The Internal Security Fund Borders and Visa (hereafter the Fund) aims at contributing to ensure a high level of security in the Union while facilitating legitimate travel. The report presents the results of the interim evaluation of the Fund against the five criteria set out in the Better Regulation Guidelines (effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, relevance, and EU added value) plus three additional criteria (sustainability, complementarity of actions, and simplification of administrative burden). Based on the interim evaluation, the Commission shall report to the Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the Fund's implementation by 30 June 2018, as provided in the legal basis. The study confirms the Fund to be an effective tool towards a common visa policy and an integrated border management across the EU, by making visa processing more timely and efficient and strengthening Member States capacity to monitor and control the EU external borders. Despite some implementation issues, the Fund proved to be overall efficient, with results achieved at a reasonable cost. The evaluation also confirms that priorities and objectives laid down in Regulation (EU) N. 515/2014 are still relevant and aligned to current needs and problems, with no new needs or priorities not properly covered by the Fund. The Fund has proved to be coherent with and complementary to other EU funding instruments and programmes with similar objectives and the national policies in the field of visa and borders. The evaluation found evidence of the EU added value brought by actions and projects supported by the Fund. As regards the Fund's sustainability, the introduction of specific arrangements at both EU and national level makes it likely that actions will continue when the Fund is over. Finally, compared to the previous programming period, the Fund assured clear progress towards simplification of procedures. Some key issues emerged. Firstly, the administrative burden remains high, particularly due to burdensome monitoring, reporting, and controlling requirements by the European Commission. Secondly, Member States raised problems with the requirement of allocating resources under key EU priority areas that not always correspond to national main priorities. Finally, some problems emerged also with regard to the deployment of human resources, including the low availability of qualified staff within national administration and the difficulties in managing staff involved in different projects at the same time.
