Client: Ministry of the Interior
Period: 2024
This evaluation reports present the findings of the ex-post evaluation of the implementation of the Estonian programmes under the European Union (EU) Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF) and Internal Security Fund (ISF) for the 2014–2020 period.
The objective of AMIF is to contribute to the effective management of migration flows and the development and implementation of a common asylum and migration policy in the EU, supporting the processing of asylum applications and the reception of applicants, the integration of third-country nationals, and return measures. During the 2014–2020 period, a total of €18,430,429 was allocated for the implementation of activities under the fund. During the evaluation period, 28 different organizations received support from AMIF, and a total of 72 projects were funded.
The objective of ISF is to contribute to ensuring a high level of security within the EU by supporting border control and visa processing, crime prevention, security risk management, and crisis response. During the period 2014–2020, the total budget of ISF amounted to €61,724,664, with an additional €2 million allocated for technical assistance. In the evaluated budget period, ISFB (the instrument for external borders and visas) funded 52 projects, while ISFP (the instrument for police cooperation) funded 35 projects.
The implementation of the funds was assessed based on the following criteria: effectiveness and impact; efficiency; relevance; coherence; complementarity; added value of EU support; sustainability; and simplification and reduction of administrative burden.
The projects contributed to achieving the security, asylum and migration policy objectives of Estonia and the EU by improving procedural processes, enhancing the capacity of authorities and service providers, and increasing the efficiency of border control, crime prevention, and integration. Both funds supported the development of these fields, but their impact assessment was challenging due to the absence of a clear intervention logic and precisely defined impact indicators. Although the programs met most of their target indicators and contributed to policy objectives, the accuracy of the evaluation was limited by external factors, such as the impact of the COVID-19 crisis and the war in Ukraine, as well as the relatively limited financial volume of the funds compared to the overall sector.
Going forward, greater attention should be given to a clearer evaluation framework, focusing on more precise and directly activity-related indicators in order to better measure the actual impact and efficiency of the funds.