8.2nd MPF SC Meeting Minutes FINAL 2016 11 02 Redacted.pdf

Ref. Ares(2022)7130340 - 14/10/2022

MPF state of play: implementation of the AWP 2016 (scenarios A1),
achievements and lessons learnt (ICMPD)

ICMPD presented the state of play of MPF implementation focusing on:
-  The Call for proposal with an open deadline launched on 18 April 2016.
-  Applications received so far:
o  Two rejected as ineligible (one from a private consultancy and one not
covering a country concerned by MP/CAMM,
o  An application between Romania and Moldova (border management,
total draft budget of EUR 178,512.92 and a co-financing of EUR
169,587.27) currently still in the contracting phase due to requests for
clarifications from ICMPD;
o  An application presented by France on Armenia currently under
evaluation (reintegration of returning migrants, proposed budget of EUR
493,165.00, and a co-financing of EUR 468.479.00).
-  Ideas for possible actions under MPF presented by EU MS (20 in total);
-  The continuous outreach and promotion of MPF among EU MS and partner
countries;
-  The roles of consultations (EC services, EU Delegations, EU MS, etc.) upon
the submission of applications is important in view of receiving additional
information and feedback to evaluate the proposal by the Grant
Evaluation Committee (GEC). Therefore, this stage plays the role of
collecting the relevant information and preparing the ground for GEC that
is fully mandated to evaluate each proposal, on the basis of the
established criteria and procedures, and take the necessary decisions.

The assessment of the past six months shows the following success factors:
-  MPF is perceived as the only al -encompassing instrument completely
dedicated to the implementation of MPs/CAMMs;
-  The open nature of the Call for proposals is considered very positive;
-  MPF has triggered the request of an EU MS (Latvia) to join the MP with
Moldova.

MPF is also facing challenges:
-  The short timeframe for action has been indicated as too narrow. This
element wil  impact on proposals being granted/evaluated as well as
those planned.
-  Some EU MS have limited capacities in terms of human resources and
project management. The request received by Hungary to trigger the
scenario B1 (asking DG Home to task ICMPD to implement the proposed
action) has to be framed in this context.
-  The availability of other (larger scale) funding opportunities, such as the
Trust Fund, may weaken the interest of EU MS/partner countries on MPF.
-  The eligibility restricted solely to EU MS public bodies, limits the possibility of
non-public bodies, such as NGOs, to be involved (i.e. only with minor roles
based on sub-contracting). However, it should be borne in mind that MPF
was devised predominantly for EU MS.
-  The institutional setup and organisational changes in certain EU MS (e.g.
Italy) shall be also considered as it may delay the submission of proposals;

The discussions were centred on:

-  A possible extension of the Delegation Agreement

DG HOME suggested to ICMPD to consider the extension of the Delegation
Agreement. A no-cost extension should be requested and presented with the
necessary justifications. A revised description of tasks (Annex 1) and budget should
accompany the request, providing for sufficient time for each action and MPF itself
to be thoroughly evaluated.  Before formal submission, the request will be informally
discussed with DG HOME.

-  Priority countries

EEAS mentioned that the Commission published on 7 June a Communication on
establishing a new Partnership Framework with third countries.  The Communication
provided the priority for some countries. The suggestion was thus that MPF should
explore the possibility of identifying project ideas for Ethiopia, Jordan, Lebanon,
Nigeria and Tunisia. Further discussions between ICMPD and DG HOME will continue
regarding the identification of potential areas for actions under the MPF and more
targeted outreach strategies to various stakeholders.

DG HOME underlined that priority countries were already discussed during the
elaboration of the Annual Work Plan (AWP) 2016. At that time, the focus was on the
new MPs: Azerbaijan, Jordan, Morocco and Tunisia. It was also agreed that, to the
extent possible, geographical balance should be ensured. For Nigeria and Ethiopia,
which benefit already from EDF funds, MPF can be used to kick-off the
implementation of the CAMM. MPs that are about to be signed (e.g. Belarus) should
also be supported (though in the case of Lebanon negotiations have been
suspended for the moment).

-  Evaluation tools

The MPF team is now developing tools to evaluate and monitor actions implemented
under scenario A. Monitoring and evaluation of MPF as such will be discussed with
DG Home in the coming weeks.

MPF state of play: implementation of the AWP 2016 (B1 and B2),
achievements and lessons learnt (ICMPD)

Scenario B1 has been triggered for the first time by the Hungarian Ministry of Interior.
A positive feedback from the Steering Committee was received on 23/09/2016.

DG HOME mentioned the importance of better structuring the information that will
be formally shared with the Steering Committee when an EU Member State decides
to trigger this scenario. In this regard, a quick fact-check stage, to be conducted by
the MPF team, is required upon the submission of the B1 request in order to analyse
the potential impact of the proposed action vis-à-vis other existing initiatives and
projects, thus ensuring active synergies and overcoming duplications.

The discussion also tackled coordination tools of MPs, such as local cooperation
platforms (LCP) and scoreboards. DG HOME suggested holding videoconferences
with EUDELs to discuss possible creation of new LCPs. Methodology for MP
scoreboards and their updating will be further explored by ICMPD together with DG
HOME.

Regarding scenario B2 (horizontal activities), MPF has made progress on the following
tasks:

-  Analysis of the political and operational framework. The core activity was
the update and analysis of the Tunisian scoreboard. The scoreboard
provides now a consolidated picture of landscape and projects in Tunisia.
This exercise has led to the identification of some gaps which could
potentially be tapped by MPF. Besides, MPF is also col ecting and sharing
partner countries priorities among MS with a view to matching interests and
proposing concrete actions.

-  Knowledge management and dissemination of good practices. For
example, the MPF team regularly identifies together with partner countries
and on the basis of the existing scoreboards the priorities that could be
tackled under the MPF and liaises subsequently with the EU MS in order to
inform share this information with them and to discuss possible project
ideas.

-  Outreach, communication and awareness raising. A regional workshop
gathering Eastern partnership countries that signed a Mobility Partnership,
(Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Moldova plus Belarus as a future MP
country and Ukraine as an observer), together with EU MS and
international organisations/NGOs was held in July in Moldova. The
workshop was instrumental to sharing experiences with actions
implemented under MPs and in formulating priorities for the future.
However, the underestimated budget for travels costs and visibility events
impact on the effectiveness of activities aiming to promote MPF and foster
cooperation among interested bodies.

DG HOME highlighted the importance of MPF visibility and more specifically of a
more visible link to the Call for proposals on ICMPD website. Further outreach on MPF
will be carried out with regard to police cooperation and legal migration, possibly
involving DG EMPL.

Proposal for amendment to Annual Work Plan

ICMPD presented an update of the AWP 2016. The biggest change concerns the
Annual Conference that will not take place in 2016. Changes occurred to the
Jordanian administration following the recent Parliamentary elections do not ICMPD
to organise such event by the end of November 2016. Also, it was not deemed
feasible to organise the workshop given that the simultaneous presence of all
southern partners cannot be guaranteed, due to the stall of EU-Moroccan relations.

A number of estimated figures have also been amended for specific activities in
order to reflect the changes made and the necessary budgetary adjustments. The

Steering Committee members were reminded that the costs of individual activities in
the AWP are of estimative nature and their inclusion in the Plan is a means to
monitor, in particular, the execution of different budget lines from which they are
financial y covered and the entire budget dedicated to the B2 scenario (horizontal
activities).

In order to be able to organise and implement visibility and outreach activities,
ICMPD will explore the possibility offered by Article 11.4 of the Delegation
Agreement.1

As proposed by DG HOME after the SC meeting, some adjustments would stil  be
made and the amendment to the Annual Work Plan would be shared with the SC.
These will concern especially the timing of horizontal activities, such as workshops
and conferences.

Proposals for amendments to the Rules of Procedures of the Steering
Committee and the Grant Evaluation Committee (ICMPD)

The main changes regarding the Rules of Procedures of the Steering Committee
concern the methodology linked to Scenario B1. Despite the risks of parallel
communication, the SC agreed that ICMPD should continue to consult EU MS, the SC
and EU Delegations. DG HOME suggested extending the timeframe in order to give
more time for reactions.
A document gathering facts and information about the proposed action will be
drafted by ICMPD and shared before the consultation phase.

The amendments to the Grant Evaluation Committee Rules of procedures focus on:
-  The terminology used for Scenario B1 (which should be different from the
one used for Scenario A);
-  The timetable in case  clarifications are required;
-  The signature of the Evaluation Report for Scenario B1.
The amendments to both documents wil  be adjusted based on the discussion of the
SC. Subsequently, the Rules of Procedures of the Grant Evaluation Committee will be
shared with the SC for information; the Rules of Procedures of the Steering
Committee wil  be submitted to the SC for approval.

Conclusions and follow up
x  The SC took note of the progress in MPF implementation in the six months
following the first SC meeting.
x  The possibility of a no-cost prolongation of the Delegation Agreement wil  be
explored by ICMPD.

1 By derogation from Articles 11.1, 11.2 and 11.3, where an amendment to Annex I and/or Annex III does not
affect the basic purpose of the Action, and the financial impact is limited to a transfer within a single budget
heading, including cancellation or introduction of an item, or a transfer between headings involving a variation
(as the case may be in cumulative terms) of 25% or less of the amount originally entered (or as amended by a
written rider) in relation to each concerned heading the Organisation may unilaterally amend Annex I and/or
Annex III and shall inform the Contracting Authority accordingly in writing, at the latest in the next report. The
Indicators described in Annex I may be changed by the Organisation in agreement with the European
Commission, without the need for a formal rider to the Agreement if the change does not affect the basic
purpose of the Action ”.

x  MPF reach-out to stakeholders dealing with police cooperation and legal
migration will be boosted by ICMPD, with the support of DG HOME.
x  Monitoring and evaluation tools for actions implemented under the MPF as
well as for the entire MPF implementation will be developed by ICMPD and
shared with DG HOME.
x  Amendments to the AWP will be introduced based on the SC meeting
discussion and shared with the SC for information.
x  Amendments to the Rules of Procedure of the  Grant Evaluation Committee
will reflect the SC meeting discussion and shared with the SC for information.
x  Amendments to the Rules of Procedures of the Steering Committee will reflect
the SC meeting discussion and submitted to the SC for approval.