interested in expelling foreigners to the same
geographic region, a joint charter flight may be organised. One Member State charters an
aircraft, while other Member States join in and participate in the costs. Such flights are costeffective for all participating states due to cost-sharing. In certain cases a Member State sends
Template
Evaluation report on Implementation of actions co financed by the European Return Fund
16
only observers for a charter flight in order to gather experience and observe best practice in
the field.
Module 2: Co-financing of other actions connected with preparing joint return operations
In case a foreigner is to participate in a joint charter flight organised by other Member State,
he/she needs to be transported to the nearest airport in the territory of the Republic of Poland
and provided with air transit to the airport of the Member State from which he/she will be
expelled to the third country. Before the expulsion, the foreigner is subject to administrative
proceedings necessary to qualify him/her to the given charter flight which are conducted with
the participation of an interpreter. It is necessary to organise and hold working meetings in
order to arrange all the details of joint flights.
Module 3: Co-financing travel, food and temporary accommodation of returnees in joint
charter return operations
In case foreigners from so-called “difficult” countries of origin, an incentive system is often
used in the form of funds given to foreigners just before the expulsion. Member States
organising joint charter flights often apply such practice since it decreases the level of
aggression (in particular concerning foreigners from Africa) according to them. “Pocket
money” makes person feel secure, as after return to their country of origin he/she has some
money, which allows him/her to organise life there (difference in currency value between EU
states and developing countries is so big that the mentioned sum of money is able to satisfy
basic needs of the returning foreigner). During a joint flight the situation when some
foreigners are given funds by one state while the others not, is unacceptable as it may lead to
threats. The distributed planned amount of “pocket money” is about 100 euro per person.
3.
Summary of actions under Priority 3 in the annual programmes, 2008 and
2009
Actions to be implemented under the “awarding body” method
Not applicable
Actions to be implemented under the “executing body” method
PROJECTS - Enhanced cooperation with third countries in identification of foreigners (2008)
and Enhanced cooperation with third countries in identification of foreigners – continuation
(2009).
The project consists of two modules:
Template
Evaluation report on Implementation of actions co financed by the European Return Fund
17
Module 1: Organising visits of experts from third countries for the purpose of confirmation of
foreigners’ identity
The Border Guard organises regular visits of experts on confirming citizenship from certain
third countries with which cooperation has been established (e.g. Vietnam). During the visits,
experts hold conversations with persons arrested in connection with illegal stay or crossing (or
attempting to cross) a border thus breaching regulations in force who are suspected to be
citizens of the given country in order to confirm their citizenship and issue replacement travel
documents. Organising visits of experts necessitates covering for the cost of their travel, their
stay and travels within the territory of the Republic of Poland, paying for their allowances, as
well as covering the costs of transporting foreigners from detention centres to the venue of
conversations.
Module 2: Holding visits of domestic experts to the countries of origin of illegal immigrants
and visits of representatives of bodies from the countries of origin
Establishing further relations with representatives of border services from illegal immigrants’
countries of origin is linked with holding visits of Polish border service experts to third
countries in order to conduct direct talks. After such visits, the representatives of third country
bodies pay return visits. The meetings are aimed at improving existing cooperation, devising
the basis, the aim and the scope of cooperation consisting in inviting experts on confirming
citizenship from those countries. Experience of other Member States as well as Polish
experience in cooperation with Vietnam shows that direct cooperation with competent bodies
from countries of origin is much more effective. Establishing the said cooperation is
connected with reimbursing the costs of travel and stay of both representatives of Border
Guard and representatives of third country bodies during return visits.
4.
Summary of actions under Priority 4 in the annual programmes 2008 and
2009
Actions to be implemented under the “awarding body” method
The projects to be implemented may be aimed at following actions:
1/ organisation of series of arrangement seminars/workshops for entities dealing with
voluntary returns to develop integrated immigrants return plan;
2/ organisation of seminars and workshops participated by representatives of institutions
engaged with the voluntary return assistance programme and local and regional authorities,
NGOs, migrants societies and home countries diplomatic posts;
3/ organisation of training seminars and expert meetings for entities dealing with
implementation of voluntary return programmes and representatives of justice administration
regarding legislation and appraisal of forced return decisions appealed against;
Template
Evaluation report on Implementation of actions co financed by the European Return Fund
18
4/ organisation of training seminars regarding human rights standards especially for public
services officers and other institutions/organisations dealing with returns activities;
5/ organisation of trainings concerning international migration law especially for public
services officers and other institutions/organisations dealing with returns activities;
6/ providing better communication and development of communication instruments and
methods for exchange of best practices; – designed especially for public services officers and
other institutions/organisations dealing with returns activities (from other Member States as
well);
7/ implementation of return policy research studies/projects especially for public services
officers and other institutions/organisations dealing with returns activities;
8/ development of accurate mechanisms and tools for evaluation of return policy as well as
evaluation/monitoring of return programmes designed especially for public officers and other
institutions/organisations dealing with returns activities.
Actions to be implemented under the “executing body” method
PROJECT: STRENGTHENING EFFECTIVENESS OF ACTIVITIES IN AREA OF RETURNS PERFORMED BY
BORDER GUARD, INCLUDING COOPERATION WITH OTHER INSTITUTIONS (2009)
In the framework of the project the following modules are implemented:
1/ organisation of training seminars/workshops/meetings/conferences on common standards
for realisation of returns by the entities dealing with implementation of return programmes
designed especially for public officers dealing with return activities;
2/ organisation of training seminars on control of eligibility of stay and employment at the
regional level among relevant institutions/organisation dealing with return activities;
3/ organisation of seminars on common return actions with relevant representatives of bodies
of other Member States competent in foreigners’ returns;
4/ development of a “best practices” manual on verification of foreigner’s identity, returns
and standards of foreigners stay in detention centres preceding forced return.
5.
Any significant change to the actions of the programmes concerned
(revisions of annual programmes and revisions of the financial breakdown
lower than 10%)
ANNUAL PROGRAMME 2009 – no changes
Template
Evaluation report on Implementation of actions co financed by the European Return Fund
19
ANNUAL PROGRAMME 2008:
The Annual Programme 2008 was changed three times:
1st time: April 2009:
-
Beneficiaries proposed new activities in projects: Under Priority 1 (awarding body
method) activities aiming at spreading information concerning voluntary returns were
added. It was also planned to guarantee accommodation before leaving and during the
travel.
-
Increased products parameters for certain activities:
-
Under Priority 1 (executing body method) from about 1-2 persons expelled by
charter flights to about 5 persons expelled by charter flights;
-
Under Priority 2 (executing body method): from about 11-20 persons expelled
by joint charter flights to about 40 persons expelled by joint charter flights; and
from about 11-20 persons transported to other Member States in order to
participate in joint charter flight to about 40 persons transported to other
Member States in order to participate in joint charter flight;
-
Changes in the budgets of individual projects: Some budgets were limited and some were
increased due to the experience of project period, due to the increasing product parameters
and after considering the real current expenses incurred in the project. Some resources
were transferred to the action implemented under awarding body procedure:
-
Increased budget for Action 1 awarding body method: from 236 726,60 €
to 279 900,81 €
-
Decreased budget for action 1 - Executing body method :from
1 053 560,00 € to 1 050 920,95 €)
-
Decreased budget for Action 2: from 217 640,00 € to 177 200,73 €
-
Decreased budget for Action 3: from 46 640,00 € to 46 544,11 €
The financial breakdown was 2,53%
2nd time. November 2009:
-
Changes in the budgets of individual projects: Some budgets were limited and some were
increased due to the experience of project period, due to the increasing products parametres
Template
Evaluation report on Implementation of actions co financed by the European Return Fund
20
and after considering the real current expenses incurred in the project. Some resources were
transferred to the action implemented under awarding body procedure:
o
Increase in the budget for Action 1: from 1 330 821,76 € to 1 421 486,62 €
(increase in the budget for awarding body method from 279 900,81 € to
573 466,86 €, decrease in the budget for executing body method:
from1 050 920,95 € to 848 019,76 €
o
Decrease in the budget for Action 2: from 177 200,73 € to 142 988,61 €
o
Decrease in the budget for Action 3: from 46 544,11 € to 37 557,85 €
Also 47 466,48 € were transferred from technical assistance to actions.
The financial breakdown was 17,23%
3rd time. March 2010:
Changes in the budgets of individual projects – there was no changes in excess of 10% of the
financial breakdown of the Fund`s contribution. The need to introduce changes was caused by
the fact that a Partner (the Border Guard) limited the budget of the project “Strengthening
cooperation between Member States in return management” of the allocation in 2008. The
budget was limited due to the experience of the two-year project period and after considering
the real current expenses incurred in the project. The resources were transferred to the action
implemented under awarding body procedure:
Action 1: from 1 421 486,62 € to 1 435 498, 43 € (the whole action)
Awarding body method under action 1: from 573 466,86 € to 587 478,67 €
Executing body method under action 1: no changes
Action 2: from 142 988,61 € to 128 976,80 €
Action 3: no changes
As a result of changes in migration trends other assumptions about the target countries have
changed – Georgia instead of the African coutries. All this resulted in lower cost of the
project.
Template
Evaluation report on Implementation of actions co financed by the European Return Fund
21
Part III
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROGRAMMES IN THE “AWARDING
BODY” METHOD
Did you implement the 2008 and 2009 programmes in the “awarding body”
method (as defined in Article 7 (2) of Commission Decision 2008/458/EC of
5.3.2008 - the Return Fund Implementing Rules), at least for part of the
programmes?
Yes/No :
If Yes, fill in this part.
If No, do not fill in Part III and go to Part IV (Implementation of the
programmes in the executing body method).
Template
Evaluation report on Implementation of actions co financed by the European Return Fund
22
III.1
Share of the overall EU contribution to the
programmes granted in the “awarding body” method
in 2008 and 2009
For each programme year (2008 and 2009), enter the share of the overall EU
contribution to the programme (excluding the EU contribution for technical
assistance) which was granted in the “awarding body” method (in percentage, no
decimal)
- Programme 2008:
37 % of the EU contribution to the programme
(excluding the EU contribution for technical
assistance)
- Programme 2009:
27 % of the EU contribution to the programme
(excluding the EU contribution for technical
assistance)
III.2
Calls for proposals
For each programme year (2008 and 2009), please provide the number and calls
for proposals organised for the implementation of the annual programmes in the
“awarding body” method
- Programme 2008:
3 (number of calls for proposals)
- Programme 2009:
1 (number of calls for proposals)
Template
Evaluation report on Implementation of actions co financed by the European Return Fund
23
III.3
Proposals received, selected and funded after calls
for proposals
Definitions:
- If more than one call for proposals was organised for a given annual programme, provide
in the table below, for that programme, figures combining all of that programme’s calls.
- Project funded = a contract, a grant agreement or any equivalent form of legal instrument
has been signed with the beneficiary
-
If multiannual projects have been funded, they should be counted only in the first
programme year they were received, selected and funded
Definition of a multiannual project: According to the legal basis, the end of the eligibility
period for projects under the 2008 and 2009 Programmes is 30th June 2010 and 30th June
2011, respectively. A multiannual project is a project approved for funding under any of the
programmes mentioned above, whose eligibility period extends later than the eligibility
period for projects of the programme under which it was selected and funded.
Number of
Proposals received
Projects selected
Projects funded
Programme
2008
Programme 2009
TOTAL
2008-2009
3
3
3
1
1
1
4
4
4
Have all projects selected for funding after calls for proposals been funded?
Yes/No : …….
- If No, explain why :
Template
Evaluation report on Implementation of actions co financed by the European Return Fund
24
III.4
Projects funded in the “awarding body” method
without a call for proposals
In duly justified cases, grants may be awarded in the “awarding body” method without a call
for proposals (Article 7 (2) of Commission Decision 2008/458/EC of 5.3.2008 - the Return
Fund Implementing Rules, third paragraph).
The continuation of multiannual projects which were selected after a previous call for
proposals should not be taken into account. Neither should Technical Assistance measures,
since they are not considered as “projects”.
Please indicate the number of projects funded (see definition on page 18) in the “awarding
body” method without a call for proposals.
Projects funded
in the “awarding
body” method
without a call for
proposals
Number
III.5
Programme
2008
Programme 2009
TOTAL
2008-2009
-
-
-
Total number of projects funded in the “awarding
body” method in the programmes 2008 and 2009
Number of …
Projects funded
after calls
for proposals (see
table III.3)
Projects funded
without a call for
proposals
(see table III.4)
TOTAL
Projects funded in
the “awarding
body” method
Programme
2008
Programme 2009
TOTAL
2008-2009
3
1
4
0
0
0
3
1
4
Template
Evaluation report on Implementation of actions co financed by the European Return Fund
25
Part IV
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROGRAMMES IN THE “EXECUTING
BODY” METHOD
Did you implement the 2008 and 2009 programmes in the “executing body”
method (as defined in Article 8 of Commission Decision 2008/458/EC of
5.3.2008 - the Return Fund Implementing Rules), at least for part of the
programmes?
Yes/No :
If Yes, fill in this section
If No, do not fill in Part IV and go to Part V( Summary description of the
projects funded in the “awarding body method” and in the “executing body”
method, 2008 and 2009).
Template
Evaluation report on Implementation of actions co financed by the European Return Fund
26
IV.1
Share of the overall EU contribution to the
programmes granted in the “executing body” method
in 2008 and 2009
For each programme year (2008 and 2009), enter the share of the overall EU
contribution to the programme (excluding the EU contribution for technical
assistance) which was granted in the “executing body” method (in percentage,
no decimal).
- Programme 2008:
63 % of the EU contribution to the programme
(excluding the EU contribution for technical
assistance)
- Programme 2009:
73 % of the EU contribution to the programme
(excluding the EU contribution for technical
assistance)
IV.2
Calls for expression of interest or for proposals or
similar selection method
For each programme year (2008 and 2009), please provide the number of calls
for expression of interest or for proposals or similar organised for the
implementation of the RF annual programmes in the “executing body” method
- Programme 2008:
1 (number of calls for expression of interest or for
proposals or similar selection method)
- Programme 2009:
1 (number of calls for expression of interest or for
proposals or similar selection method)
Template
Evaluation report on Implementation of actions co financed by the European Return Fund
27
IV.3
Proposals received, selected and funded after calls for
expression of interest, call for proposals or similar
selection method in the “executing body method”
Definitions:
- If more than one call for expression of interest, call for proposals or similar was organised
for a given annual programme, provide in the table below, for that annual programme,
figures combining all of that annual programme’s calls.
- Project funded = a contract, a grant agreement or any equivalent form of legal instrument
has been signed with the beneficiary
-
If multiannual projects have been funded, they should be counted only in the first
programme year they were received, selected and funded
Definition of a multiannual project: According to the legal basis, the end of the eligibility
period for projects under the 2008 and 2009 programmes is 30th June 2010 and 30th June
2011, respectively. A multiannual project is a project approved for funding under any of the
programmes mentioned above, whose eligibility period extends later than the eligibility
period for projects of the programme under which it was selected and funded.
Number of …
Proposals received
Projects selected
Projects funded
Programme
2008
Programme 2009
TOTAL
2008-2009
3
3
3
4
4
4
7
7
7
Have all projects selected for funding after calls for expression of interest, call
for proposals, or similar been funded?
Yes/No : …….
- If No, explain why :
Template
Evaluation report on Implementation of actions co financed by the European Return Fund
28
IV.4
Projects funded in the “executing body” method
without a call for expression of interest or for proposals
or similar
Please indicate the number of projects funded (see definition) in the “executing body” method
without a call for expression of interest, a call for proposals, or similar.
The continuation of multiannual projects which were selected after a previous call should not
be taken into account. Neither should Technical Assistance measures, since they are not
considered as “projects”.
Projects funded in
the “executing body”
method without a
call for expression of
interest or for
proposals or similar
selection method
Number
IV.5
Programme
2008
Programme 2009
TOTAL
2008-2009
0
0
0
Total number of projects funded in the “executing
body” method in the programmes 2008 and 2009
Number of …
Projects funded
after calls for
expression of
interest, calls for
proposals, or similar
selection method(see
table IV.3)
Projects funded
without such calls
(see table IV.4)
TOTAL
Projects funded in
the “executing body”
method
Programme
2008
Programme 2009
TOTAL
2008-2009
3
4
7
0
0
0
3
4
7
Template
Evaluation report on Implementation of actions co financed by the European Return Fund
29
Part V
SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECTS FUNDED
IN THE “AWARDING BODY” METHOD AND
IN THE “EXECUTING BODY” METHOD
2008 - 2009
Reference documents to be used for this part:
- The information on the projects funded available to the Responsible Authority
(description of the project supported to be found in each grant agreement)
- All information on implementation available to the Responsible Authority
- Any external evaluation of relevance to the items addressed below, if available
Please provide a summary description of the projects funded (see definition on
page 18) under your annual programmes 2008 and 2009, broken down by
Priority as set out on the next pages. Under each Priority describe separately
projects funded in the “awarding body” method, on the one hand, and projects
funded in the “executing body” method, on the other hand.
In addition please describe separately (as set out in the template) projects
funded in the “awarding body” method without a call for proposals and projects
funded in the “executing body” method without a call for expression of interest,
for proposals, or similar selection method.
No breakdown per year is required in the items 1 to 6.
Describe separately any change to the distribution for projects funded in the
“awarding body” method, on the one hand, and for projects funded in the
“executing body” method, on the other hand.
In addition, highlight any significant change to the projects funded in the
“awarding body” method, on the one hand, and to projects funded in the
“executing body” method, on the other hand (other than their distribution).
It is not required to make a full description of all projects. What is needed is a
concise, but very concrete description of the types of operations implemented
under each Priority. Wherever relevant highlight national specificities. It is
Template
Evaluation report on Implementation of actions co financed by the European Return Fund
30
essential that the description can easily be understood by those who are familiar
with the RF, but not necessarily familiar with your national programme.
You will be asked to highlight 1-5 projects under each annual programme which
deserve, in your opinion, particular mention since you consider them as a good
practice, or of an innovative nature, of interest for other Member States or of
particular value in the light of the multiannual strategy and your national
requirements.
Finally, you will be asked to describe one "success story” and one “failure”,
among all projects funded from 2008 to 2009.
For each item the maximum length is mentioned beneath the item’s description.
Template
Evaluation report on Implementation of actions co financed by the European Return Fund
31
1. Summary description of the projects funded under Priority 1 in the
annual programmes 2008 and 2009
In the “awarding body” method
Within the projects there were led the following activities: publishing of information about the
project and the possibilities of voluntary return among the potential beneficiaries, consulting
in the field of the return, gathering and providing solid and reliable information necessary for
making the decision about the voluntary return for the foreigners qualifying to the
participation in the programme; helping in obtaining important travel documents, the
organizing of return trips and the reintegration aid and providing medical aid. The activities
included the situation and the needs of the people requiring a special treatment – pregnant
women, single parents with children, children without custody, elderly people, handicapped
people, and ill people including those suffering from mental illnesses. Each of the returnees
obtained cash assistance for the satisfying of needs during the first days after the return (food,
hygiene measures, clothing etc.). The returnees had the possibility of obtaining additional
reintegration help intended for the initializing and managing of economic activities and the
education including the professional trainings. The help was conducted in the close
cooperation with the IOM offices in the countries of origin. The condition for receiving aid
assistance was to submit the plan and obtain its approval by IOM. Only the best proposals
received funding. The additional individual reintegration aid was given to the under-aged
without custody and the people requiring medical assistance in the country of origin. The
results of the reintegration aid were evaluated on the base of polls conducted with its’
beneficiaries and on the base of monitoring visits. There was prepared a database of returnees,
which is constantly maintained throughout the duration of the project. In order to monitor the
project there was created a special Steering Committee consisting of the IOM, the Office for
Foreigners and the Border Guard representatives. The IOM organised also a conferences for
non-governmental and governmental organisations and coordination meetings with some
other organisations involved in the voluntary return system.
In the “executing body” method
Project Organising forced returns (2008) and Organising forced returns – continuation (2009)
Under the projects the following measures have been implemented: expulsions by air (on
scheduled flights and Polish charter flights), expulsion by land and other actions connected
with expelling a foreigner. It was also planned to organise Polish charter flights on an airplane
chartered from private civil carriers to distant countries. Because of complicated and timeconsuming tender procedure in order to select the service provider the action has not been
implemented.
The expulsions under AP2009 concern different individuals than those foreseen under annual
programme for 2008.
Template
Evaluation report on Implementation of actions co financed by the European Return Fund
32
2. Summary description of the projects funded under Priority 2 in the
“executing body” method in the annual programmes 2008 and 2009
In the “awarding body” method
Not applicable
In the “executing body” method
PROJECTS – Strengthening of cooperation between Member States in return management
(2008) and Strengthening of cooperation between Member States in return management –
continuation (2009).
In the framework of the projects the following measures have been implemented organisation
of joint charter flights and other actions connected with joint return operations (among others:
administrative proceedings and costs of travel and accommodation).
3. Summary description of the projects funded under Priority 3 in the
annual programmes 2008 and 2009
In the “awarding body” method
Not applicable
In the “executing body” method
PROJECTS - Enhanced cooperation with third countries in identification of foreigners (2008)
and Enhanced cooperation with third countries in identification of foreigners – continuation
(2009).
In the framework of the projects, visits of experts from third countries for the purpose of
confirmation of foreigners’ identity, visits of domestic experts to the countries of origin of
illegal immigrants and visits of representatives of bodies from the countries of origin have
been organised. The meetings are aimed at improving existing cooperation, devising the basis,
the aim and the scope of cooperation consisting in inviting experts on confirming citizenship
from those countries.
4. Summary description of the projects funded under Priority 4 in the
annual programmes 2008 and 2009
Template
Evaluation report on Implementation of actions co financed by the European Return Fund
33
In the “awarding body” method
The FIPP (Rule of Law Institute Foundation) leads the project “Assistance for voluntary
return in Lubelszczyzna”. The project based on organization of regular seminaries and
trainings for the representatives of institutions working with migrants regarding the best
practices and issues connected with the specificity of the countries of return and the current
tendencies in the migrant politics. The trainings were organized in Lubelskie province in
order to provide access to information and good practices in the small centres (e.g. Biała
Podlaska, Zamość, Chełm).
In each of the funding periods there was published a “Guide to good practices” as the effect of
seminar work (translated into Russian and English).
Organization within 36 months of the implementation of the project will organise the 6-week
outdoor trainings regarding the issues of the realization of voluntary returns and the current
tendencies in the migrant politics. Project includes editing of the internet publications Newsletter - which is the tool of communication and information exchange between the
institutions and the people dealing with the subject matter of voluntary returns. The
Newsletter is published every 3 months.
In the “executing body” method
PROJECT: STRENGTHENING EFFECTIVENESS OF ACTIVITIES IN AREA OF RETURNS PERFORMED BY
BORDER GUARD, INCLUDING COOPERATION WITH OTHER INSTITUTIONS (2009)
In the framework of the project the following measures have been implemented organisation
of training seminars/workshops/meetings/conferences on common standards for realisation of
returns, on control of eligibility of stay and employment, on common return actions. The
project is addressed for public officers dealing with return activities at regional and central
levels and have been organised with relevant representatives of bodies of other Member States
competent in foreigners’ returns. Moreover development of a best practices manual on
verification of foreigner’s identity, returns and standards of foreigners stay in detention
centres preceding forced return is planned.
5. Summary description of the projects funded in the “awarding body”
method without a call for proposals, in the annual programmes 2008 and
2009
Please refer to Table III.4. Excluding the continuation of multiannual projects which were
selected after a previous call for proposals. Neither should Technical Assistance measures be
taken into account, since they are not considered as “projects”.
Template
Evaluation report on Implementation of actions co financed by the European Return Fund
34
6. Summary description of the projects funded in the “executing body”
method without a call for expression of interest, a call for proposals or
similar selection method, in the annual programmes 2008 and 2009
Please refer to Table IV.4. Excluding the continuation of multiannual projects which were
selected after a previous call for expression of interest, a call for proposals or similar.
Neither should Technical Assistance measures be taken into account, since they are not
considered as “projects”.
7. Explain any significant change to the distribution of the projects funded
in the “awarding body” method, by Priority and by Specific Priority, in
the annual programmes 2008 and 2009
Under AP 2008 there were three changes concerning project’s budgets. Almost all projects
realised under AP 2009 are continuation of projects realised under AP 2008. Only one project
implemented under AP 2009 is a new project (IV priority). The introduction of the priority
was based on the analysis made in the sector of home affairs.
8. Explain any significant change to the distribution of the projects funded
in the “executing body” method, by Priority and by Specific Priority, in
the annual programmes 2008 and 2009
There is no significant difference in the share of projects and / or budget distributed for each
priority and specific priority. Almost all project realised under AP 2009 are continuation of
projects realised under AP 2008. There is one new project under action 4: Strengthening
effectiveness of activities in area of returns performed by Border Guard including
cooperation with other institutions (executing body method) and one new project under action
1 Support for the assisted voluntary return programme – continuation ( priority 4).
9. Highlight any significant change (other than the distribution referred to
under points 7 and 8) to the projects funded in the “awarding body” and
“executing body” method in the annual programmes 2008 and 2009
In the “awarding body” method
No changes
In the “executing body” method
Template
Evaluation report on Implementation of actions co financed by the European Return Fund
35
No changes
10.
Important projects funded in the annual programmes 2008 and 2009
Please describe 1-5 projects under each annual programme which deserve, in
your opinion, particular mention since you consider them as a good practice, or
of an innovative nature, of interest for other Member States (example of a
project supporting an EU policy priority) or of particular value in the light of
the multiannual strategy and your national requirements.
2008 and 2009 annual programmes
IOM - International Organization for Migration carries out 3 projects (including 2 multiannual
ones) under the 2008 Programme. Projects are complex, additionally in the final report of the
project “Consultancy, travel, reintegration – assistance in voluntary return from Poland” IOM proved
higher level of indicators than it was assuming.
Action – Support for the voluntary return programme; project: Support, return and
reintegration – help in voluntary return from Poland The project is aimed at supporting
returns of foreigners to their country of origin and allowing organising a life in the country by
returning persons and families.
Moreover the project covers providing the interested foreigners with information on return
programmes, conducting the verification of the eligibility of a foreigner to participate in a
project, taking necessary procedural steps allowing foreigners staying in the territory of the
Republic of Poland illegally to participate in the programme.
Under the project is financing undertakings covering the cost connected with purchasing
tickets for the returning foreigners (airplane, railway or other tickets), organisation their travel
to proper place in the destination country, the costs connected with the procedure of issuing
documents for foreigners or updating documents in terms of prolonging their validity periods,
entering children in the documents and in all cases when the need to translate documents
arises. In justified situations, the costs cover also medical examinations allowing establishing
the health condition of the foreigner and proving there are no reasons why the foreigner
should not travel, organisation of medical escort, as well as the costs of getting to airports,
railway stations or other places of departure.
The project covers preparation and update of information concerning the immigrants’
countries of origin and preparing and maintaining a database of voluntary returns. According
to assumptions the database will include information concerning persons covered by the
programme of voluntary returns.
Template
Evaluation report on Implementation of actions co financed by the European Return Fund
36
For special treatment groups it was planned to ensure special procedures and support special
means. The group includes: minors, the disabled, the elderly, individuals experiencing health
problems, victims of trafficking in humans, pregnant women, single parents of minors and
victims of violence.
In the framework of the project foreigners received financial support in cash as well as
material aid for among others establishing business, gaining professional qualification,
education, medical care.
The project was carried out by International Organisation of Migration Warsaw under AP
2008 and AP2009. The EU contribution: 804 868,20 PLN (AP 2008) and 1 223 154 PLN (AP
2009).
11.
Description of one “success story”, among all the projects funded in
the annual programmes 2008 and 2009
It is up to you to judge whether a project is to be considered a “success story” in terms of
project implementation. If you think the project is also an example of “good practice” which
could usefully be implemented elsewhere, please explain why. However, please note that this
part is on a success story and it need not be "good practices”.
It is necessary to provide a very concrete description of the project concerned and of the
reasons you consider this is a “success story”. It is essential that the description can easily be
understood by those who are familiar with the RF, but not necessarily familiar with your
national programme.
Enhanced cooperation with third countries in identification of foreigners (AP 2008)
The project was implemented by Border Guard from 1 January 2008 till 31 March 2010.
The project included activities related to the organization of visits of experts from third
countries for the confirmation of the identity of persons without documents and issuing them
with replacement travel documents and efforts in establishing and maintaining direct contacts
with representatives of border and migration from third countries.
The project was implemented in the two modules:
1) Organising visits of experts from third countries for the purpose of confirmation of
foreigner`s identity – in the implementation of readmission agreements between the
Government of Poland and the Government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam
adopted a new innovative option of inviting experts from Vietnam for confirmation of
identity, due to the fact that the confirmation of identity by Vietnam Embassy in
Warsaw, did not bring tangible results.
Template
Evaluation report on Implementation of actions co financed by the European Return Fund
37
During the visits, experts held conversations with persons arrested in connection with illegal
stay or crossing (or attempting to cross) a border thus breaching regulations in force who were
suspected to be citizens of the given country in order to confirm their citizenship and issue
replacement travel documents. Organising visits of experts necessitated covering for the cost
of their travel, their stay and travels within the territory of the Republic of Poland, paying for
their allowances, as well as covering the costs of transporting foreigners from detention
centres to the venue of conversations.
Based on interviews and by telephone consultations with the Office in Hanoi, the experts
confirmed the nationality of foreigners, and then they put their data on the replacement travel
documents. Obtaining the documents made it possible to organize prompt return.
2) Holding visits of domestic experts to the countries of origin of illegal immigrants and
visits of representatives of bodies from the countries of origin.
The Border Guard also established further relations with representatives of border services
from illegal immigrants’ countries of origin. The meetings were aimed at improving existing
cooperation, devising the basis, the aim and the scope of cooperation consisting in inviting
experts on confirming citizenship from those countries. Experience of other Member States as
well as Polish experience in cooperation with Vietnam showed that direct cooperation with
competent bodies from countries of origin is much more effective.
The activities under this project led to the establishment of an effective, stable and long-term
cooperation with the consular authorities and migration services in Vietnam. In carrying out a
project conducted four meetings with the representatives of countries of origin of illegal
migrants: two meetings with representatives of Russia and two meetings with representatives
of Vietnam. These visits have served, among others, arrangements in the implementation
modalities of the agreements and maintain the existing good relations with the departments
responsible for confirming the identity of foreigners.
In the course of the project five working visits were organised, during which experts from
Vietnam confirm the identity of foreigners. As a result of these visits confirmed the
nationality of 163 foreigners and issued them with replacement travel documents.
The project is being continued under the 2009 allocation under the name Enhanced
cooperation with third countries in identification of foreigners – part II.
This specific project was a success because it was completely new idea in identification of
foreigners. From the very beginning this project was very well implemented, well managed
and with no delays. The partner established cooperation which is continued in next project in
allocation 2009 and will continue in allocation 2010 and 2011. Moreover the partner
establishes cooperation with other third countries in this field.
Template
Evaluation report on Implementation of actions co financed by the European Return Fund
38
12.
Description of one “failure”, among all the projects funded in the
annual programmes 2008 and 2009
Among all the projects funded under the programmes 2008 and 2009, there may be one
project which you would regard as an important “failure”, because it proved impracticable,
it did not meet expectations, or any other reason for you to judge, and you think there are
lessons to be drawn from its failure, for instance in terms of programming, selection and/or
evaluation of projects.
The project should not be identified (i.e. the name of the project or beneficiary should not be
mentioned).
It is essential that the description of the project, your justification for a “failure”, and the
lessons to be drawn can easily be understood by those who are familiar with the RF , but not
necessarily familiar with your national programme.
Strengthening of cooperation between Member States in return management (AP2008).
The project covers organisation of joint charter flights with other Member States and another
actions connected with preparing joint return operations. The project was implemented by
Border Guard from 1 July 2008 till 30 June 2010. The project can be regarded as a failure
because it did not meet expectations and because of some unexpected situation it did not use
the whole budget.
From 1 July 2008 till 31 March 2010 under joint charter flights organised with other MS 71
foreigners were expelled in 8 joint charter flights. The planned indicator was: 80 expelled in
10 joint charter flights. The indicators were modified during the project’s implementation in
order to make them realistic. The joint charters flights were organised in cooperation with
Great Britain, Austria and Switzerland. The expelled foreigners were from Nigeria and
Georgia.
Polish Border Guard prepared detailed schedule of activities under the project in order to
achieve indicators and fulfil the budget. Despite this in 2008 and 2009 there were legal
problems with a charter of a military aircraft – special agreement between Minister of Interior
and Minister of National Defence was required. The agreement should concern using military
aircrafts by services of Ministry of Interior. The agreement was signed in December 2009. In
II quarter of 2010 there appeared problems concerning using Polish military aircrafts for
purpose of other countries. Such a decision of Commands of Polish Air Force resulted from
the catastrophe near Smoleńsk.
During the project’s implementation there was an accident in which citizen of Nigeria died.
This took place during the joint charter flight organised by Switzerland. It was the direct
reason of abandoning of organising and taking part in joint charter flight by Switzerland.
Template
Evaluation report on Implementation of actions co financed by the European Return Fund
39
Polish Border Guard was forced to recall two joint charter flights planned to conduct with
Switzerland.
The above described project is being implemented till June 2010. Most of indicators were
achieved, but some plans had to be changed. Moreover implementation of such activities is
difficult because of “competitive” actions conducted by Frontex.
Template
Evaluation report on Implementation of actions co financed by the European Return Fund
40
Part VI
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
INFORMATION AND PUBLICITY
Reference documents to be used for this part:
- The information on technical assistance and on information and publicity
available to the Responsible Authority
- Any relevant national document and information available to the Responsible
Authority in these matters
- Any independent evaluation of the items addressed below, if available
1.
Technical assistance
Please provide a concrete description of the activities implemented under the Technical
Assistance measures of the annual programmes 2008 and 2009. No annual breakdown is
required.
Under Technical Assistance (AP 2008 and 2009) the following expenditures were occurred:
 administrative costs,
 staff participation in meetings and staff training,
 trainings for the beneficiaries,
 organization of meetings and conferences,
 services,
 office equipment, IT hardware,
 information and publicity activities,
 the remuneration of employees dealing with SOLID funds.
2.
Information and Publicity
Please provide a concrete description of the information and publicity activities (as per
Articles 33 and 34 of the RF Implementing Rules) implemented under the annual programmes
2008 and 2009. No annual breakdown is required.
Describe separately the information and publicity activities by the Responsible Authority and
those by the final beneficiaries.
Template
Evaluation report on Implementation of actions co financed by the European Return Fund
41
As part of the information and publicity activities by the Responsible Authority, please specify
the yearly information activities which you have organised up to now, as of 2008, the launch
of the multiannual programme or the achievements of the annual programme(s), as set out in
Article 33 (2) (a) of the RF Implementing Rules.
Please also describe when you developed the website referred to in Article 33(2) (b) of the RF
Implementing Rules and indicate, for each annual programme, when the required data was
introduced on the website.
- Information and publicity activities by the Responsible Authority were as
follows:

publication on a website of the list of final beneficiaries, including the names of
the projects and the amount of financing (public and European Union funding )
 All necessary information on a website connected with the Fund (included a
statement or logo indicating co-financing by the Fund),
 Conference presenting the multiannual programme and the annual programmes
(October 2009),
 Promotional materials concerning projects implementing under Return Fund
(included a statement or logo indicating the project is co-financed by the Fund),
 All activities implemented under the Fund included a statement or logo indicating
that the project is co-financed by the Fund.
- Information and publicity activities by the final beneficiaries
 Public information about the assistance obtained from the Fund,
 All public documents concerning projects included a statement or logo indicating that
the project is co-financed by the Fund,
 All promotional materials concerning projects included a statement or logo indicating
that the project is co-financed by the Fund,
 All information on a website connected with the Fund included a statement or logo
indicating co-financing by the Fund.
Template
Evaluation report on Implementation of actions co financed by the European Return Fund
42
Part VII
ASSESSMENT OF IMPLEMENTATION
OF THE ANNUAL PROGRAMMES 2008 AND 2009
Based on:
- All information available to the Responsible Authority on the implementation
of each annual programme
- Any external evaluation available to the Responsible Authority
provide your assessment of the implementation of the annual programmes 2008
and 2009 for the following items.
In each case please explain the reasons for your judgement. If for any item you
cannot provide an assessment by June 2010, please answer “Not known by June
2010”.
Template
Evaluation report on Implementation of actions co financed by the European Return Fund
43
VII.1.
Assessment of the implementation of the 2008 Annual
Programme
1. Has the 2008 programme been implemented as originally planned and broadly in
line with the programme schedule?
The 2008 programme has been implemented as originally planned and in line with the
programme schedule (revised 2008 Programme). However during the programme
implementation some unexpected situations occurred which caused the need of introducing
some changes. The Border Guard, which is the only Partner in the Return Fund in Poland,
faced inconveniences related to flexibility of migration issues and to legal aspects. These
factors led to some changes of projects budgets, which had rather slight impact on projects
implementation.
Changes which were made were slight that the 2008 programme has been implemented as
originally planned and broadly in line with the programme schedule.
2. Have you encountered problems on implementation of the 2008 annual
programme? If so, what measures did you take?
Generally there were no major problems in the implementation of the 2008 annual
programme. The sphere of migration is constantly changing, which makes it difficult to
accurately plan projects. This situation sometimes resulted in the need to change annual
programmes.
3. Has a revision of the 2008 programme by the Commission been necessary? If so,
what were the main changes?
One revision of the 2008 programme by the Commission has been necessary. Because of
radical change of exchange rate there was a need to make the shifts among projects` budgets.
The changes exceeded 10% of the total EU contribution. The modifications were caused by
the fact that the PLN/EUR exchange rate is flexible. Because the expenditure incurred in the
national currency shall be converted into Euros using the monthly accounting exchange rate
of the Commission for the month during which the expenditure was entered in the accounts of
the responsible authority of the programme, there was a difference in the amounts expressed
in EUR (underspending), which was shifted from the executing body procedure to the
awarding body procedure (246 099, 57 EUR). Moreover the amount of 47 466, 48 EUR was
shifted from the technical assistance to awarding body procedure.
After receiving an approval of the EC of the modified AP there was a need to introduce some
new changes. A modifies version did not included changes in excess of 10% of the financial
breakdown of the Fund`s contribution. The need to introduce changes is caused by the fact
Template
44
Evaluation report on Implementation of actions co financed by the European Return Fund
that the Partner – Border Guard has limited a budget of the project Strengthening of
cooperation between Member States in return management of the 2008 allocation. The budget
was limited due to the experience of the two-year project period and after considering the real
current expenses incurred in the project. The above-mentioned resources were transferred to
the action implemented under the awarding body procedure.
4. Have you implemented the 2008 programme (the case being, the revised
programme) fully? (= all or nearly all actions set out in the programme approved
by the Commission, or in the revised programme approved by the Commission,
could be implemented by the end of this programme)
By the end of the 2008 programme all actions/projects set out in the programme have been
implemented.
5. Have the expected quantitative and qualitative results of the 2008 programme as set out in the programme / revised programme approved by the Commission been achieved at the end of this programme?
The expected quantitative and qualitative results of the 2008 programme were mostly
achieved, some of them even exceed. For example:
PRIORITY
I
II
III
RESULTS AND INDICATORS
EXPECTED
ACHIEVED
The number of persons expelled by land
about 3,0005,000
651
The number of persons expelled by air
about 500- 1 000
(scheduled flights)
The number of persons expelled by charter
about 5
flights
The number of persons expelled by joint charter
about 40
flights
The number of joint charter flights organised
about 3 – 4
The number of persons transported to other
Member States in order to participate in joint
about 40
charter flight
Number of visits in the scope of confirmation of
about 3
citizenship
Number of people identified as a result of the
about 100 - 120
activities of experts
Number of working/agreement meetings
about 1-3
832
81
106
9
22
5
163
4
6. In the light of the implementation of the 2008 programme, do you consider that
the distribution of funding between the actions was appropriate? Were the
actions set out in the programme you submitted to the Commission appropriate?
Template
45
Evaluation report on Implementation of actions co financed by the European Return Fund
Taking into consideration experience of implementing the 2008 programme, the distribution
among actions/ projects was appropriate in general. However in the following programmes
(2009 and 2010) the distribution was changed – more funds were allocated to actions
implemented under awarding body mode.
VII.2.
Assessment of the implementation of the 2009 Annual
Programme
1. Has the 2009 programme been implemented as originally planned and broadly in
line with the programme schedule?
The 2009 programme has been implemented as originally planned and in line with the
programme schedule. However three projects out of four needed some changes in 1Q of 2010
(three projects were started in January 2010 and one – in October 2009).
2. Have you encountered problems on implementation of the 2009 annual
programme? If so, what measures did you take?
There were no problems on implementation of the 2009 annual programme.
3. Has a revision of the 2009 programme by the Commission been necessary? If so,
what were the main changes?
Up until now there was no need to do a revision of the 2009 programme.
4. Have you implemented the 2009 programme (the case being, the revised
programme) fully? (= all or nearly all actions set out in the programme approved
by the Commission, or in the revised programme approved by the Commission,
could be implemented by the end of this programme)
Three out of four projects implemented under executing body mode were stared in January
2010. One project started in October 2009. That is why this is too early to state if all projects
are implemented by the end of this programme.
5. Have the expected quantitative and qualitative results of the 2009 programme as set out in the programme / revised programme approved by the Commission been achieved at the end of this programme?
In 1Q of 2010 there were some changes of quantitative and qualitative results of the 2009
programme, which have been introduced on the basis on Border Guard experience (the only
partner). Taking into account the experience of the 2008 programme most of results should be
achieved.
Template
Evaluation report on Implementation of actions co financed by the European Return Fund
46
6. In the light of the implementation of the 2009 programme, do you consider that
the distribution of funding between the actions was appropriate? Were the
actions set out in the programme you submitted to the Commission appropriate?
We consider that the distribution of funding among actions/projects was appropriate.
VII.3.
The Management and Control System for the Fund and
the implementation of the Annual Programmes 2008
and 2009
Based on :
- All information available to the Responsible Authority on the implementation
of annual programmes 2008 and 2009
- The Management and Control system of the Return Fund in your Member State
- Any external evaluation available to the Responsible Authority
- Any other analysis carried out by your government as regards the Fund
Provide your assessment for the following item. Please explain the reasons for
your judgement.
1. Has the Management and Control System of the Return Fund which
you designed in 2008, been efficient for the implementation of the
annual programmes so far?
The Management and Control System of the Return Fund has been sufficient for the
implementation of annual programmes 2008 and 2009.
The Management and Control System give the background in order to create proper Return
Fund’s management model in Poland. It provides such information as: list of bodies
involved, share of responsibilities, resources for all bodies involved, all procedures needed,
etc.
2.
Please list any changes you have made in the Management and
Control System of the Return Fund which you designed in 2008,
bearing in mind the experiences gained/ lessons learned during the
implementation of the annual programmes 2008 and 2009 and/or any
comments from the Commission and/or audits
Template
Evaluation report on Implementation of actions co financed by the European Return Fund
47
In Management and Control System the following changes were made:



Audit Authority – the previous Audit Authority (Department of Financial Interests of
the European Union, Ministry of Finance) delegated the function of the Audit
Authority in the Management and Control System to the General Inspector of Fiscal
Control with subordinated bodies (Ministry of Finance);
Financial agreements – financial agreement signing procedure previously requiring
both signature of Undersecretary of State in Ministry of Interior and Administration
and the Director of the Department of European Union and International Cooperation,
at the Ministry of Interior and Administration was modified. Currently on behalf of
the Responsible Authority the financial agreements are signed only by the Director of
the Department of European Union and International Cooperation, Ministry of
Interior and Administration;
The Office for Administration and Finance at the Ministry of Interior and
Administration was involved into Management and Control System. The Office keeps
records in respect of the technical assistance for the Responsible Authority.
Template
Evaluation report on Implementation of actions co financed by the European Return Fund
48
Part VIII
OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF THE RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY ON
THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROGRAMMES 2008 AND 2009
In case you had recourse to an external expertise for other parts of this
report: this part must always be filled in by the Responsible Authority itself
VIII.1.
What is your overall assessment of the implementation of the
Return Fund in your Member State from 2008 to 2009?
The activities proposed under the Return Fund meet Polish expectations and needs. Free
movement of persons and abolition of controls on internal borders in the European Union
must be balanced by undertaking special measures of intensification of controls on external
borders. Poland has an external border of EU, which causes that we have special obligation in
area of detection of illegal migrants, drug smuggling and other illegal activities.
Statistical data obtained recently, concerning the number of persons detained for crossing or
attempting to cross the national border against the regulations, as well as controls of legality
of stay in the territory of the country and on access roads indicate an increased interest of
illegal migrants in the current situation in Poland after joining the Schengen Agreement.
Implementation of the Return Fund helps to cover all deficit areas in Poland.
We consider implementation of the Return Fund in Poland as a success. Till the end of June
2010 all projects implemented under programme 2008 will be finished – all of them will
achieve all indicators planned. In most cases these indicators were exceeded. There is little
experience with programme 2009, because most projects implemented under executing body
mode were started half a year ago. Till now implementation of these projects is in line with
programme schedule. Projects implemented under awarding body mode are well managed and
bring effective results.
Template
Evaluation report on Implementation of actions co financed by the European Return Fund
49
VIII. 2
1.
Taking into account the overall implementation of the Return
Fund in your Member State from 2008 to 2009, what is your
preliminary assessment in relation to the following aspects of
the Return Fund on the following aspects?
Relevance of the programme's priorities and actions to the national situation
Please describe how relevant the programme's objectives are overall to the problems
and needs identified in the field of return management. Has there been an evolution
which required a reshaping of the intervention?
The programme’s objectives are relevant to the problems and needs identified in the field of
return management. All deficit areas were identified in Multiannual Programme, such as:
 insufficient resources for assisted voluntary returns
 insufficient resources for forced returns
 insufficient resources for common charters flights
 lack of established and enhanced cooperation in area of foreigner’s
identification
 low qualification of staff dealing with implementation of return
programmes
2.
Effectiveness of the programme
Please highlight the key results of the programme overall and the extent to which the desired
results and objectives (as set out in the multiannual programme strategy) been attained. Are
the effects resulting from the intervention consistent with its objectives?
The key results of the Programmes are: the improvement of integrated return management,
the enhancement of the cooperation among MS and promotion of common standards in area
of return policy. All above mentioned results were achieved by:
 implementation of voluntary and forced returns
 organising joint charter flights
 establishing and improving relations in area of confirmation of
foreigner’s identity
 strengthening effectiveness of activities performed by institutions
dealing with the return policy
3.
Efficiency of the programme
Please estimate the cost of the management of the Return Fund so far and whether in
your opinion the programme's objectives are being developed in accordance with the
original planning and at a reasonable cost.
Template
Evaluation report on Implementation of actions co financed by the European Return Fund
50
The cost of management of the Return Fund is financed under the Technical Assistance. The
amount for the Technical Assistance for the period 2008 – 2010 is 7% of the total annual
amount of co financing allocated to Poland plus 30 000 EUR. If reduced in future to 4% plus
30 000 EUR the amount may reduce management activities.
Resources of the Technical Assistance are divided into 4 authorities involved in the Return
Fund management (responsible, delegated, audit, certifying).
The programmes objectives are developed in accordance with the original planning and at a
reasonable cost.
4.
Complementarity
Please indicate any issues you have had with establishing the complementarity and/or
synergies with other programmes and/or EC financial instruments such as the other
Funds of the General Programme, the Thematic Programme on Asylum and Migration
and/or the Structural Funds.
The actions/projects implemented under the Annual Programmes 2008 and 2009 are
supplement to actions implemented with the use of funds from the state budget.
There is little complementarity with other similar actions conducted in the framework of other
EU financial instruments, especially the European Refugee Fund and the European Social
Fund. The general scope of those funds can be similar to the RF, but there is no double
financing. There is a strong border line between the funds. Each of the Programmes/Funds has
its own programming documents. Besides institutions involved in fund’s implementation
coordinate their activities in the framework of inter-ministerial team consulting works aimed
at managing funding received from funds.
All the projects are cofinanced by the Return Fund. Without the supplement of the Fund these
projects would not be implemented at all under awarding body method because
nongovernmental organisations which are mainly beneficiaries of this method would not have
sufficient resources. Resources for projects implemented under executing body method would
be from state budget which would result in a significant reduction in the scope of projects and
even refrain from implementing.
To identify synergies and/or avoid overlap with other projects/programmes Responsible
Authority primarily used the knowledge of the experienced experts who analyzed the projects.
The sphere of migration is so specific that it has mainly the same beneficiaries (especially in
executing body method). Therefore options for synergies can be assessed by beneficiaries of
projects/programmes of this area, based on their own experience of previous
project/programmes. Also we have a database for our own needs of projects and programmes
which are or were implemented in this sphere.
There were no examples of synergies between projects resulting in improved returns and no
projects that could not be supported due to risk of overlap.
Template
Evaluation report on Implementation of actions co financed by the European Return Fund
51
5.
Added value
Please indicate how you perceive the programme's added value in comparison with
existing national programmes/policies at national, regional and local level, and in
relation to the national budget in the area of intervention of the Return Fund.
The programme’s added value plays a big role in policy of return management. Actions
covered under the Programme were implemented from the state budget or were financed by
NGOs and International Organisations. Some actions are the statutory responsibilities of
Polish Border Guard. Added value of the Programme is complementary to existing national
programmes/policies at national, regional and local level. It’s also complementary to the
national budget. All projects are co financed by state budget in amount of 25% (in executing
body procedure). In awarding body procedure beneficiaries are granted by additional 10% of
total project’s budget from the state budget.
The European dimension of the RF brings additional value in area of human treatment of
migrants, vulnerable groups and using experience of other member states.
VIII.3.
Any suggestions / recommendations for improvements in the
regulatory framework (basic act and implementing rules) and
the Commission guidance documents which would help you to
streamline and improve the annual programming exercise in
general?
MS have already the experience in programming by preparing the multiannual programme
and the annual programmes (2008, 2009 and 2010). The actions are repeated and almost all
projects are the continuation of the previous ones. Increasing allocations allow covering more
actions and reaching more effective results. We should recommend improving a procedure of
approval and modification of annual programmes, which is now time-consuming and
complicated.
VIII.4.
Any suggestions / recommendations for improvements in the
regulatory framework (basic act and implementing rules) and
the Commission guidance documents which would help you to
streamline and improve the implementation of the actions /
projects and the control mechanisms on the actions/ projects?
The main problem is that the eligibility rules of the Fund are complicated. For example on one
hand some issues are regulated only generally without any details, but on the other hand direct
expenditures create a close catalogue of eligible expenditure. Because of specificity of each
Template
Evaluation report on Implementation of actions co financed by the European Return Fund
52
Member State there are permanent problems connected with interpretation of these
regulations. Moreover there are still many issues that have no interpretation. Because of time
consuming process of decision making in EC MS is forced to hold up some actions till
receiving decision from EC.
The suggestion is to formulate the eligibility rules in each Member State. That solution will
improve implementation of the projects and will make the rules adequate to the situation in
each MS.
VIII. 5.
Any suggestions / recommendations for improvements in terms
of the guidance and support by the Commission to the Member
States on the implementation of the programming exercise and
the management and control system?
The staff of the Responsible Authority in Poland dealing with the Return Fund has a
permanent contact with desk officers in EC.
However more meetings/trainings should be organised by EC. These meetings should be
focused mainly on practical aspects of Fund’s implementation. That would be very useful to
organise separate training sessions participated by personnel performing trained tasks.
End of the report
☻
Template
Evaluation report on Implementation of actions co financed by the European Return Fund
53