ANNEX ISupplementary provisions
ANNEX I List of evaluation questions for the evaluation reports by Member States and the Commission, for the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund, as referred to in Articles 56 and 57 of Regulation (EU) No 514/2014 Effectiveness (1) To what extent has the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (‘Fund’) reached the objectives defined in Regulation (EU) No 516/2014? (a) How did the Fund contribute to strengthening and developing all aspects of the Common European Asylum System, including its external dimension? (i) What progress was made towards strengthening and developing the asylum procedures, and how did the Fund contribute to achieving this progress? (ii) What progress was made towards strengthening and developing the reception conditions, and how did the Fund contribute to achieving this progress? (iii) What progress was made towards the achievement of a successful implementation of the legal framework of the qualification directive (and its subsequent modifications), and how did the Fund contribute to achieving this progress? (iv) What progress was made towards enhancing Member State capacity to develop, monitor and evaluate their asylum policies and procedures, and how did the Fund contribute to achieving this progress? (v) What progress was made towards the establishment, development and implementation of national resettlement programmes and strategies, and other humanitarian admission programmes, and how did the Fund contribute to achieving this progress? (b) How did the Fund contribute to supporting legal migration to the Member States in accordance with their economic and social needs, such as labour market needs, while safeguarding the integrity of the immigration systems of Member States, and to promoting the effective integration of third-country nationals? (i) What progress was made towards supporting legal migration to the Member States in accordance with their economic and social needs, such as labour market needs, and how did the Fund contribute to achieving this progress? (ii) What progress was made towards promoting the effective integration of third-country nationals, and how did the Fund contribute to achieving this progress? (iii) What progress was made towards supporting cooperation among the Member States, with a view to safeguarding the integrity of the immigration systems of Member States, and how did the Fund contribute to achieving this progress? (iv) What progress was made towards building capacity on integration and legal migration within the Member States, and how did the Fund contribute to achieving this progress? (c) How did the Fund contribute to enhancing fair and effective return strategies in the Member States which contribute to combating illegal immigration, with an emphasis on sustainability of return and effective readmission in the countries of origin and transit? (i) What progress was made towards supporting the measures accompanying return procedures, and how did the Fund contribute to achieving this progress? (ii) What progress was made towards effective implementation of return measures (voluntary and forced), and how did the Fund contribute to achieving this progress? (iii) What progress was made towards enhancing practical cooperation between Member States and/or with authorities of third countries on return measures, and how did the Fund contribute to achieving this progress? (iv) What progress was made towards building capacity on return, and how did the Fund contribute to achieving this progress? (d) How did the Fund contribute to enhancing solidarity and responsibility-sharing between the Member States, in particular towards those most affected by migration and asylum flows, including through practical cooperation? (i) How did the Fund contribute to the transfer of asylum applicants (relocation as per Council Decisions (EU) 2015/1523 ( 1 ) and (EU) 2015/1601 ( 2 ) )? (ii) How did the Fund contribute to the transfer between Member States of beneficiaries of international protection? (e) How did the Fund contribute to supporting the Member States in duly substantiated emergency situations requiring urgent action? (i) What type of emergency actions was implemented? (ii) How did the emergency actions implemented under the Fund contribute to addressing the urgent needs of the Member State? (iii) What were the main results of the emergency actions? Efficiency (Were the general objectives of the Fund achieved at reasonable cost?) (2) To what extent were the results of the Fund achieved at reasonable cost in terms of deployed financial and human resources? What measures were put in place to prevent, detect, report and follow up on cases of fraud and other irregularities, and how did they perform? Relevance (Did the objectives of the interventions funded by the Fund correspond to the actual needs?) (3) Did the objectives set by the Member State in the National Programme respond to the identified needs? Did the objectives set in the Annual Work Programme (Union actions) address the actual needs? Did the objectives set in the Annual Work Programme (Emergency Assistance) address the actual needs? Which measures did the Member State put in place to address changing needs? Coherence ( Were the objectives set in the national programme Fund coherent with the ones set in other programmes funded by EU resources and applying to similar areas of work? Was the coherence ensured also during the implementation of the Fund? ) (4) Was an assessment of other interventions with similar objectives carried out and taken into account during the programming stage? Were coordination mechanisms between the Fund and other interventions with similar objectives established for the implementing period? Were the actions implemented through the Fund coherent with and non-contradictory to other interventions with similar objectives? Complementarity ( Were the objectives set in the national programme and the corresponding implemented actions complementary to those set in the framework of other policies, in particular those pursued by the Member State )? (5) Was an assessment of other interventions with complementary objectives carried out and taken into account during the programming stage? Were coordination mechanisms between the Fund and other interventions with similar objectives established to ensure their complementarity for the implementing period? Were mechanisms aimed to prevent overlapping of financial instruments put in place? EU added value ( Was any value added brought about by the EU support? ) (6) What are the main types of added value resulting from the Fund support (volume, scope, role, process)? Would the Member State have carried out the actions required to implement the EU policies in the Fund areas without the financial support of the Fund? What would be the most likely consequences of an interruption of the support provided by the Fund? To which extent have actions supported by the Fund resulted in a benefit at the Union level? Sustainability ( Are the positive effects of the projects supported by the Fund likely to last when the support from FUND will be over?) (7) What were the main measures adopted by the Member State to ensure the sustainability of the results of the projects implemented with the Fund support (both at programming and implementation stage)? Were mechanisms put in place to ensure a sustainability check at programming and implementation stage? To what extent are the outcomes/benefits of the actions sustained by the Fund expected to continue thereafter? Simplification and reduction of administrative burden ( Were the Fund management procedures simplified and the administrative burden reduced for its beneficiaries?) (8) Did the innovative procedures introduced by the Fund (simplified cost option, multiannual programming, national eligibility rules, more comprehensive national programmes allowing for flexibility) bring about simplification for the beneficiaries of the Fund? ( 1 ) Council Decision (EU) 2015/1523 of 14 September 2015 establishing provisional measures in the area of international protection for the benefit of Italy and of Greece ( OJ L 239, 15.9.2015, p. 146 ). ( 2 ) Council Decision (EU) 2015/1601 of 22 September 2015 establishing provisional measures in the area of international protection for the benefit of Italy and Greece ( OJ L 248, 24.9.2015, p. 80 ).