“Integrated Border Management”Action Plan

2014–2017

Imprint

Photo creditsFDFA/Directorate for Corporate Resources, Bulletin editorial staff: cover pageKeystone: cover page

Published by: Federal Office for Migration (FOM),Quellenweg 6, CH-3003 Bern-Wabern

Editing andconcept: FOM, Entry Division and Executive Staff Office for Information and CommunicationRealisation: www.casalini.chAvailable from: SFBL, Federal publications, CH-3003 Bern,

www.bundespublikationen.admin.chArt. No. 420.103.E© FOM/FDJP November 2014

12.14 110 860345995

Contents

Abbreviations 5

Glossary 7

Foreword 10

0. Management Summary 12

1. Introduction 14

2. The added value of integrated border management 16

3. Scenario 17

3.1 Facts and figures 173.1.1 Travel movements across the external and internal border 173.1.2 Illegal immigration 173.1.3 Asylum 203.1.4 Return 203.1.5 Cross-border crime 21

3.2 Legal aspects 223.3 Definition of responsibilities 233.4 Scope and interfaces 23

4. Switzerland’s IBM strategy 25

4.1 General goals 254.2 Strategic guidelines 264.3 Problem areas 264.4 Individual objectives 264.5 Sustainability 27

5. Action plan 28

5.1 Introduction 285.2 “Third Countries” subproject 29

5.2.1 Overview 295.2.2 Measures 305.2.3 Findings 325.2.4 Financial impacts 335.2.5 Summary 33

5.3 “International Cooperation” subproject 345.3.1 Overview 345.3.2 Measures 355.3.3 Findings 385.3.4 Financial impacts 395.3.5 Summary 39

4

5.4 “Border” subproject 405.4.1 Overview 405.4.2 Measures 415.4.3 Findings 455.4.4 Financial impacts 455.4.5 Summary 46

5.5 “Internal” subproject 475.5.1 Overview 475.5.2 Measures 485.5.3 Findings 515.5.4 Financial impacts 525.5.5 Summary 52

5.6 “General” subproject 535.6.1 Overview 535.6.2 Measures 545.6.3 Findings 605.6.4 Financial impacts 615.6.5 Summary 61

6. Implementation of the measures 62

6.1 Finance 626.2 Schedule 636.3 Monitoring 656.4 Framework agreement 65

7. Overall conclusion 66

ANNEX I: Overview of individual objectives by main topic group 68

ANNEX II: Agencies and organisational units involved in the action plan 71

ANNEX III: Measures by realisation phase 72

5

Abbreviations

ALO Airline Liaison Officer

AP Action plan

API Advance Passenger Information (electronic sys-

tem that sends passenger data to the relevant

border management agencies immediately after

airline check-in)

BE Canton of Bern

BMS Biometric Matching System (subsystem

of → VIS; used to check that the biometric

data being scanned match the data stored

in the database)

CC Web Competency Centre Web of the → GS-FDJP

CD Consular Directorate of the → FDFA

CHF Swiss francs

CISA Convention implementing the Schengen

Agreement of 14 June 1985 between the

Governments of the States of the Benelux

Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Ger-

many and the French Republic on the gradual

abolition of checks at their common borders

CP Cantonal police

CS-VIS Centralised European visa system

DDPS Federal Department of Defence,

Civil Protection and Sport

DEA Directorate for European Affairs

of the → FDFA

DETEC Federal Department of the Environment,

Transport, Energy and Communications

DGC Directorate General of Customs

of the → FDF

DIL Directorate of International Law

of the → FDFA

DPA Directorate of Political Affairs of the → FDFA

DR Directorate for Resources of the → FDFA

EAER Federal Department of Economic Affairs,

Education and Research

EBF External Borders Fund

EFTA European Free Trade Association

EMF Resident services, migration and immigration

police of the City of Bern

EMN European Migration Network

(supports political decision-making processes

in asylum-related and migration-related matters

at a European level)

EU European Union

EVA Electronic visa issuance system

FCA Federal Customs Administration

of the → FDF

FDF Federal Department of Finance

FDFA Federal Department of Foreign Affairs

FDHA Federal Department of Home Affairs

FDJP Federal Department of Justice and Police

FDPIC Federal Data Protection and Information

Commissioner

fedpol Federal Office of the Police of the → FDJP

FEDRO Federal Roads Office of the → DETEC

FIS Federal Intelligence Service of the → DDPS

FNA Foreign Nationals Act ( → SR 142.20)

FOBL Federal Office for Buildings and Logistics

of the → FDF

FOJ Federal Office of Justice of the → FDJP

FOM Federal Office for Migration of the → FDJP

FSO Federal Statistical Office of the → FDHA

GE Canton of Geneva

GR Canton of Graubünden

GS-FDJP General Secretariat of the → FDJP

IBM Integrated Border Management

ICAO International Civil Aviation Organization

ILA Integral survey of the external border

INAD Inadmissible passenger (i.e. a passenger

who does not meet the entry requirements)

IPAS Computerised identity, legitimation and

administrative system of → fedpol

ISA Information system for ID documents

ISC-FDJP IT Service Center of the → FDJP

ISF Internal Security Fund

ISR Information system for issuing Swiss travel

documents and re-entry passes to foreign

nationals

KdK Conference of Cantonal Governments

KKJPD Conference of Cantonal Directors of Justice

and Police Directors

KKPKS Conference of Cantonal Police Commanders

of Switzerland

KSBS Conference of Law Enforcement Authorities

of Switzerland (since 2014 → SSK)

LU Canton of Lucerne

MoU Memorandum of Understanding

PCN Process Control Number (number unambigu-

ously linked to a fingerprint taken within the

context of EURODAC)

RIPOL Recherches informatisées de police (Swiss

Confederation's automatic tracing system)

6

RPC Reception and Processing Centres

of the → FOM

RTP Registered Traveller Programme

(automatic border control system requiring

preregistration)

SAA Schengen Association Agreement:

Agreement of 26 October 2004 between

the Swiss Confederation, the European

Union and the European Community on

the association of that State with the imple-

mentation, application and development

of the Schengen Acquis → SR 0.362.31

SBG Swiss Border Guard of the → FDF

SDC Swiss Agency for Development

and Cooperation of the → FDFA

SECO State Secretariat for Economic Affairs

of the → EAER

SIRENE Supplementary Information Request at

the National Entry (office in every Schengen

Member State for exchanging police

operations information in association

with the → SIS between Member States)

SIS Schengen Information System

SSK Conference of Swiss Prosecution Authorities

(until 2014 → KSBS)

SO Canton of Solothurn

SPI Swiss Police Institute

SR Systematic collection of federal laws

SVZW Swiss Civil Servants’ Association

VIS European Visa Information System

VKM Association of Cantonal Migration Agencies

VS Canton of Valais

VSAA Association of Swiss Labour Market

Authorities

ZEMIS Central Migration Information System

ZH Canton of Zurich

7

Glossary

Action plan: List of specific measures required inorder to attain the objectives defined in the bordermanagement strategy.

ALO: Airline Liaison Officers are document experts.After undergoing needs-based training and coaching,they support the airlines at the check-in and/or pre-boarding stage in verifying document authenticityand detecting misappropriated documents. ALOs aregenerally appointed by the border control agenciesand are deployed outside of the Schengen Area.

ALO Steering Body: Deployments of Swiss ALOs arecoordinated by a Steering Body comprising the FDFA(CD), the FDJP (FOM) and the FDF (SBG). The SteeringBody is appointed by a tripartite agreement.

Border control agency: All federal and cantonalauthorities responsible for the control of personsat Schengen external borders.

Border management: Border management encom-passes all official activities along the migration ortravel process. Apart from the actions and instrumentsfalling directly under border control, this also includesupstream activities in countries of origin or transit(third countries) as well as internal measures down-stream. It also covers actions related to internationalcooperation. This four-tier immigration control model(“four-filter model“) is described in more detail inChapter 4.

Border management agency: All authorities involvedin the border management process, whether at anational or cantonal level (cf. 3.3).

Border management strategy: A catalogue of policyand operational goals as well as strategic guidelinesand other tools for a comprehensive, effective and effi-cient border management system.

Border Steering Committee: A committee compris-ing a high-level representative from the Federal Officeof Police, the Swiss Border Guard, the Federal Officefor Migration, the Zurich Airport Police and the Inter-national Security Police of the Canton of Geneva.It assists the FOM in the planning of border control,in particular, and continually seeks to identify poten-tial improvements to border control.

DUBLIN-OUT Procedure: When an individual seeksasylum in Switzerland, it must first be determinedwhether that person has already lodged an asylumapplication in another Dublin State, in which casethat State is responsible for the asylum claim. If Swit-zerland establishes that another Dublin State bearsresponsibility, that State will be requested to takecharge of the applicant (known as the Out Proce-dure). If the request is accepted, the application inSwitzerland is dismissed. The asylum seeker mustthen leave Switzerland, and the Member Stateresponsible must process the asylum application.

E-document System Platform: Technical subsystemthat can be used to record biometrics data andcheck → e-documents.

E-documents: Documents that comply with ICAODocument 9303 and contain a chip with electronical-ly stored data.

External borders: National borders (airports, landand maritime borders) between a Schengen MemberState and a non-Schengen Member State, i.e. a thirdcountry.

External Borders Fund: The External Borders Fundwas part of the European Commission’s GeneralProgramme “Solidarity and Management of Migra-tion Flows“ for the period 2007–2013 (successor:see Internal Security Fund). The fund aimed to estab-lish financial solidarity within the Schengen Areaby supporting those countries for which implementa-tion of the common standards for controlling andsurveillance of the Schengen external borders repre-sented a heavy financial burden.

8

Eurodac: The European Union's centralised finger-print database for asylum-related matters.

FRONTEX: European Agency for the Management ofOperational Cooperation at the External Borders ofthe Member States of the European Union. FRONTEXcoordinates joint operations between Member Statesin the management of external borders, assists inthe training of national border guards including theestablishment of common training standards, carriesout risk analysis, follows research developmentsrelevant for the control and surveillance of externalborders, assists Member States in circumstancesrequiring increased technical and operational assist-ance at external borders, and provides MemberStates with the necessary support for organisingjoint return operations.

Illegal immigration: All forms of migration thatare unauthorised and therefore unlawful.

“Integrated Border Management Action Plan“Steering Committee: Working group establishedby the Federal Council (hereinafter referred to asthe “Steering Committee“: cf. Annex II) comprisingrepresentatives from the Confederation (FDFA: CD;FDF: SBG; FDJP: FOM, fedpol; DDPS: FIS) and thecantons (KKJPD, KKPKS, VKM and one representativeeach from the cantonal police forces of Zurich andGeneva). The tasks of this Steering Committee en-compass verification and decision-making regardingthe results of project work and validation of thepresent action plan for the Federal Council.

Internal Security Fund: The Internal Security Fund(ISF) is part of the EU’s proposed Home Affairs fund-ing for the period 2014-2020. The ISF is comprisedof two instruments: one for police cooperation (ISFPolice) and one for financial support of external bor-der management and the common visa policy (ISFBorders & Visas). As the successor instrument to theExternal Borders Fund (EBF), ISF Borders & Visas isa development of the Schengen Acquis and providesparticipating states with the means for supportingmeasures related to external borders and visa policy.

JANUS: Encrypted communication systemof the federal criminal police (fedpol).

KKJPD: The Conference of Cantonal Justice andPolice Directors brings together the cantonal govern-ment members responsible for the areas of “Justice“and “Police“. Its purpose is to facilitate the cantons’cooperation among themselves, with the Confeder-ation and with other organisations in the field ofjustice and police.

KKPKS: Based on its role as an operational specialistconference, the Conference of Cantonal Police Com-manders of Switzerland acts as the executive bodyof the KKJPD and deals mainly with matters of policemanagement. This committee focuses on cooperationamong the police forces and on defining joint strate-gies and the generation of synergies.

ORBIS: New visa-issuance system (successor to EVA)(since 20 January 2014).

People smuggling, qualified: Facilitation of illegalentry or transit of a person and/or illegal residencewith the intention of unlawful enrichment or as partof an ongoing commercial operation run by organ-ised criminal gangs or networks as per Art. 116 (3)FNA. Whereas the IBM strategy uses the term “peo-ple smuggling“ in this context, this action plan usesthe term “qualified people smuggling“, which ismore precise in legal terms. In cross-references tothe strategy document, however, the term “peoplesmuggling“ is kept. Both terms are primarily used asdistinct from the offences described in Art. 116 (1)FNA, which are not the focus of the strategy docu-ment and this action plan.

Prefrontier area: Geographical area beyond theexternal borders (countries of origin and transit).

Prüm Decision: European Decision on the intensi-fication of cross-border cooperation, particularlyfor the prevention of terrorism, cross-border crimeand illegal immigration. Cross-border prosecution isfacilitated through the easier exchange of DNA pro-files and fingerprints between Prüm Member States.

9

Risk analysis: Structured gathering and evaluationof relevant data to assess the level of threat withregard to illegal immigration.

Schengen: The Schengen Agreement, in existencesince 1985, promotes freedom of movement betweenthe participating countries through the removal of sys-tematic border controls without reasonable suspicion.To compensate for this, and to increase the SchengenMember States’ internal security, checks at the Schen-gen external borders are intensified. Crossborder coop-eration between national police forces is also steppedup. This cooperation is centred on the Schengen Infor-mation System (SIS), a joint electronic database fortracing individuals. The national operational structurebehind the SIS is the SIRENE office (or simply SIRENE),which forms part of the fedpol operations centre.

Schengen commitment appropriation: The contin-uous development of the Schengen/Dublin Acquisand the acceptance of new states in the SchengenArea call for new and expanded IT applications ata national level. To finance this work (including themaintenance of existing systems), two commitmentappropriations have been requested to date.

SSK (formerly KSBS): The Conference of SwissProsecution Authorities fosters cooperation and theexchange of views among all cantonal and federalprosecution authorities operating in criminal matters.Its primary activity is early participation in legislativework on criminal law and procedural law.

Swiss Police Institute: This Institute provides train-ing and further development of police personnelfrom all over Switzerland. The SPI’s Board of Trusteesincludes representatives of the Confederation, theKKJPD, the KKPKS, the Association of MunicipalPolice Chiefs (SVSP) and the Association of SwissPolice Officers (VSPB).

Technical Committee for ID Documents: A com-mittee set up as part of the “Operating Conceptfor the E-document System Platform“, with productresponsibility for the → E-document System Plat-form. The committee includes representatives ofFOBL, FOM, CD, fedpol and FCA.

Third country: A non-Schengen Member State.

Visa Steering Committee: Committee with repre-sentatives from the Consular Directorate (CD) ofthe FDFA, the cantons (represented by the VKM)and the FOM on institutionalisation of cooperationin visa-related matters. The Visa Steering Committeeplays a leading role in developing strategies andprocedures with respect to visas.

VISION: Visa Inquiry Open Border Network; auto-mated procedure for consulting with other SchengenStates regarding the granting of Schengen visas.

10

Foreword

Dear reader

The tragic pictures from Lampedusa – and the suffering that takes place there regularly –have touched many of us. This small Italian island may be over 1000 kilometres away –but these human tragedies concern Switzerland nevertheless: in particular, our bordermanagement.

Within Europe, Schengen stands for an important milestone: the freedom of movement.Since Switzerland joined the Schengen Area in 2008, the systematic control of peopleat our borders made way to a more sophisticated system: free movement within theinternal borders – tighter controls at the external borders.

To prevent organised crime groups, smuggling gangs and other criminals from misusingthis freedom of movement, compensatory measures had been introduced alongside fromthe beginning. For example, police cooperation with Schengen states has been strength-ened and harmonised, and equipped with state-of-the-art technology such as theSchengen Information System (SIS).

However, to keep abreast of the growing complexity and dynamics of legal and illegalmigration, the individual Schengen member states – including Switzerland – must rethinktheir strategy.

An efficient and integrated border management is the most effective means of meetingthese challenges. Following on from the Federal Council’s approval in 2012 of a corres-ponding strategy, I am pleased to present the following action plan, which representsan important milestone in this matter.

As a tourist destination, Switzerland benefits from Schengen: visitors to Europe who havea Schengen visa no longer need an additional visa to also spend their holidays in Switzer-land for example. However, the strongly increasing number of passengers travelling throughour airports sometimes brings the border control agencies to the limits of their capacitiestoday. Speeding up border controls by means of automatic gates, as foreseen under theaction plan, will take some of the pressure off the border control authorities while expand-ing Switzerland’s appeal as a tourist destination and economic centre.

In our federal system, with six different border management agencies at federal andcantonal level, harmonisation of border management practices must be ensured at all times.Harmonisation, from training to day-to-day work at the border, is thus a main pillar of theaction plan.

Integrated border management equips us to deal with the challenges of the future. Greaterefficiency in this field will ultimately take some of the burden off the federal and cantonalauthorities. Costs arising from illegal migration, especially in the area of return, are expectedto fall and, for legal travellers, crossing borders will become even easier.

I would like to thank all our partners for their committed and constructive cooperation,which made the compiling of this action plan possible.

Mario GattikerDirector of the Federal Office for Migration (FOM)

Mario GattikerDirector of the Federal Officefor Migration (FOM)

11

Dear reader

The Cantons recommended the approval of the accession to Schengen/Dublin with greatconviction in 2005. The agreements promised not only better mobility for citizens ofthe Schengen member states by abolishing the systematic control of people at Switzer-land’s borders, but also substantial improvements in combating crime. Nowadays, crim-inals – especially smugglers and human traffickers – operate transnationally. Schengenprovides the authorities with additional instruments to fight crime, thus enhancingthe security of Switzerland.

After more than five years as a member of Schengen, Switzerland has not becomeless safe: Switzerland’s track record in fighting and solving crime proves this. The dailycollaboration with our European partners illustrates the importance of the agreementfor the police and judiciary in a Europe that has never been as interconnected andas open as it is today.

However, there would be no need for an action plan if there was no potential for im-provement. Our federalist structure, with numerous border management agencies andpolice corps, requires close and end-to-end cooperation between all stakeholders to pre-vent Switzerland from becoming a gateway for criminals. The action plan will improveand intensify the at times complex cooperation between the cantons and their federalpartners.

The cantons play a central role in Swiss border management since they are responsible,together with the Confederation, for the operative implementation of border measures.For example, Swiss border police at the airports are often the first face that foreignvisitors see when they arrive in our country: they are Switzerland’s “business card”,so to speak. The cantonal police are also visible in their daily work, where they helpto expose illegal activities in the field of migration and hence prevent evasion of ourlegal system and damage to our economy.

As in all migration matters, the basic message in protecting our borders should be:“Harnessing the benefits of migration – opposing the problems efficiently!“

You can find out more about our concrete measures in this action plan.I wish you a good read.

Hans-Jürg KäserPresident of the Conference of Cantonal Justiceand Police Directors (KKJPD)

Hans-Jürg KäserPresident of the Conferenceof Cantonal Justiceand Police Directors (KKJPD)

12

0. Management Summary

After acknowledging the Final Report of the “Inte-grated Border Management“ Strategy Group in June2012, the Federal Council set up an interdepartment-al working group with cantonal participation underFOM leadership to formulate an action plan forimplementation of the strategy.

Integrated border management creates the followingadded value for Switzerland, and thus also forthe entire Schengen Area:

• Increased internal security;• Smoother border crossings for the travelling public;• Simplified and harmonised processes, resultingin a more efficient use of resources;

• Faster response times as a result of bettercooperation;

• More targeted use of limited resources throughimproved national risk analysis;

• A long-term, joint strategic approach.

With the broad participation of all agencies directlyinvolved, some 70 measures were defined in fivesubprojects (based on the four-filter model, cf.Chapter 4) with a view to attaining the objectivesset out in the strategy.• The “Third Countries” subproject encompassesthe first filter of the four-filter model and thus theactivities in countries of origin and transit (thirdcountries). The measures here focus mainly onoptimising procedures at Swiss representationsabroad;

• The “International Cooperation” subproject, likethe second filter, concentrates on measures foroptimising cooperation within the Schengen Area;

• The focus of the “Border” subproject is on thethird filter, i.e. the actual border control measuresat Schengen external borders (airports);

• The “Internal” subproject covers measures withinthe Schengen Area (fourth filter), especially regard-ing enforcement and qualified people smuggling;

• Finally, the “General” subproject contains measuresthat could not be clearly allocated to one of thefour filters/subprojects on account of their cross-cutting nature, e.g. information exchange, analysis,data reconciliation.

The measures defined in the action plan relate tooperational as well as strategic aspects. They rangefrom one-off measures for optimising the existingsituation to large-scale innovations. Some of themhave already been implemented, while some existonly in the form of studies to formulate further meas-ures. Taken individually, but especially as a whole,all of the measures make an important contributionto improving Swiss border management, laying thefoundation for attaining the general goals definedin the strategy.

The action plan envisages a staggered implementa-tion of the measures in three realisation phasesover the period 2014–2017. It also includes measuresthat are currently in progress or have already beenimplemented. The implementation work will beoverseen by the Entry Division of the FOM andan extended configuration of the existing BorderSteering Committee.

The cantons play a key role in implementation of thisaction plan. A framework agreement between theConfederation and the cantons will provide the basiccommitment and consensus on the action plan,paving the way for further joint implementationwork. The framework agreement will govern, amongother things, issues of cooperation, organisationand monitoring.

13

Financing has been secured for those measuresthat have already been initiated or are even alreadyimplemented. The financial and personnel impactof the remaining measures on the Confederationand cantons has been estimated, subject to certainconditions. Measures that could not be sufficientlydeveloped within the given time frame have beenformulated as studies or concept mandates to furtherexamine, in particular, the necessary resources.The action plan complies with the requirements ofbudget neutrality, where this is defined as an integralfactor covering all government levels. The specialistoffices involved in its formulation unanimously expecteach individual measure to reduce future expenditurefor the public sector as a whole to an extent that jus-tifies the cost of their implementation. The financingremains the responsibility of the agencies entrustedwith implementation.

What is border management?

Border management encompasses all officialactivities along the migration or travel process.Apart from actions and instruments fallingdirectly under border control, this also includesupstream activities in countries of origin ortransit (third countries) as well as internal meas-ures downstream. It also covers actions relatedto international cooperation. This four-tierimmigration control model (“four-filter model”)is described in more detail in Chapter 4.

14

1. Introduction

The Schengen Association Agreement fundamentallychanged the regime for the control of persons atthe external borders: while controls of persons havebeen virtually abolished at internal borders, checksat the external borders have been stepped up. Thischange to the system required new measures to becoordinated throughout the Schengen Area in thecombat against illegal immigration and cross-bordercrime. This calls for closer cooperation between bor-der management agencies, even at a national level,and better coordination of the various measures.

The EU Evaluation Committee, which in 2008/2009evaluated implementation of the requirements ofthe Schengen Acquis at external borders (airports),1

recommended in its report that Switzerland shoulddevelop a “comprehensive national plan containingall elements of integrated border management (…)“.Switzerland agreed to fulfil this recommendationand to formulate a national plan for the efficientand coordinated prevention of illegal immigrationand cross-border crime.

The “Integrated Border Management“ StrategyGroup set up by the Federal Council has formulatedan integrated border management strategy thatcomprises all relevant players at federal and cantonallevel. This was based on the EU’s IBM strategy,2

particularly the four filters of the Schengen bordersecurity model (cf. Chapter 4). In addition tothe police-related aspects of border management,the strategy also defines objectives regardingthe facilitation of legal entry.

On 1 June 2012, the Federal Council acknowledgedthe Strategy Group’s Final Report and, at the sametime, issued a mandate for formulating an action plan.This was to contain concrete measures for attainingthe individual objectives set out in the strategy. Thework commenced in September 2012 under the lead-ership of the FOM. The agencies involved in the “In-tegrated Border Management Action Plan“ workinggroup were the same as those previously involved informulating the strategy. At federal level, these werethe FDJP (FOM, fedpol), the FDFA (CD), the FDF (SBG)and the DDPS (FIS). The cantons’ interests were suita-bly addressed through the participation of the KKPKS,the KKJPD and the VKM (one member each). The Ge-neva and Zurich cantonal police forces also contribut-ed to the working group with one representative each.In order to cope with the broad thematic scope, thecomplexity and the large number of individual objec-tives to be addressed, the overall project managementteam placed five subprojects under the managementof the agencies most concerned. The results fromthe subprojects were then conveyed to the “Integrat-ed Border Management Action Plan“ working group,which assumed the role of a steering committeewithin the internal project organisation (cf. Annex II).

1 A further evaluation of the external borders took place in June 20142 Conclusions of the Justice and Home Affairs Council on 4-5 December 2006 (2768 th Justice and Home Affairs Council Meeting in Brussels)

15

In the present report (particularly from Chapter 5 on),the results of the “Integrated Border ManagementAction Plan“ working group are consolidated to formthe action plan itself.

The action plan should be viewed against the back-drop of the IBM strategy it seeks to implement. Chap-ter 4 thus provides a brief outline of the strategy andits essential features. In turn, the strategy is markedby the framework conditions (particularly legal) andby the phenomenology of legal and illegal immigra-tion and cross-border crime. This is covered in Chap-ter 3. Even an integral approach, as underlies theIBM strategy and the ensuing action plan, must bedefined in terms of the scope and interfaces withrelated issues and themes: this can be found underChapter 3.4 below. The advantages of such an inte-grated approach form the subject of Chapter 2.

3 Final Report of the “Integrated Border Management” Strategy Group, January 2012

The following Chapters 2 to 4 are largely basedon the chapters of the same name from the “FinalReport of the Integrated Border ManagementStrategy Group“ (hereinafter “the strategy“),3

which have been summarised and updated hereto place the Final Report in context.

16

2. The added value ofintegrated border management

Underlying the concept of integrated border manage-ment (IBM) is the realisation that none of the variousinstitutions and agencies involved in the vast field ofborder management can operate on their own: thetask areas are simply too complex, and there are toomany points of contact between the individual play-ers. Only with increased networking of the relevantagencies can substantial improvements be achievedin border management, leading to:• Increased internal security, e.g. by apprehending

more people smugglers and illegal residents andthereby preventing associated offences such asunreported employment and human trafficking

• Smoother border-crossings for the travellingpublic, e.g. with shorter waiting times or fasttrackprocedures, which also help to make Switzerlandmore attractive for business

• Simplified and harmonised processes resultingin a more efficient use of resources, e.g.by coordinating the controls of various agencies

• Faster response times as a result of bettercooperation between the agencies involved

• Improved national risk analysis at both the stra-tegic and operational levels, making more targeteduse of the limited resources

• A long-term, joint strategic approach, enablingborder management agencies to act not solelyon the basis of current threats but also with regardto future challenges.

The IBM concept has already been implementedin many EU and non-EU countries. There are success-ful examples of IBM existing among the old andthe new EU Member States, e.g. in Germany, France,Finland as well as in the Czech Republic. However,as each country must adapt the form and contentof its national IBM concept to its own geopoliticaland institutional circumstances, and each countrystarts out with a different integration scenario, therecan be no hard-and-fast rules for implementation.

As practice has shown, a plan involving so manydifferent agencies has to be based on a commonunderstanding of the various problems (e.g. basicanalysis, problem catalogue) and the objectivesto be fulfilled and must be reviewed on a regularbasis and updated if necessary.

Following on from the federal and cantonal agree-ment in 2012 on a national integrated bordermanagement strategy (cf. Chapter 4), this reportpresents the action plan outlining the measuresfor implementing the strategy.

17

3. Scenario

3.1 Facts and figures

The world is becoming increasingly mobile, with asteady rise in Europe in the number of travelling pub-lic and in migratory pressure. In Europe alone, thenumber of people crossing airport borders is expectedto increase from 400 million in 2009 to 720 millionby 2030.4 Similarly, border management agencies arefacing growing challenges in having to control andfilter ever-increasing numbers of travellers and immi-grants. If the number of border crossings at Switzer-land’s external borders were to increase to the sameextent, the number of staff solely responsible for bor-der control at Zurich Airport – Switzerland’s largestexternal border – would have to increase by some20%, unless the increase in passenger numbers canbe offset by technical innovations, greater efficiencyand other measures as set out in the action plan.

3.1.1 Travel movements across the externaland internal borderWhen the Schengen/Dublin Association Agreementcame into effect on 12 December 2008, Switzerlandbecame part of the Schengen Area, surroundedexclusively by other Schengen Member States.The borders to Germany, France, Italy, Austria andLiechtenstein are now internal Schengen borderswith no systematic passport control. As a result,Switzerland’s only external borders are at its airports.Switzerland currently has 12 such border-crossingpoints, the most important of these in terms of vol-ume being Zurich, Geneva and Basel airports.

At the three largest airports alone, some 14 millionpeople a year cross the border to and from non-Schengen countries. An estimated 240 million peoplecross Switzerland’s internal borders annually, of whomsome 24 million by air and 216 million by land.

In 2013 Switzerland processed around 500000 appli-cations for a Schengen visa5 (airport transit or short-term stay of up to 90 days), plus around 60000 appli-cations for a national visa (long-term stay of over 90days). The overall rejection rate was around 5%.

3.1.2 Illegal immigrationSwitzerland is confronted by various forms of illegalimmigration, such as qualified people smuggling andillegal entry/departure or illegal residence in Switzer-land.

Qualified people smugglingAs an international phenomenon, people smugglingknows no boundaries. The criminal gangs involved insuch practices are highly organised into internationalnetworks, which create the actual platform for illegalimmigration. The vast majority of illegal immigrantsuse the services of international people-smugglingnetworks to get from their country of origin or a tran-sit country to their destination. For instance, thesenetworks arrange travel documents for would-beimmigrants (e.g. a forged passport or fraudulentlyobtained visa), transportation and often also a ficti-tious reason for entry. This also applies for thoseseeking asylum in Switzerland.

4 EUROCONTROL Long-Term Forecast: Flight Movements 2010-2030, December 2010

http://www.eurocontrol.int/publications/eurocontrol-long-term-forecast-flight-movements-2010-20305 It should be noted that, in principle, individuals with a Schengen visa issued by another Schengen State can also enter Switzerland.

Also, certain visas allow for multiple entries. Therefore, the number of visas issued by Switzerland is not a direct or conclusive indication

of the number of travel movements

18

Fig. 1: Issued and rejected visas

Schengen Visas

600000

500000

400000

300000

200000

100000

0

2009

36052

2

2914

2

7088

3

2010

39619

3

2313

0

5994

9

2011

43438

3

2470

6

6087

9

2012

47792

2

2668

0

6027

4

2013

48885

6

2822

1

6221

5

n Total of Schengen visasissued by Switzerland

n Total of national visasissued by Switzerland

n Total of rejectedvisa applications

Facilitating unlawful entry or departure or unlawfulresidence is a punishable offence (Art. 116 FNA).Depending on the form it takes, it may be classifiedas a misdemeanour (para. 1), contravention of thelaw (“minor offence” as per para. 2) or a crime(”qualified offence” as per para. 3) punishable bya custodial sentence of up to five years and a fine.Since enactment of the FNA, there have been severalhundred convictions a year in application of theappropriate punishment. However, compared withthe number of people thought to be smuggled eachyear, very few convictions (only around 20 a year)are deemed a qualified offence.6

Entry refusals at the external bordersIn 2013 the border control agencies at Switzerland’sSchengen external borders registered a total of 966cases of denial of entry for failure to meet the entryconditions. The main reason given for entry refusalwas failure to produce a valid visa or a valid residencepermit, followed by enforcement of an entry ban pre-

viously issued by a Schengen Member State. The thirdmost common reason for being denied entry wasthe lack of sufficient financial means. Other reasonsincluded visa overstay, incorrect, forged or falsifiedtravel documents, insufficient proof of purpose ofstay, not being in possession of a valid travel docu-ment, presentation of an incorrect, forged or falsifiedvisa or residence permit, or posing a threat to publicsecurity and order.

Given Switzerland’s geographical circumstances, withno sea or land external borders, there is very littlechance of entering the country unchecked via a Schen-gen external border. For the Schengen Area as awhole, however, it is estimated that some 500000people a year enter illegally7 and are subsequentlyfree to move around the Schengen Area and maketheir way to Switzerland.

6 The corresponding statistics for 2013 were not yet available at the time of publishing this action plan7 European Commission: Justice, Freedom and Security in Europe since 2005: An Evaluation of the Hague Programme and

Action Plan. Brussels 2009. Page 6 and: University of Sussex. Transnational migration. Theory and method of an ethnographic analysis

of border regimes. 2009. Page 8

19

2013

Fig. 2: Convictions for facilitating/preparing unlawful entry/departure or residence under Art 116 FNA

Convictions under art. 116 FNA

1000

900

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

2010

871

755

61

233 20

2009

948

67

731 22

821

2011

60

1 17 15

687

594

2012

44

226 20

586

494

n Total convictionsArt. 116 FNA

n Para 1(a) (facilitation/preparation of unlawfulentry/exit or residence)

n Para 1(b) (procure-ment of unauthorisedemployment)

n Para 1(c) (facilitation/preparation of unlawfulentry to third country)

n Para 2 (minoroffence)

n Para 3 (qualifiedas for financial gainor by criminal gang)

Illegal residenceWithin the territory of Switzerland, illegal immigrationis detected upon intercepting people who do not havea legal right of residence. The SBG alone recordedmore than 10000 people in 2013 without a legitimateresidence status (no details are currently available fromthe cantonal and municipal police forces).

In 2013, there were some 3000 cases of illegal resi-dence detected upon departure via the externalborder. This includes people who entered legally andsubsequently overstayed their visa as well as thosewho entered illegally in the first place and never hada legitimate residence status.

A total of some 10000 infringements of entry condi-tions (Art. 115 (1) (a) FNA) and some 18000 casesof illegal residence (Art. 115 (1) (b) FNA) were detectedwithin Switzerland in 2011.

Overall, it is estimated that some 90000 undocu-mented immigrants8 are living in Switzerland.

8 Claude Longchamp et al., Sans-Papiers in der Schweiz: Arbeitsmarkt, nicht Asylpolitik ist entscheidend. Bern 2005. Page 1

20

450

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

Entry refusals by reason

n 2012 n 2013

No valid visa/residencepermit

Entry ban Insufficientmeans ofsubsistence

No appropriateproof of purposeand conditions

of stay

Overstay False,counterfeit,

or forged traveldocument

No valid traveldocument

Threat tointernal security

or order

False,counterfeit,or forged visaor residence

permit

319

269

235

208

94

199

74

92

9486

4055 49 42

3 9 11 6

Fig. 3: Entry refusals by reason

3.1.3 Asylum21465 asylum applications were filed in Switzerlandin 2013, of which 384 were at Zurich, Geneva, andBasel airports. In 5339 cases, immigrants interceptedby the SBG subsequently filed for asylum and weretranferred to an FOM reception and processing centre.

There were thus 2.68 asylum seekers in 2013 for every1000 inhabitants, placing Switzerland in third placein Europe (excluding the microstates), after Swedenand Malta. The European average in 2013 was 0.85asylum seekers per 1000 inhabitants.

23966 first-instance decisions were issued, witha recognition rate of 15.4%.

The average cost per asylum seeker was aroundCHF 18000 a year.

3.1.4 ReturnSome 6800 cases of administrative detention wererecorded in 20129 for the removal of undocumentedimmigrants and/or rejected asylum seekers (mainlydetention pending deportation, but also coercive de-tention and detention in preparation for departure).This figure has been increasing since 2008.

In 2013, a further 12000 people were officiallyremoved from Switzerland by air. This was the firstyear-on-year decline since Switzerland joined theSchengen Area (2012: approximately 13800 persons).A further 6800 people left the country unofficiallyor went missing.

The exit and enforcement costs incurred by the FOMcame to over CHF 34.5 million in 2013. The mainexpenditure items were: exit costs (CHF 13.7 million);compensation of detention costs to the cantons(CHF 15.3 million); costs for acquiring travel papers;costs for determining origin and identity; flight costs;accompanying costs; delegation expenses for centralconsultations; and costs for airport services.

9 The corresponding statistics for 2013 were not yet available at the time of publishing this action plan

21

Fig. 4: Illegal stay

Illegal stay

20000

18000

16000

14000

12000

10000

8000

6000

4000

2000

0

3.1.5 Cross-border crimeFollowing the removal of systematic controls on per-sons when crossing the border at European internalborders, crime in Central Europe has become moremobile and international (irrespective of Switzerland’sparticipation in Schengen). To combat this trend, vari-ous instruments have been created within Schengento expand and intensify the level of interagency coop-eration in cross-border security. Also, mobile units cannow conduct surveillance within the territory.

A range of Schengen Association measures serve toimprove international judicial and police cooperation inthe prevention of cross-border crime. These include se-curity measures associated with increased cross-borderpolice cooperation, such as the Europe-wide SchengenInformation System (SIS) or better mutual legal assis-tance. The recording and exchange of biometric dataamong Schengen States in the centralised Europeanbiometrics database BMS (Biometric Matching System)also supports more efficient crime prevention.

In the public’s perception of cross-border crime, thisis a problem that tends to be associated with freedomof movement and Switzerland’s membership of theSchengen Area. Opinions vary between the cantons,especially those adjacent to a national border, withsome cantons barely noticing any change, while othersare clearly experiencing higher crime rates (e.g. attackson petrol stations), especially in urban areas (e.g.Geneva and Basel).

Based on the current facts, however, no direct relation-ship can be determined between immigration and/orthe Schengen Association and rising crime rates inSwitzerland. As border controls were not systematiceven before the introduction of Schengen and customschecks continue at the same rate as before, the intro-duction of Schengen has merely shifted the focus ofcontrol but not actually changed its intensity to anygreat extent. Also, special-purpose checks can stillbe carried out, as before the Schengen Association.

3467

2009

1097

7

7453

2010

4349

1167

6

6774

2011

5614

1299

5

8277

201298

99

1480

1

9619

2013

1068

4

1780

7

1021

9

n Total of detections of illegalstay by the SBG in the internalarea (Switzerland)

n Total of complaints acc.to art. 115 para. 1 lit. a FNA(violation of entry provisions)

n Total of complaints acc.to. art. 115 para. 1 lit. b FNA(illegal stay)

22

Fig. 5: Asylum applications per 1000 inhabitants in 2013

Asylum applications per 1000 inhabitants in 2013

SWE

MLT

CHE

NOR LIE

AUT

LUX

HUN

BEL

DNK

DEU

BGR

FRA

CYP

NLD

Mean

GRC FIN

GBR ITA ISL

POL

HRV IRL

SVN

LTU

ESP

LVA

SVK

EST

ROU

CZE PRT

6,00

5,00

4,00

3,00

2,00

1,00

0,00

5,95

5,39

2,68

2,54

2,35

2,13

2,08

1,94

1,52

1,36

1,35

1,02

1,00

0,99

0,86

0,85

0,75

0,61

0,46

0,45

0,43

0,40

0,24

0,20

0,14

0,10

0,09

0,09

0,08

0,08

0,07

0,06

0,05

3.2 Legal aspects

Pan-European cooperation in police, judicial andmigratory issues is primarily enshrined in the 1990Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement(CISA)10 With the Schengen Association Agreement(SAA)11 from 2004, Switzerland assumed the Schen-gen Acquis applicable at that time and agreed toaccept, implement and apply all future developmentsof Schengen. Switzerland is thus integrated into theSchengen system in most areas of border manage-ment. Switzerland is entitled to participate in futuredecision-shaping but not decision-making. It thusparticipates in expert meetings in Brussels, where itcan make its position known. This right to decision-shaping is significant because, as a rule, the subse-quent decision-making is made on a consensual basis.After being notified of the passing of a Schengen-relevant development, Switzerland has 30 days to

express its acceptance. If the legal act notified ismandatory, the EU’s notification and Switzerland’sreply form an exchange of notes, which representsan international treaty for Switzerland. Therefore,in accordance with the Constitution and the law,the power of approval lies with the Federal Councilor Parliament. In the latter case, the exchange ofnotes is subject to parliamentary approval and possi-bly an optional referendum. Switzerland has a maxi-mum of two years for acceptance and implementa-tion in this case. For regulations concerning bordermanagement matters, the Borders Code12 and theVisa Code13 are applicable. At a national level, theseprovisions are transposed primarily in the ForeignNationals Act14 and the associated implementingordinances.

10 EU Official Journal L 239 of 22 September 2000, p. 0019-006211 SR 0.362.3112 Regulation (EC) No. 562/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 establishing a Community Code

on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code)13 Regulation (EC) No. 810/2009 of the European Parliament and the Council of 13 July 2009 establishing a Community Code on Visas

(Visa Code)14 Federal Act of 16 December 2005 on Foreign Nationals; Foreign Nationals Act (FNA; SR 142.20)

23

3.3 Definition of responsibilities

The Swiss Border Management Strategy and thepresent action plan derived from it are aligned withSwitzerland’s federal structures. While strategicresponsibility for national border management liesprimarily with the Confederation (FDJP)15, operationalresponsibility for implementing border control meas-ures lies partly with the cantons.16 For instance, morethan half of the Schengen external border trafficflows through Zurich airport, controlled by Zurich’scantonal police force. The other cantons have (atleast partially) delegated their tasks in the control ofpersons at the external border to the SBG. Strategicand operational responsibility for measures withinthe territory lies also mainly with the cantons, particu-larly the police, the public prosecutor’s office andthe migration agencies. Here, too, some cantons havedelegated certain tasks to the SBG. Responsibilitiesfor measures in third countries and for internationalcooperation are distributed across various federalgovernment departments (FDFA: CD; FDF: SBG; FDJP:FOM, fedpol). Consequently, implementation of anational strategy on integrated border managementmust include and politically commit a wide range ofplayers at many different levels. As a rule, directivesmay be issued only within the individual organisationalunits but not beyond these. Incorporating such small-scale structures into the overall Schengen system,where transnational cooperation plays a key role, pos-es a major challenge. To complicate matters further,the agencies responsible for border management arehaving to cope with stagnating financial and humanresources at a time when their workload is expandingand increasingly complex in terms of both qualityand quantity.

3.4 Scope and interfaces

The Swiss IBM concept outlined here – like thatof most other Schengen States – concentrates onpolicing measures to reduce illegal immigration andon ways to detect illegal immigrants and supportenforcement of removal measures. This is closelyrelated to efforts to combat qualified human smug-gling, which in many cases acts as a platform forillegal immigration, and other forms of cross-bordercrime that frequently accompany or follow on fromillegal immigration. At the same time, however, sucha concept must also ensure that legitimate entryby the travelling public is processed as smoothly aspossible and that border management as a wholecomplies with the law and with the principles ofhuman rights.

This IBM concept overlaps with the report on inter-national cooperation in migration17 on certainpoints (namely, activities in the countries of originor transit of illegal immigration or cooperation withother countries). In that report, the Federal Councilspecifies the instruments of Swiss migration foreignpolicy and sets out the following three principles:

• Switzerland adopts a comprehensive approachthat addresses the social, economic and culturalbenefits of immigration as well as the associatedchallenges (irregular immigration, removal, humantrafficking);

• Switzerland promotes cooperation between thecountries of origin, transit and destination;

• An inter-departmental (whole-of-government)approach is taken so as to efficiently utilise theinstruments available in the area of migration(international and regional migration dialogue,migration partnerships, programmes for refugee“protection in the region“, prevention of irregularmigration, and return and structural assistance).

15 Art. 12 of the Organisation Ordinance of the Federal Department of Justice and Police (OO FDJP; SR 172.213.1)16 Art. 9 FNA17 “Bericht über die Internationale Migrationszusammenarbeit”, passed by the Federal Council on 16 February 2011

24

Switzerland’s international cooperation in migrationtakes a holistic and thus an even broader approachthan the concept of integrated border management,i.e. it also includes preventative measures targetingthe causes of illegal immigration (“push factors”),which do not form part of the IBM concept.

The entire field of customs control, which concernsthe cross-border transportation of goods, is to acertain extent closely related to border management.Special areas in this field include import/export meas-ures for plants, animals and animal products, as wellas immigration medical screening. In contrast tothis, the IBM strategy and action plan concentrateon issues concerning the entry and exit as well asthe residence of foreign persons.

Finally, the economic sphere also has various strat-egies dealing with the targeted promotion of touristtraffic. This often relates to economic promotion inthe wider sense – such as growth strategies in tour-ism or marketing strategies of airport operators –and is less concerned with the actual managementof these (legal) migration flows.

The Swiss border management strategy deliberatelytakes a narrower approach, excluding most of thoseareas just mentioned. It should be noted that thisstrategy is expandable, however, and it can be associ-ated with existing strategies.

In the discussions on Switzerland’s national IBM strat-egy, questions also arose on the distribution of tasksand responsibilities within the Confederation and,more especially, between the Confederation and thecantons. Particularly with respect to actual bordercontrol and police activities within Switzerland,the existing distribution of responsibilities was seenby some as problematic or at least less than ideal.

At the same time, and largely independently of this,the distribution of responsibilities between theConfederation and the cantons with regard tointernal security underwent a general review as partof the Malama18 postulate. In its report in responseto the postulate19, the Federal Council sees no reasonfor any major changes to the arrangements applic-able in the areas covered by the IBM strategy. TheFederal Council’s response to the Romano20 postulateis along the same lines, with a recommendation forrejection. This postulate has not yet been debatedin Parliament.

It is thus possible to retain the same approach chosenin the strategy, which envisages only those objectivesbased on the current definition of responsibilities.The measures formulated in the present action planfollow this same logic.

18 Malama Postulate 103045, Internal Security. Clarification of responsibilities, 3 March 201019 Federal Council’s report in response to the Malama postulate 103045 (in German), 2 March 201220 Romano Postulate 133551, Expansion of the Border Guard’s responsibilities. Illegal immigration and asylum, 20 June 2013

25

4. Switzerland’s IBM strategy

The decision to formulate a Swiss strategy of inte-grated border management was prompted by arecommendation from the Schengen evaluation in2008/2009, which specifically referred to the four-tier immigration control model (“four-filtermodel”) used in the Schengen Area. This modelassumes that measures to ensure efficient and suc-cessful prevention of illegal immigration shouldbegin even before the Schengen external border,in the countries of origin or transit, and shouldalso include measures within the Schengen Area.

Activities in countries of origin or transit 21 form thefirst filter in the prevention of illegal immigrationand cross-border crime. For example, a typical meas-ure in this respect is the visa procedure or the useof Airline Liaison Officers (ALOs) to assist airlinesby providing consulting and training in documentcontrol.

The second filter covers bilateral and multilateralcooperation with other countries (mainly SchengenMember States) in a joint effort to combat illegalimmigration and cross-border crime. Apart fromparticipation in various European and internationalorganisations, this also includes, for example, re-admission agreements with other Schengen Mem-ber States.

The third filter constitutes the actual border controlat the external border and focuses on technical inno-vations to assist in border control, such as the Regis-tered Traveller Programme (RTP) or Advance PassengerInformation (API).

The fourth filter covers all measures taken withinthe Schengen Area to prevent illegal immigration.This refers to all instruments that increase the likeli-hood of detection and/or improve or accelerateenforcement.

Activities that can be assigned to several filters ratherthan just one are called filter-independent activities.

This model, recognised in the context of Schengen,also serves as the basis for Switzerland’s integratedborder management model.

The various elements of the strategy are outlinedbelow. More detailed explanations can be foundin the Final Report.

4.1 General goals

Switzerland’s strategy for integrated border manage-ment defines the following four general goals:• Prevention of illegal immigration, particularly

in association with people smuggling• Prevention of cross-border crime• Facilitation of legitimate entry for the travelling

public• Border management in compliance with

the law and human rights principles

These general goals can be subdivided into twogroups, each of equal importance. On the one hand,the strategy must make a key contribution to prevent-ing illegal immigration as well as people smuggling.On the other hand, it must also ensure that legitimatetravellers are processed as smoothly as possible andthat border management as a whole complies withthe law and the principles of human rights. As such,the general goals blend seamlessly into Switzerland’smigration policy.

21 In the context of border management, third countries and countries of origin are often also referred to as the “prefrontier area”

26

4.2 Strategic guidelines

The strategic guidelines are, on the one hand, a reflec-tion of Switzerland’s political commitment to cooper-ate in the Schengen security union: they embed Swit-zerland’s border management within the Schengencontext and ensure its alignment with not just nationalstrategies but also the strategic and practical develop-ment in the Schengen Area and contribute to itsdesign. On the other hand, the strategic guidelinesalso contain general requirements for effective andefficient management.

4.3 Problem areas

Switzerland’s strategy for integrated border manage-ment consciously focuses on those areas found tohave definite potential for optimisation and in whichstrategic realignment is expected to yield the greatesteffect. The result is a collection of specific problem

areas (problem inventory) based on the underlyinganalysis, broken down into four filters and reworkedfollowing extensive discussions.

4.4 Individual objectives

A total of 49 individual objectives (cf. Annex I) werederived from the problem areas, with each problemarea generally assigned several objectives. The individ-ual objectives can be presented according to the four-filter structure. They can also be divided into threemain subject areas:

Intensification of nationwide approachThe Swiss border management system is character-ised by a large number of agencies responsible: atfederal level alone, these are spread over four ofthe seven federal government departments.22 Thereare also the cantonal administration and judicial au-thorities, i.e. immigration offices, police and judicial

22 FDFA (DEA, CD), FDF (FCA, especially SBG), FDJP (FOM, fedpol) and DDPS (FIS)

Figure 6: Four-filter model

Four-filter model(component of the EU’s system of integrated border management)

Filter 1

Activities in third countries

Filter 2

Cooperation withinthe Schengen Area

Filter 3

Measures at border control

Filter 4

Measures withinthe territory

For example

• Visa procedure

• Airline Liaison Officer(ALO)

• Migration Attachés

• Cooperation with /sanctioning of airlines

For example

• FRONTEX

• Liaison Office / Officers

• Council Study Group

For example

• Schengen-compliantcontrol of external border

• Automated border control

• Advance PassengerInformation (API)

• Entry-Exit-System (EES)

• Registered TravellerProgram (RTP)

For example

• Targeted internal controls

• Measures to detectforgeries

• Enforcement

Legitimate immigrationIllegal immigration / cross-border crime

27

bodies. For around half of the 49 individual object-ives, there is the hidden danger of failing to takea national approach, despite the many advantagesto such a federal, decentralised allocation of respon-sibilities. Weaknesses were mainly identified in theareas of information exchange, analysis, and situ-ational awareness with no or very little cost com-pensation.

Optimisation and harmonisation of training,equipment, infrastructures and proceduresThe large number of agencies responsible for bordermanagement not only poses a risk to the requirednationwide approach and the corresponding situ-ational awareness. At an operational level too, aroundhalf of the individual objectives are attributable tothe challenges posed by such a wide distribution ofcompetencies. The aim is to attain equivalence inthe main training points, efficient procurement anduse of equipment and infrastructures, and uniformbest practices.

Improved cooperation at an international leveland with the private sectorRoom for improvement was found in internationalcooperation with respect to operations (Filters 1, 3and 4) as well as strategic policy (Filter 2). Aroundone-eighth of the individual objectives seek progressin the operational and strategic policy exchange withother Schengen and EU Member States, in coopera-tion with private-sector firms (especially airlines) andin the exchange of information between Swiss andforeign border control agencies and police agencies.

4.5 Sustainability

On 1 June 2012, the Federal Council acknowledgedSwitzerland’s IBM strategy formulated in agreementwith the cantons.

The strategy sets out the main thrust of Switzerland’sborder management and, in principle, was designedfor the following five to seven years. This time horizongives sufficient flexibility for thorough and sustainableimplementation of the objectives defined in the pres-ent action plan.However, the requirements set out in the strategyshould not be viewed too rigidly, as it must still bepossible to absorb unforeseen events and new trends.A periodic test of effectiveness and general review ofthe entire strategy is thus crucial. The Border SteeringCommittee takes charge of the annual review. Thiscommittee under FOM leadership currently includesrepresentatives from the SBG, fedpol, and the Zurichand Geneva cantonal police forces. The Border Steer-ing Committee meets once a year in an extendedconfiguration with FDFA (CD), DDPS (FIS), VKM,KKJPD and KKPKS specifically to discuss ”IntegratedBorder Management“.

28

5. Action plan

5.1 Introduction

The action plan contains concrete measures for attain-ing the individual objectives set out in the strategy.The work on developing these measures commencedin September 2012 and was performed by the sameagencies who had previously participated in formulat-ing the strategy.

On account of the broad thematic scope, the complex-ity and the large number of individual objectives tobe addressed, the overall project management teamdecided to define the measures within five separatesubprojects. These correspond to the same subjectareas as the four filters (cf. Chapter 4). In addition tothe subprojects “Third Countries” (Filter 1), “Interna-tional Cooperation” (Filter 2), “Border” (Filter 3) and“Internal“ (Filter 4), a “General” subproject was setup to cover typical cross-cutting themes.

The main agencies involved in each case were broughtin to lead the subprojects. These collaborated withthe relevant cantonal and federal stakeholders for eachsubproject (cf. organisational chart in Annex II). Informulating the measures, therefore, a broad base ofexpert knowledge could be drawn upon. The meas-ures were consolidated by the subproject staff directlywith their submitting organisations, which led to con-siderable time savings with regard to the acceptanceof measures in the steering committee and thus theproject as a whole.

Differing perceptions of the various problems anddisparities attributable to the different outlooks be-tween operational agencies and those with a morestrategic orientation were repeatedly encountered.The discussions within the subprojects also highlight-ed the difficulties raised by so many different playersworking together on a daily basis. Not unexpectedly,Switzerland‘s federal structures proved one of thegreatest challenges in formulating measures withthe level of integrality required by the strategy. Toa certain extent, the creative scope was also restrict-ed by financing issues and institutional frameworkconditions.

The results of the subproject work completed at theend of May 2013, i.e. the measures formulated withinthe subprojects, are presented in this chapter. Thesubchapters correspond to the five subprojects. Foreach subproject, the problem areas and the individualobjectives are first outlined, drawn from the strategyand forming the basis for the subproject work. Thedrawn-up measures are then listed in the form of atable. Each table contains an explanation of the vari-ous measures, the agencies responsible, the indicatorsby which successful implementation can be measured,and the duration of the measures. An evaluation ofthe content of the measures developed can be foundunder the heading “Findings”, followed by a shortpresentation of the financial impact of the measures.

Quite a few of the measures developed as part of thesubprojects and described below were already imple-mented, or at least initiated, prior to acknowledgmentof the action plan, on account of their broad accept-ance and fast realisation. The measures describedbelow also include some that were initiated directlyafter acknowledgment of the strategy outside of theIBM action plan and/or whose financing was alreadysecured outside of the IBM action plan. The inclusionof projects that have already been implemented orinitiated gives a comprehensive overview of all IBMmeasures and thus also of the efforts made to attainthe four general goals defined in the strategy(cf. Chapter 4.1).

29

5.2 “Third Countries” subproject

5.2.1 OverviewThe ”Third Countries“ subproject covers the first filterin the four-filter model (cf. Chapter 4), i.e. activitiesconducted in third countries and countries of originfocusing mainly on measures to optimise proceduresat Swiss representations abroad. The strategyidentified two problem areas in this subproject:• Inadequate gathering, dissemination and/or use

of information available on site (P1.1)• Inadequate flow of information between

the levels of operations and strategic policy (P0.2)

For these two problem areas, the strategy defines fiveindividual objectives.

The underlying focus here is the trade-off betweenpreventing illegal immigration and promoting Swit-zerland as a business location and tourist desti-nation. Objective 1.1-5 calls for closer alignmentbetween the promotional efforts of economic andtourism stakeholders and the objectives of visa agen-cies and border control agencies as well as a moreefficient and traveller-friendlier visa procedure.

Objectives 1.1–1 and 1.1–2 address the availability ofsufficiently qualified consular staff at the representa-tions abroad and raising their awareness of the phe-nomena in relation to illegal immigration and peoplesmuggling. The strategy also calls for more intensiveutilisation of local cooperation with other Schen-gen Member States in the relevant third countries(Objective 1.1–3). The prevention of illegal immigra-tion and people smuggling should thus be more tar-geted and successful by pooling the various on-siteforces.

In the second problem area of the ”Third Countries“subproject, individual objective 0.2–4 of the strategyseeks to make Switzerland’s assistance to the coun-tries of origin and transit of illegal immigrants contin-gent upon their adoption of measures against peoplesmuggling.

The measures formulated to meet the five individualobjectives are listed in the following table.

30

Mea

sure

23Ex

planation

Responsibility

Rea

lisation

phase2

4

Duration

Indicators

Commen

ts

1.1–

1–1:

Listof

hotspot

coun

tries(illega

limmigratio

nvs.S

witzerland

’secon

omic/

tourism

interests)

Keepalistof

hotspot

coun

tries,

upda

tedyearly,

with

thevaria

bles

“Illega

limmigratio

n”(focus)a

nd“S

witzerland

’secon

omic/tou

rism

interests”

with

theob

jectiveof

making

amoretargeted

andconscien

tious

useof

resourcesat

therepresen

tatio

nsab

road

.

Lead

:GNAM

25

Participation:

FOM,S

BG,fed

pol,CD,

FIS,

VisaSteerin

gCom

-mittee

1Pe

rman

ent

Deliveryof

aspecificlistof

coun

triesby

theoffices

involved

(ann

ually)a

ndap

provalthereo

fby

the

VisaSteerin

gCom

mittee.

Estim

ationof

resources,training

,etc.in“P

reventi-

onof

illeg

alim

migratio

n”an

d“E

cono

mic/tou

rism

prom

otion”

ontheba

sisof

thelistof

hotspot

coun

tries

Resourcesan

dtask

plan

ning

attherepresen

tatio

nsab

road

ontheba

sisof

thelistof

hotspot

coun

tries

Thismeasure

serves

asaba

sis

formeasures

1.1–

1–2,

1.1–

1–3,

1.1–

2–1,

1.1–

3–1an

d1.1–

5–1

Dep

ende

nton

measure

0.1–

3–1(“Gen

eral”subp

roject):

FOM

willtake

thelead

ifthe

GNAM

isno

tim

plem

ented,

orin

thepe

riodpriorto

itsim

plem

entatio

n

1.1–

1–2:

Coo

rdinationof

Air-

lineLiaisonOfficers(ALO

s),

Immigratio

nLiaisonOfficers

(ILOs),P

oliceAttaché

s(PAs)

andDefen

ceAttaché

s(DAs)

Vario

uscoordina

tionmeasuresin

theop

erations

oftheseOfficers

and

Attaché

sto

improveefficiency,

espe

ciallyin

theho

tspot

coun

tries

Lead

:CD

Participation:

Arm

edForces

Staff,

FOM,S

BG,fed

pol

1Perm

anen

tPerforman

ceof

acu

rren

t-statean

alysis

Defi

nitio

nof

theoverlapp

ingof

individu

alroles

with

respectto

illeg

alim

migratio

n

Coo

rdinationof

stationing

concep

ts(overla

pping)

betw

eenoffices

Functio

ning

inform

ationflo

wbe

tween

theAttaché

s/ALO

s/ILOsan

dtheGNAM

26

Inform

ationflo

w:

Dep

ende

nton

interaliameasure

0.1–

3–1(“Gen

eral”subp

roject)

1.1–

1–3:

Training

mod

ule

“Illega

limmigratio

n”an

d“P

eoplesm

uggling”

for

represen

tatio

nsab

road

Locatio

n-specifictraining

mod

ule

inthefie

ldsof

“Illega

limmigratio

n”an

d“P

eoplesm

uggling”

forthe

lead

ingrepresen

tatio

nsab

road

onthelistof

hotspot

coun

tries

Integrationof

thismod

uleinto

the

training

concep

tsof

theag

encies

involved

forstaffaw

aren

esspu

rposes

Lead

:FO

M

Participation:

SBG,fed

pol,CD,FIS

1Perm

anen

tExistenceof

thege

neraltrainingmod

ule

Cou

ntry-spe

cific

conten

tdraw

nup

forthemost

impo

rtan

tcoun

trieson

thelistof

hotspot

coun

triesan

dintegrated

into

thetraining

mod

ule.

Increasing

orconstant

numbe

rof

visasrejected

onaccoun

tof

suspectedpe

oplesm

ugglingor

applican

tsno

texpe

cted

toad

dhe

reto

stated

purposeof

travel

Dep

ende

nton

measure

1.1–

1–1

1.1–

2–1:

Clarifi

catio

nof

need

srega

rdingtasks,resourcesan

dspecifickn

ow-how

forthe

lead

ingrepresen

tatio

nsin

the

coun

trieson

theho

tspot

list

Targeted

deploymen

tof

resources

(con

sularstaffan

dspecialists)a

ccor-

ding

totherepresen

tatio

ns’p

osition

onthelistof

hotspot

coun

tries

Lead

:DR,

CD

Participation:

FOM

11year

Com

pleted

clarificatio

nof

need

s

Hiring

,trainingan

dassign

men

tconcep

tforho

tspot

represen

tatio

ns

Adjustm

entsto

specificatio

nsba

sedon

theresults

oftheclarificatio

nof

need

s

Dep

ende

nton

measure

1.1–

1–1

23Themeasure

number

iscomprisedofthefilter

number

asper

thefour-filter

model(firstposition),thenumber

oftheproblemarea

withinthefilter

(secondposition),

thenumber

oftheindividualobjectivewithintheproblemarea

(thirdposition)andthenumber

ofthemeasure

withintheindividualobjective(fourthposition)

24Indicates

thestartofimplementation,cf.Section6.2

25Gem

einsames

Nationales

AnalysezentrumMigration(workingtitle;Jointnationalanalysiscentreformigration):seeMeasure

0.1–3–1ofthe“G

eneral”subproject(cf.Section5.6.2)

26Gem

einsames

Nationales

AnalysezentrumMigration(workingtitle;Jointnationalanalysiscentreformigration):seeMeasure

0.1–3–1ofthe“G

eneral”subproject

5.2.2Mea

sures

31

Mea

sure

23Ex

planation

Responsibility

Rea

lisation

phase2

4

Duration

Indicators

Commen

ts

1.1–

2–2:

Projectforop

timi-

satio

nof

thevisa

proced

ure(POV)

Verifi

catio

n,ad

aptatio

nan

dha

rmon

i-satio

nof

allvisaproc

esseswith

the

fede

raland

canton

alau

thorities

in-

volved

soas

toachievefast,u

niform

,tran

sparen

tan

dresource-savingvisa

proc

esses

FLead:

FOM

Participation:

Can

tona

lmigratio

nan

dlabo

urmarket

authorities,C

D,V

isa

Steerin

gCom

mittee,

VSA

A

0Perm

anen

tAna

lysisan

ddo

cumen

tatio

nof

processesconcerning

thevisa

proced

ure

App

rovalo

fop

timised

target

processes

andtheim

plem

entatio

nplan

formeasures

Uniform

applicationof

processesby

all

participatingau

thorities

Defi

nitio

nof

sequ

ence

andrespon

sibilities

forad

aptatio

nof

processes

App

rovalo

fmeasuresforsupp

ortin

gtheproced

urewith

technicalaidsan

dforprom

otingtran

sparen

cy

–

1.1–

3–1:

Targeted

useof

local

Sche

ngen

coop

eration(LSC

)by

therepresen

tatio

nsab

road

Provisionof

simpletools,gu

idan

cean

dinstructions

fortherepresen

ta-

tions

abroad

rega

rdingamoretarget-

edutilisatio

nof

LSCforthepu

rposes

ofinform

ationan

ddissem

inationof

ownfin

ding

son

illeg

alim

migratio

nan

dqu

alified

peop

lesm

uggling

Lead

:FO

M

Participation:

CD

2Perm

anen

tDefi

nitio

nof

therulesforLSC

Settingof

commun

icationpa

ths

Stan

dardised

feed

back

forcentralautho

rities

Instructions

from

centralautho

rities

totherepresen

tatio

ns

Testingof

themeasure

throug

hpe

riodicinspectio

nsat

represen

tatio

ns

Dep

ende

nton

measures

1.1–

1–1an

d1.1–

1–3

1.1–

5–1:

Mem

oran

dum

ofUnd

erstan

ding

(MoU

)be

tweenad

ministrative,

tourism

andecon

omicbo

dies

onraisingaw

aren

essan

dcoordina

tionof

marketin

gactivities

MoU

betw

eenvisa

andbo

rder

control

agen

cies,S

witzerland

Tourism

and

Switzerland

Globa

lEnterpriseon

early

inform

ationab

outmarketin

gan

dprom

otiona

lmeasuresin

thetourism

sector

andon

form

ulationof

the

correspo

ndingmeasures

Lead

:CD

Participation:

FOM,S

BG,C

PBE

,CPGE,

CPSO

,CPVS,

CPZH

,SECO,S

witzerland

Globa

lEn

terprise,

tourism

sector

21year

Sign

ingof

theMoU

Agreemen

ton

annu

alworksho

ps

Coo

rdinationof

ongo

ingplan

ning

Coo

rdinationof

applications

from

Switzerland

Tourism

fortheacqu

isition

/increase

ofmarketin

gmeans

with

theCD

Dep

ende

nton

measure

1.1–

1–1an

dim

pactson

measure

2.2–

2–2(“Inter-

natio

nalC

oope

ratio

n”subp

roject)

23Themeasure

number

iscomprisedofthefilter

number

asper

thefour-filter

model(firstposition),thenumber

oftheproblemarea

withinthefilter

(secondposition),

thenumber

oftheindividualobjectivewithintheproblemarea

(thirdposition)andthenumber

ofthemeasure

withintheindividualobjective(fourthposition)

24Indicates

thestartofimplementation,cf.Section6.2

5.2.2Mea

sures

32

5.2.3 FindingsDrawing up the list of hot spot countries (measure1.1–1–1), i.e. designating the focus countries for illegalimmigration and Switzerland’s economic and tourisminterests in these countries is one of the core measuresof the ”Third Countries” subproject. It not only formsthe basis for several other measures within Filter 1 butalso replaces, with a simple and resource-saving prin-ciple, the previous “one size fits all” approach to thetraining and deployment of consular staff in the pre-vention of illegal immigration. This list serves as abasis for the representations’ resources and task plan-ning. It also contributes to more efficient handlingof the trade-off between the prevention of illegalimmigration and the promotion of Switzerland as abusiness location and tourist destination. Other meas-ures in the ”Third Countries” subproject also specifi-cally seek to optimise the handling of this trade-off,mainly at Swiss representations abroad. Consular staffshould continue to act as and be seen as service pro-viders with respect to visa applicants. Nonetheless, inthe training and deployment of individual employees,more emphasis will be placed in future on police-related aspects that are already of central importancein the successful prevention of illegal immigration.

Promoting legal entry and supporting Switzerland as atourist destination are the subject of measure 1.1–5–1,which calls for the signing of a Memorandum of Un-derstanding (MoU) between the immigration and bor-der control agencies and the tourism and economicorganisations for the purpose of mutual agreement.This MoU balances the above trade-off by ensuringthat those involved in promoting tourism and the busi-ness location regularly inform the border managementagencies of planned promotion and marketing activi-ties. In return, they are kept informed by the immi-

gration and border control agencies of currentdevelopments and phenomena in relation to illegalimmigration. This measure also seeks a close align-ment between resource applications from Swiss Tour-ism (marketing funds) and the Consular Directorateof the FDFA (resources in relation to visas).Although already drawn up as a separated projectprior to formulation of the individual objectives,the project for optimisation of the visa procedure(1.1–2–2) is another key measure under Filter 1.This project will optimise the quality of the visa proce-dure in view of the expected rise in the number oftravelling public and limited official resources andharmonise the processes involved, making them moretraveller friendly. This will take account of Switzer-land’s interests as a business location and tourist des-tination while also addressing the official interests inpreventing illegal immigration. The starting point forthe project is to document the entire set of visa pro-cesses for the first time, across all agencies involved,so as to identify the potential for optimisation in thisrespect on an interagency basis. The jointly agreed onprocess template will then be applied uniformly, mak-ing the entire procedure faster and more transparent.

The steering committee decided not to further pursuethe draft measures developed in relation to objective0.2–4.27 This was on account of this objective beinglimited to the subject of people smuggling. The steer-ing committee was of the opinion that the issue ofconditionality should ideally be discussed within theframework of “International Migration Cooperation”.The agencies responsible for this platform – FOM,SDC and DPA – have already indicated their willing-ness to examine the requirements for conditionalityon an individual case-by-case basis.

27 Switzerland’s assistance to the countries of origin and transit of illegal immigrants is contingent upon their adoption

of measures against people smuggling

33

In terms of implementation, the dependencies be-tween the measures should be taken into account.Because of such interdependencies in this subproject,it is particularly important to check the measures’effectiveness at regular intervals.

5.2.4 Financial impactsThe financial impacts within the Third Countries sub-project are primarily related to personnel. Implement-ing the remaining measures generates mainly one-offpersonnel expenses. These correspond to an estimated150 man-days. Recurrent personnel expenses, oftenserving to update the instruments decided upon inthe measures, are substantially lower at approximately25 man-days. Most of these expenses for implement-ing the measures are incurred in the FOM and CD.

Measures associated with the list of hot spot countries(1.1–1–1) lead to a more targeted use of resources atSwiss representations abroad, resulting mainly in per-sonnel shifts though not necessarily any savings.

The material costs incurred in this subproject are low.The “Project for optimisation of the visa procedure”(1.1–2–2) stands out as being resource intensive. Theproject proposal estimates the costs of initialising theproject at around CHF 1 million and 440 man-days,with these expenses being distributed over four years.However, the project and implementation costs arealready covered by the agencies involved, beyond thescope of the IBM action plan.

Positive financial impacts occur through the facilitationof legal entry, one of the general goals defined in thestrategy. Measures in this area ensure that investmentsin promoting Switzerland as a business location andtourist destination reach more of the intended recipi-ents and that the benefit thus generated is not re-stricted by the police-related aspects (preventingillegal immigration).

5.2.5 SummaryThe measures developed in the Third Countries sub-project produce a more effective handling of thephenomena of illegal immigration as a result of thetargeted deployment of resources available at Swissrepresentations abroad. At the same time, thesemeasures produce a more in-depth and institutional-ised coordination between the tourism and businesssectors and the visa and border control agencies.Finally, optimising the visa procedure helps to facili-tate legal entry by way of processes that are moretraveller friendly and transparent.

34

5.3 “International Cooperation”subproject

5.3.1 OverviewThe ”International Cooperation“ subproject, corre-sponding to Filter 2 of the aforementioned four-filtermodel (cf. Chapter 4), focuses on measures to opti-mise cooperation within the Schengen Area. Thestrategy identified two problem areas with respectto international co-operation:• Switzerland’s limited institutional integration

in the EU (P2.1)• Inadequate cooperation and exchange of informa-

tion at the level of strategic policy (P2.2)

For these problem areas, the subproject drew up fiveindividual objectives, all of which concern a similarsubject matter. The first individual objective (2.1–1)focuses on improving cooperation in securitymatters with the EU and its Member States andstudying the possibility of participation in internationalcommittees or signing up to international agreements.Switzerland should thus examine and actively defendits position within the European security architectureon the basis of its long-term strategic interests.

The other four individual objectives28 seek to improvethe somewhat flawed exchange of information and toensure the strategic inclusion of Switzerland’s positionat an international level. On the one hand, Schengen-compliant measures for entry facilitation shouldbe identified and subsequently applied more specific-ally in international negotiations. On the other hand,Switzerland’s position, as defended by Switzerlandat a European level, should be better consolidatedinternally in advance, and information in this respectshould be more specifically disseminated on an inter-agency basis. This requires a harmonised, fixed andbroad-based position on the subjects covered inthis context.

The measures formulated to meet these five individualobjectives are listed in the following table.

28 2.1–2, 2.2–1, 2.2–2 and 2.2–3

35

29Themeasure

number

iscomprisedofthefilter

number

asper

thefour-filter

model(firstposition),thenumber

oftheproblemarea

withinthefilter

(secondposition),

thenumber

oftheindividualobjectivewithintheproblemarea

(thirdposition)andthenumber

ofthemeasure

withintheindividualobjective(fourthposition)

30Indicates

thestartofimplementation,cf.Section6.2

Mea

sure

29Ex

planation

Responsibility

Rea

lisation

phase3

0

Duration

Indicators

Commen

ts

2.1–

1–1:

Exam

inationof

Swit-

zerla

nd’spa

rticipationin

the

Europe

anMigratio

nNetwork

(EMN)

Stud

yto

clarify

theconseq

uences

ofSw

itzerland

’spo

ssible

participation

Lead

:FO

M

Participation:

DEA

01year

Decisionon

theba

sisof

thestud

yof

Switzerland

’spa

rticipationin

theEM

NTh

einform

ationreferssolelyto

the

stud

y.Th

iswillmakestatem

ents

oncosts,saving

s,preciserespon

sibilities

andthetim

ingof

anysuch

implem

en-

tatio

n.Itwillalso

provideinform

ation

onthepo

ssiblene

edfororga

nisatio

nal

orinstitu

tiona

ladjustm

ent

2.1–

1–2:

Exam

inationof

the

introd

uctio

nof

aSw

issRe

gis-

teredTravellerProg

ramme

(study)

Stud

yto

clarify

theconseq

uences

ofintrod

ucingaRe

gistered

Traveller

Prog

rammeforSw

itzerland

Lead

:FO

M

Participation:

SBG,o

perators

ofBa

sle,

Gen

eva,

andZu

richair-

ports,CPZH

,CD

01year

Decisionon

theba

sisof

thestud

yon

introd

uctio

nof

anRT

PTh

einform

ationreferssolelyto

the

stud

y.Th

iswillmakestatem

ents

oncosts,saving

s,preciserespon

sibilities

andthetim

ingof

anysuch

implem

en-

tatio

n.Itwillalso

provideinform

ation

onthepo

ssiblene

edfororga

nisatio

nal

orinstitu

tiona

ladjustm

ent

2.1–

1–3:

Greater

commitm

ent

inthefie

ldof

visa

liberalisation

EU/third

coun

tries

Proa

ctiveinclusionof

Swissexpe

rience

intheEU

visa

liberalisationprocesses

with

third

coun

tries

Lead

:FO

M,D

EA

Participation:

FOJ,fedp

ol,C

D,D

PA

0Pe

rman

ent

Activeinclusionof

Swisspo

sitio

nsin

theprocess

oftheEU

visa

liberalisationdialog

uewith

third

coun

tries

Discussionof

theSw

isspo

sitio

non

thevisa

liberalisations

plan

nedby

theEU

atbilateral

andmultilateral

meetin

gs

Draftingof

anoverview

onvisa

liberalisation

–

2.1–

1–4:

Exam

inationof

coop

erationwith

othe

rEu

ro-

pean

states

rega

rdingiden

tity

checks

andreturn

App

ointmen

tof

aworking

grou

pfortheform

ulationof

measuresan

dco

ordina

tionwith

othe

rEu

rope

anco

untriesin

thefie

ldof

iden

titychecks

onforeignna

tiona

ls(w

horequ

est

asylum

inSw

itzerland

orap

plyforre-

turn

assistan

ce)a

ndalso

inthefie

ldof

returningpe

rson

swith

anEU

resi-

dencepe

rmit

Lead

:FO

M

Participation:

DEA

,DIL,D

PA

0Perm

anen

tDecisionba

sedon

stud

y

Ifthestud

yproves

positive:

Drawingup

ofmeasuresby

theworking

grou

p

Holding

ofinternationa

lcon

ferences

onthissubject

Coo

peratio

nwith

othe

rEu

rope

ancoun

tries

forthepu

rposeof

iden

titychecks

–

5.3.2Mea

sures

36

29Themeasure

number

iscomprisedofthefilter

number

asper

thefour-filter

model(firstposition),thenumber

oftheproblemarea

withinthefilter

(secondposition),

thenumber

oftheindividualobjectivewithintheproblemarea

(thirdposition)andthenumber

ofthemeasure

withintheindividualobjective(fourthposition)

30Indicates

thestartofimplementation,cf.Section6.2

Mea

sure

29Ex

planation

Responsibility

Rea

lisation

phase3

0

Duration

Indicators

Commen

ts

2.1–

1–5:

Exam

inationof

adop

tingthePrüm

Decisions

forim

provingthepreven

tion

andprosecutionof

crim

inal

offences

In-dep

thstud

yof

therepe

rcussion

san

dconseq

uences

ofSw

itzerland

’spa

rticipationin

thePrüm

Con

vention

bythecanton

alan

dfede

ralautho

ri-tie

sinvolved

Lead

:fedp

ol

Participation:

FEDRO

,FOM,F

OJ,DEA

,DIL,FDPIC,FFA

,SBG

,KdK

,KKJPD,FIS,S

wiss

mission

attheEU

0Perm

anen

tPerio

dicevalua

tionof

whe

ther

tostartne

gotia

tions

onpa

rticipationwith

respectto

Swissinterests

Ifthisevalua

tionproves

positive:

startof

nego

tiatio

nsan

dattainmen

tof

afavourab

leresultforSw

itzerland

,particularlyin

institu

tiona

lmatterswith

subseq

uent

participation

–

2.1–

2–1:

Prioritisationof

projectsfortheInternal

SecurityFund

(ISF)-Borde

rs

Organ

isationof

aninform

ation

meetin

gan

daworksho

pon

joint

determ

inationof

theprioritisation

ofou

tstand

ingprojectsfortheyears

2014

to20

20

Lead

:FO

M

Participation:

DEA

,DIL,S

BG,fed

pol,

CPBE

,CPGE,

CPSO

,CP

VS,

CPZH

,CD

01year

Prioritisationcomplete

Prereq

uisite:

Participationof

Switzerland

intheInternalSecurityFund

(ISF)-

Borders

2.2–

1–1:

Catalog

ueof

possi-

bleconcession

srega

rding

visaswith

intheSche

ngen

legislation

Catalog

uelistin

gallS

chen

gen-compli-

antconcession

sin

thevisa-issuan

ceprocess

Lead

:CD

Participation:

FOM,F

OJ,DEA

,DIL

01year

Creationof

thecatalogu

eBa

sisformeasure

2.2–

1–2

2.2–

1–2:

Inclusionof

mea

s-ures

tofacilitateen

tryin

nego

tiatio

nson

migratio

nag

reem

entsan

dpa

rtne

rships

System

aticinclusionof

thecatalogu

e(m

easure

2.2–

1–1)

onen

tryfacilitation

inSw

itzerland

’sne

gotia

tions

with

third

coun

triesab

outmigratio

nag

reem

ents

andpa

rtne

rships

Lead

:FO

M

Participation:

DEA

,DIL,S

BG,fed

pol,

CPZH

,CD,FIS,D

PA

2Perm

anen

tDefi

nitio

nof

thestrategy

concerning

entry

facilitationof

therelevant

Swissag

encies

for

nego

tiatio

nswith

third

coun

tries

Dep

ende

nton

measure

2.2–

1–1

5.3.2Mea

sures

37

29Themeasure

number

iscomprisedofthefilter

number

asper

thefour-filter

model(firstposition),thenumber

oftheproblemarea

withinthefilter

(secondposition),

thenumber

oftheindividualobjectivewithintheproblemarea

(thirdposition)andthenumber

ofthemeasure

withintheindividualobjective(fourthposition)

30Indicates

thestartofimplementation,cf.Section6.2

Mea

sure

29Ex

planation

Responsibility

Rea

lisation

phase3

0

Duration

Indicators

Commen

ts

2.2–

1–3:

Vade

mecum

with

working

principles

forSw

iss

delega

tions

inworking

grou

psat

aEu

rope

anlevel

Draftingan

dregu

larup

datin

gof

avade

mecum

with

conc

rete

guidelines,

principles

andproc

essde

scrip

tions

for

Swissde

lega

tions

inworking

grou

ps/

committeesat

aEu

rope

anlevel,

includ

ingapresen

tatio

nof

thevario

usSche

ngen

/Dub

linco

mmittee

san

dworking

grou

psat

aEu

rope

anlevel

Lead

:FO

J,DEA

Participation:

FOM,D

IL,S

BG,fed

pol,

CD,can

tona

lrep

resenta-

tives

intheFD

JPfor

Sche

ngen

/Dub

lin

02years

Draftingan

dregu

larup

datin

gof

thevade

mecum

andits

dissem

inationto

thestaffco

ncerne

d–

2.2–

2–1:

Optim

isationof

the

dissem

inationof

inform

ation

onSw

itzerland

’spo

sitio

nsin

relatio

nto

migratio

nat

aEu

rope

anlevel

Improv

emen

tsto

thesearch

possibi-

litieson

theCH@World

platform

for

system

atictracking

ofSw

itzerland

’spo

sitio

nsat

aEu

rope

anleveland

also

cross-co

mmittee

developm

entswith

inado

ssier

Lead

:FO

J,DEA

,Swissmission

attheEU

Participation:

situationa

linclusion

ofothe

rfede

raland

canton

alag

encies

02years

Develop

men

t,introd

uctio

nan

dregu

larup

datin

gof

theim

proved

inform

ationplatform

–

2.2–

2–2:

Con

tact

listfor

“Illega

limmigratio

n/pe

ople

smug

gling”

Listof

theag

encies

involved

inthe

fieldsof

border

man

agem

ent,illeg

alim

migratio

nan

dpe

oplesm

uggling,

internationa

lcom

mitteeswith

Swiss

participationin

thisfie

ld,the

consulta-

tionmecha

nism

san

dthesign

ificance

ofthevario

ustopics

forIBM

Lead

:FO

M

Participation:

allage

nciesinvolved

intheareasof

border

man

agem

ent,illeg

alim

migratio

nan

dpe

ople

smug

gling

0Perm

anen

tDraftingan

dpe

riodicup

datin

gof

thelist

–

5.3.2Mea

sures

38

5.3.3 FindingsThe analysis of the subject areas covered by this sub-project, conducted together with all agencies involved,shows that there is already a good degree of inter-agency cooperation in defending Swiss interests atEuropean level. Switzerland’s inclusion in the Europeancommittee is largely satisfactory. The measures formu-lated thus concentrate on optimising and occasio-nally improving existing forms of national and inter-national cooperation.

Examining the cooperation with EU Member States re-garding identity checks and return (measure 2.1–1–4)is a key measure for including more of Switzerland’spositions at a European level. This concerns migrationflows of third-country citizens within the SchengenArea. Once of the consequences of the economiccrisis is the growing number of third-country citizenswith a residence permit for an EU/EFTA Member Statewho travel for economic reasons to Switzerland, wherethey then apply for asylum or obtain social welfare orreturn assistance. This potential for fraud cannot beresolved solely in bilateral cooperation with the thirdcountries, as these tend to have very little influenceon their citizens’ migratory movements within theSchengen Area. However, Switzerland can seek jointsolutions through targeted cooperation with its Euro-pean partner states. A working group will thereforebe established to coordinate and align the procedurein the fields of identity checks and returning third-country citizens with a legal residence permit foran EU/EFTA Member State.

Measure 2.1–1–5 is also important with regard tocooperation at a European level. Based on a study,the possibility of Switzerland adopting the PrümConvention will be examined. While this is not partof the Schengen acquis, a special Association Agree-ment gives the states associated with Schengen thepossibility of participating in this cooperation of Euro-pean states. At the operational level, in particular,participation would improve the prevention of cross-border crime, avoid a potential security gap, andsupplement European cooperation in security matterswithin the framework of Schengen.

The issue of facilitation, i.e. the promotion and sim-plification of legal entry (cf. Chapter 4.1), forms thesubject of measures 2.2–1–1 and 2.2–1–2. The firstof these serves to identify all of the simplifications inthe visa-issuance process that comply with the Schen-gen Acquis. These can then be applied within theframework of Switzerland’s negotiations with thirdcountries on migration agreements and partnershipsas a strategic negotiation pawn (measure 2.2–1–2).

The agencies represented in the subproject decidednot to formulate any measures for objective 2.2–3,31

as the present exchange of information was deemedto be sufficiently institutionalised and functioning,with respect to the cantons as well as the federalagencies.

Some of the measures32 shown in the table are alreadybeing implemented; however, as they still form partof the integrated border management system, theyare also listed in the action plan. Nonetheless, thecosts of such measures already in progress shouldnot be included in the overall costs of the action planas they have already been budgeted and coveredelsewhere.

31 A regular and systematic flow of information exists between the federal offices and the cantons regarding the immigration-related topics

discussed on the various committees32 Measures 2.1–1–2 (Examination of introduction of a Swiss Registered Traveller Programme), 2.1–1–3 (Greater commitment in the field of visa

liberalisation EU / third countries) and 2.1–1–5 (Examination of adopting the Prüm Decision to improve the prevention and prosecution of

criminal offences)

39

5.3.4 Financial impactsWith the exception of measure 2.2–1–2 (Inclusion ofmeasures to facilitate entry in negotiations on migra-tion agreements and partnerships), all of the meas-ures under the “International Cooperation” subprojecthave already been initiated or even implemented.Their financing was secured outside the scope of thisaction plan. Implementation of measure 2.2–1–2does not require any substantial additional resources.

The costs incurred through implementation of themeasures for this subproject are primarily personnelcosts, borne mainly by the FOM. The FOJ, DEA andCD are also involved to a considerable extent.

The results of the three studies (measures 2.1–1–1,2.1–1–2 and 2.1–1–5) or a decision to participatein the relevant committees, programmes and otherforms of cooperation could possibly entail signifi-cant follow-up costs. Should adoption of the PrümDecision be deemed desirable, the Confederationhas already agreed on an allocation formula for thefinancial expenses.33

Savings are made through the facilitation of legit-imate immigration, e.g. through measure 2.2–1–2(Inclusion of measures to facilitate entry in negotia-tions on migration agreements and partnerships).This is because optimisation of the visa-issuing pro-cess frees up certain resources that can be usedelsewhere in the prevention of illegal immigration.Optimised and facilitated legal migration also in-creases Switzerland’s attraction as a businesslocation and tourist destination.

5.3.5 SummaryGiven the largely satisfactory cooperation with otherSchengen States, the measures in the InternationalCooperation subproject mainly comprise occasionalimprovements to existing forms of cooperation. Thiswill make it even easier in the future to secure a con-sistent Swiss position at international level and to in-troduce this in a more expedient way. In negotiationswith third countries, Switzerland can simplify legalentry more specifically through Schengen-compliantentry facilitation. The measures also result in bettermutual information and optimised harmonisation ofthe positions of national agencies. The focus remainson the evaluation of Switzerland’s possible participa-tion in European committees such as the EuropeanMigration Network, the Registered Traveller Pro-gramme and the Prüm Decision. However, the resultsof these studies or any further steps will dependin part on Switzerland’s negotiations with the EUin institutional matters.

33 Agreement of 27 July 2011 between the federal agencies and the KKJPD

40

5.4 “Border” subproject

5.4.1 OverviewThe focus of the ”Border“ subproject is on the thirdfilter of the four-filter model, i.e. the actual bordercontrol measures at Schengen external borders(airports).

This subproject covers six of the problem areas ad-dressed in the strategy:• Insufficient networking at an operational level

(P2.3)• Different standards in subareas of border control

(P3.1)• Insufficient networking of the border control

agencies with regard to information exchangeand cooperation (P3.2)

• Increasing computerisation of border control raisesnew challenges for the control staff (P3.3)

• Trade-off between economic interests and thoseof the border police (P3.4)

• Border control system is circumvented by personswho conceal their identity or who evade immediateremoval through abuse of the asylum system (P3.5)

The strategy defines 11 individual objectives forthese problem areas, divided into the followingsubject areas:

National and international exchange of informa-tion between border control agencies: With sixdifferent border control agencies covering Switzer-land’s 12 airports with external borders, improved co-ordination between these agencies is imperative.

Quality assurance of border control: The strategycriticised the different standards in subareas of bordercontrol, partly as a result of the fact that differentagencies are in charge of border control tasks.

Training: For the most part, border control officersare today trained by their own agency, leadingto discrepancies in the curriculum and thus alsoin practice.

Process optimisation: The procedures and processesin the field of border control are relatively complex andat times unnecessarily resource intensive on accountof the many different players at federal and cantonallevel.

Identification: Several of the identification difficul-ties raised in the strategy result in a higher levelof abuse by illegal immigrants but also avoidabledisruptions for legitimate travellers and tourists.

Financing of border control: In principle, the steadyrise in tourist traffic has a positive impact on the Swisseconomy. At the same time, however, it requires aconstant input of new resources in the field of bordercontrol, which must be borne by the public sector.

The 15 measures formulated under this heading areoutlined below.

41

34Themeasure

number

iscomprisedofthefilter

number

asper

thefour-filter

model(firstposition),thenumber

oftheproblemarea

withinthefilter

(secondposition),

thenumber

oftheindividualobjectivewithintheproblemarea

(thirdposition)andthenumber

ofthemeasure

withintheindividualobjective(fourthposition)

35Indicates

thestartofimplementation,cf.Section6.2

Mea

sure

34Ex

planation

Responsibility

Rea

lisation

phase3

5

Duration

Indicators

Commen

ts

2.3–

1–1:

Exchan

geof

infor-

mationwith

foreignbo

rder

controlage

ncies

Ann

ualcon

tact

betw

eeneach

Categ

oryAan

dBairport

border

controlage

ncyan

daforeignbo

rder

control

agen

cy(strateg

ican

dop

erationa

llevel)

Registratio

nof

foreigncontactsan

dexchan

geof

finding

smad

ein

theBo

rder

Steerin

gCom

mittee

(perman

ent

item

ontheag

enda

)

Lead

:SB

G,

CPBE

,CPGE,

CPSO

,CPVS,

CPZH

Participation:

Border

Steerin

gCom

mittee

3Pe

rman

ent

Ann

ualrep

ortin

gby

theCateg

oryAan

dBairport

border

controlage

nciesin

theBo

rder

Steerin

gCom

mittee

onthefin

ding

sfrom

interactionwith

foreignbo

rder

controlage

ncies

–

2.3–

1–2:

Jointvisits

offoreign

border

controlage

ncies

Jointvisits

bySw

issbo

rder

controlage

nciesto

their

foreigncoun

terparts

(e.g.toview

new

techno

logy

orforjointprojects)

Notificatio

nof

visits

andrepo

rtingin

theBo

rder

Steerin

gCom

mittee

Lead

:SB

G,

CPBE

,CPGE,

CPSO

,CPVS,

CPZH

Participation:

Border

Steerin

gCom

mittee

3Perm

anen

tInclusionof

finding

sfrom

jointvisits

bySw

iss

toforeignbo

rder

controlage

nciesin

thede

cision

-makingprocessin

jointprojects

–

3.1–

1–1:

Mutua

laud

itsof

theSche

ngen

externalbo

rder

airports(borde

rcontrol)

Draftingan

dim

plem

entatio

nof

aco

ncep

tforpe

rfor-

mingregu

larau

dits

ofCateg

oryAan

dBairports

(borde

rcontrol)

Duringtheau

dits:V

erificatio

nof

compliancewith

natio

-na

ldire

ctives

andEU

guidelines

inthefie

ldof

border

control(pa

rticularlyconcerning

Sche

ngen

evalua

tions)

andtheexchan

geof

bestpractices

Lead

:FO

M

Participation:

SBG,

CPBE

,CPGE,

CPSO

,CPVS,

CPZH

2Perm

anen

tRe

gularpe

rforman

ceof

audits

atCateg

oryAan

dBairports

–

3.1–

2–1:

E-learning

tool

for

basican

dfurthe

rtraining

inthefie

ldof

border

control

Develop

men

tof

aun

iform

teaching

aidforba

sican

dfurthe

rtraining

(e-le

arning

tool

+printedversion)

inthefie

ldof

border

control,coverin

gtheen

tirespectrum

(includ

ingprofi

ling)

Lead

:SB

G,C

PZH

Participation:

SBG,

CPBE

,CPGE,

CPSO

,CPVS

0Pe

rman

ent

Roll-ou

tof

aun

iform

e-learning

tool

forbo

rder

controlw

ithin

thebo

rder

controlage

ncies

Improv

emen

tan

dha

rmon

isationof

training

,resulting

instrong

ercoop

erationbe

twee

nbo

rder

controlage

ncies

–

5.4.2Mea

sures

42

5.4.2Mea

sures

34Themeasure

number

iscomprisedofthefilter

number

asper

thefour-filter

model(firstposition),thenumber

oftheproblemarea

withinthefilter

(secondposition),

thenumber

oftheindividualobjectivewithintheproblemarea

(thirdposition)andthenumber

ofthemeasure

withintheindividualobjective(fourthposition)

35Indicates

thestartofimplementation,cf.Section6.2

Mea

sure

34Ex

planation

Responsibility

Rea

lisation

phase3

5

Duration

Indicators

Commen

ts

3.1–

3–1:

Coo

rdinationof

procurem

entprocessesin

thefie

ldof

border

control

Registratio

nof

future

ITprojectsan

dinfrastructure

inthefie

ldof

border

controlintheBo

rder

Steerin

gCom

mittee

Thelatter

exam

ines

thene

edforjointor

coordina

ted

procurem

ent(e.g.throu

ghtheprog

rammeman

agem

ent

“Harmon

ised

SwissPo

liceIT[HPI]”)

Lead

:Bo

rder

Steerin

gCom

mittee

Participation:

FOM,S

BG,

fedp

ol,

CPBE

,CPGE,

CPSO

,CPVS,

CPZH

1Pe

rman

ent

Coo

rdinationof

theprocurem

entof

ITan

dinfrastructure

inthefie

ldof

border

controlb

ytheBo

rder

Steerin

gCom

mittee

–

3.2–

1–1:

Nationa

lexcha

nge

ofinform

ationon

strategic

andop

erationa

lmatters

inthefie

ldof

border

control

Institu

tiona

lised

exchan

geof

inform

ationon

operationa

lan

dstrategicfin

ding

sbe

tweenthebo

rder

controlage

n-cies

intheBo

rder

Steerin

gCom

mittee

(perman

entite

mon

theag

enda

)

Lead

:Bo

rder

Steerin

gCom

mittee

Participation:

SBG,

CPBE

,CPGE,

CPSO

,CPVS,

CPZH

2Pe

rman

ent

Strategicor

operationa

lfind

ings

betw

eenbo

rder

controlage

nciesas

ape

rman

entite

mon

theag

enda

intheBo

rder

Stee

ringCom

mittee

–

3.2–

1–2:

Exam

inationof

restructuringof

existin

gworking

grou

psin

thefie

ldof

border

control

Exam

inationof

whe

ther

theexistin

gworking

grou

psin

thefie

ldof

border

controlcou

ldbe

restructured

soas

toavoidtheirfurthe

rmultip

licationan

dthus

anincrease

inthetim

ecommitm

ents

ofbo

rder

controlage

ncies

Lead

:FO

M

Participation:

SBG,

CPBE

,CPGE,

CPSO

,CPVS,

CPZH

11year

Noad

ditio

naltim

espen

ton

meetin

gsof

theworking

grou

psin

thefie

ldof

border

control

afterackn

owledg

men

tof

theIBM

actio

nplan

–

3.4–

1–1:

Participationof

airportow

ners

inthecosts

ofbo

rder

controland

lega

lba

sisforairportcatego

ries

Creationof

alega

lobligationfortheow

nersof

airports

with

Sche

ngen

externalbo

rdersto

providetherespon

sible

border

controlage

ncieswith

thespace,

infrastructure

and

technicalequ

ipmen

trequ

iredforbo

rder

controland

removalfree

ofcharge

Lead

:FO

M

Participation:

FOCA,FOJ

1Perm

anen

tFina

ncingby

theairportow

nersof

thecostsfor

thespace,

infrastructure

andtechnicalequ

ipmen

trequ

iredforbo

rder

control

–

43

Mea

sure

34Ex

planation

Responsibility

Rea

lisation

phase3

5

Duration

Indicators

Commen

ts

3.4–

1–2:

Exam

inationof

abo-

lishing

theexem

ptionregime

forno

n-Sche

ngen

fligh

tsat

Categ

oryDairports

Exam

inationof

abolishing

thecurren

tlyap

plicab

leexem

ptionregimeforCateg

oryDairports

(which

dono

tconstitutean

externalbo

rder

butmay

occasion

ally

begran

tedexem

ptions

bytheFO

Mforno

n-Sche

ngen

fligh

ts)

Defi

nitio

nof

therequ

iremen

tsforairports

tobe

allowed

toofferno

n-Sche

ngen

fligh

tson

ape

rman

entba

sis

(Schen

genexternalbo

rder)

Lead

:FO

M,F

CA/DGC

Participation:

FOCA,S

BG,

Owne

rsof

airports

inSaan

en,M

ollis,E

mmen

andBu

ochs,

CPBE

,CPGL,

CPLU

,CPNW,C

PZH

21year

Decisionon

theba

sisof

thestud

y

Ifthestud

yproves

positive:

Abo

litionof

theexem

ptionregimeforno

n-Sche

ngen

fligh

tsat

Categ

oryDairports

Listof

therequ

iremen

tsforairportsin

orde

rto

beallowed

toofferno

n-Sche

ngen

fligh

tson

ape

rman

entba

sis(Schen

genexternalbo

rder)

–

3.5–

1–1:

Gen

eralconcep

tfortheutilisatio

nof

fligh

tpa

ssen

gerda

ta

Draftingof

age

neralcon

cept

fortheutilisatio

nof

fligh

tpa

ssen

gerda

ta(especially

inrelatio

nto

Advan

cePassen

-ge

rInform

ation[API]a

ndPassen

gerNam

eRe

cord

[PNR]

data)

Lead

:FO

M,fed

pol

Participation:

FOCA,FOJ,DEA

,DIL,

FDPIC,FCA,

CPBE

,CPGE,

CPSO

,CPVS,

CPZH

,KKPK

S,FIS

21year

Ratifi

catio

nof

thege

neralcon

cept

bytheFede

ral

Cou

ncil

Exchan

geof

expe

riencewith

atleaston

eothe

rSche

ngen

Statein

theutilisatio

nof

fligh

tpa

ssen

ger

data

Securin

gof

follo

w-ups

from

thege

neralcon

cept

–

3.5–

1–2:

Autom

ated

border

controlatairports

Performan

ceof

automated

border

controlfor

adultEU

/EFTA

andCHna

tiona

lsat

airports(w

hencrossing

the

Sche

ngen

externalbo

rder)

Lead

:SB

G,

CPBE

,CPGE,

CPZH

Participation:

CPSO

,CPVS,

fedp

ol

3Pe

rman

ent

Border

controlfor

10%

ofad

ultEU

/EFTAan

dCHna

tiona

lsisau

tomated

whe

ncrossing

Swiss

Sche

ngen

externalbo

rders

–

3.5–

1–3:

Strategy

for

performingkey-po

int

checks

atthega

te

Defi

nitio

nof

astrategy

forpe

rformingad

vancebo

rder

controlsan

dpo

lice-ledintra-Sche

ngen

controlsat

the

gate

byeach

border

controlage

ncy

Perio

dicexchan

geof

strategies

andfin

ding

sin

theBo

rder

Steerin

gCom

mittee

Lead

:SB

G,

CPGE,

CPZH

Participation:

CPBE

,CPSO

,CPVS,

Border

Steerin

gCom

mittee

0Perm

anen

tIncreasedintercep

tionof

fligh

tpa

ssen

gers

having

reache

dthega

tewith

outfulfilling

entry

requ

iremen

ts

–

34Themeasure

number

iscomprisedofthefilter

number

asper

thefour-filter

model(firstposition),thenumber

oftheproblemarea

withinthefilter

(secondposition),

thenumber

oftheindividualobjectivewithintheproblemarea

(thirdposition)andthenumber

ofthemeasure

withintheindividualobjective(fourthposition)

35Indicates

thestartofimplementation,cf.Section6.2

5.4.2Mea

sures

44

5.4.2Mea

sures

Mea

sure

34Ex

planation

Responsibility

Rea

lisation

phase3

5

Duration

Indicators

Commen

ts

3.5–

1–4:

Regu

larcontact

with

airline

sClose,reg

ular

contactbe

tweenthebo

rder

control

agen

cies

andtheairline

sstatione

dat

theairport

Instructionof

airline

staffin

thede

tectionof

illeg

alim

migratio

n

Lead

:SB

G,a

irlines,

CPBE

,CPGE,

CPSO

,CPVS,

CPZH

Participation:

Border

Steerin

gCom

mittee

0Pe

rman

ent

Redu

ctionin

thenu

mbe

rof

fligh

tpa

ssen

gers

who

dono

tmeettheen

tryrequ

iremen

tswhe

ncrossing

theSche

ngen

externalbo

rders

ontheba

sisof

theirtravel

documen

ts

–

3.5–

1–5:

Increasedde

ploy-

men

tof

AirlineLiaison

Officers(ALO

s)(con

cept)

Draftingof

aco

ncep

tforade

man

d-ba

sedincrease

inthenu

mbe

rof

AirlineLiaisonOfficers(ALO

s)

Objective:

Toen

sure

that

fewer

fligh

tpa

ssen

gersreach

theSche

ngen

externalbo

rder

with

outfulfilling

theen

try

requ

iremen

ts(byway

oftheco

rrespo

ndingad

vance

controlsby

theALO

sat

theplaces

ofde

parture)

Lead

:ALO

Steerin

gBo

dy

Participation:

CPZH

31year

Redu

ctionin

thenu

mbe

rof

entryrefusalsof

fligh

tpa

ssen

gersfrom

airportswith

anALO

presen

ceIntersects

with

measure

1.1–

1–2(Third

Cou

ntrie

ssubp

roject):

3.5–

1–6:

Exam

inationof

the

possibility

oftheFO

Mde

le-

gatin

gremovalau

thority

tothebo

rder

controlage

ncies

Exam

inationof

ach

ange

inthelegislativeba

sisto

allow

theFO

Mto

authorisethebo

rder

controlage

nciesto

issueajustified

andap

pealab

leorde

rag

ainstpe

rson

sto

beremoved

Lead

:FO

M

Participation:

SBG,

CPBE

,CPGE,

CPSO

,CPVS,

CPZH

21year

Decisionon

theba

sisof

thestud

y

Ifthestud

yproves

positive:

Possibility

oftheFO

Mde

lega

tingremovalau

thority

tothebo

rder

controlage

ncies

–

34Themeasure

number

iscomprisedofthefilter

number

asper

thefour-filter

model(firstposition),thenumber

oftheproblemarea

withinthefilter

(secondposition),

thenumber

oftheindividualobjectivewithintheproblemarea

(thirdposition)andthenumber

ofthemeasure

withintheindividualobjective(fourthposition)

35Indicates

thestartofimplementation,cf.Section6.2

45

5.4.3 FindingsMeasures 3.1–3–1 (Coordination of procurementprocesses in the field of border control), 3.4–1–1(Participation of airport owners in the costs ofborder control and legal basis for airport categories)and 3.5–1–1 (General concept for the utilisationof flight passenger data) stand out as the mostimportant measures in this subproject on accountof their financial and operational scope.

Some measures cover several individual objectives atonce. For example, measure 3.1–1–1 (Mutual auditof the Schengen external border airports / bordercontrols) simultaneously covers both objective 3.1–1(Simplification of best practices) and 3.2–1 (Exchangeof information among the border control agenciesat national level).

Following thorough consideration by the agenciesinvolved, it was decided not to take any measuresregarding individual objective 3.2–3 from the strategy(Official internships and exchange programmes arepromoted between the border control agencies).Internships and exchange programmes tend to tieup a relatively high level of resources, as the exchangestaff often lack sufficient know-how about the localsystems and processes to be deployed to the sameextent as full members of staff. They therefore requireintensive supervision. Moreover, the border controlagencies already run internships as part of FRONTEX,with exchanges with European border control agen-cies. There are also already exchange programmesamong the Swiss border control agencies in certainspecialised areas (e.g. document inspection). Giventhe relatively high expense involved in increasingsuch resource-intensive activities, compared with theexpected return, the border control agencies havedecided not to formulate institutionalised measuresin this respect.

The Swiss border control landscape is characterisedby one federal and five cantonal border control agen-cies. Most measures strive towards improved cooper-ation between these agencies. However, many ofthese conflict with efforts to prevent a further increasein resources spent on border control. This forms thegreatest risk to implementation of the measures.

Some measures intersect with other subprojects(International Cooperation, General), particularlyin the cooperation with airlines (exchange of flightpassenger data, entry facilitation, regular contact).

Furthermore, some measures, such as 3.4–1–2 (Exami-nation of abolishing the exemption regime for non-Schengen flights at Category D airports), serve merelyto launch a working group to examine a specificobjective. The reasoning behind this often lies inthe need to include different players to specify theseconcepts, for which there was not enough timeduring the subproject work.

Finally, it should be noted that the impact of mostmeasures on illegal immigration, international crimeand people smuggling can rarely be measured. Fora start, there are very few current figures availablefor many factors, and what’s more, there are toomany other factors influencing these phenomena.As a result, only vague conclusions can be drawnon the impact of the measures.

5.4.4 Financial impactsThe outstanding measures under the Border sub-project incur non-recurrent expenses of an esti-mated CHF 3 million in material costs and around400 man-days, both of which are shared evenlybetween the federal and cantonal agencies. Thereare no expected non-recurrent savings.

The forecast annual recurrent expenses andsavings are as follows: Expenses of some CHF1 million in material costs and around 50 man-daysare offset by savings of some CHF 2 million in ma-terial costs and around 2100 man-days. While theseexpenses are mainly borne by the Confederation,the savings are primarily enjoyed by the cantons.

46

Regarding these amounts, it should be noted thata small number of measures account for the bulk ofexpenses and savings. Most of the expenses are in-curred by measure 3.5–1–2 (Automated border controlat airports). The savings are predominantly made bymeasures 3.4–1–1 (Participation of airport ownersin the border control costs and legal basis for airportcategories) and 3.5–1–2 (Automated border controlat airports).

5.4.5 SummaryThe measures formulated in the “Border” subprojectcover the entire scope of border control at Switzer-land’s Schengen external borders.

The federal structure calls for a high degree of coordi-nation, with six different border control agencies (onefederal agency and five cantonal agencies) coveringthe 12 airports with external borders. The trainingmaterial for border control officers is thus streamlined,and national and international exchange is institution-alised. In addition, the quality of border control willbe constantly checked in the future, which will proveespecially beneficial in the Schengen evaluationsby the EU. Moreover, a range of process optimisationtechniques will raise the efficiency of cooperationbetween the players involved in various fields (e.g.procurement).

In the identification of flight passengers, variousmeasures ensure a faster and smoother border con-trol experience for legitimate travellers (e.g. touristsor business travellers); meanwhile, illegal immigrantscan more easily be detected as such and detainedat an earlier stage.

Finally, one measure ensures a fairer allocation of infra-structure costs through the inclusion of airport ope-rators in the financing of border control operations.

47

5.5 “Internal” subproject

5.5.1 OverviewThe ”Internal“ subproject covers measures withinthe Schengen Area and addresses nine individualobjectives in the following problem areas:• Insufficient networking at an operational level

(P2.3)• Uneven distribution of enforcement costs creates

false incentives (P4.2)• Discrepancies in practices and weaknesses in

the areas of forgery detection, investigation,prosecution and enforcement (coercive measures/removal) (P4.3)

• Insufficient prevention of people smuggling (P0.3)

All of these problem areas indicate the potential thatlies in taking a nationwide approach to preventingillegal immigration and people smuggling.

Regarding the first problem area, objective 2.3–2 callsfor an improved exchange of information amongthe national police bodies and between these andtheir European police counterparts in the field ofillegal immigration. This institutionalises cooperationwith police bodies in the Schengen Area and securesthe information exchange that is so important forpreventing illegal immigration.

36 Individual objectives 4.2–1, 4.2–2, 4.2–3 and 4.3–137 Individual objective 4.2–4

Other individual objectives36 seek to guide migrationpolicy toward long-term interests and to harmoniseenforcement practices. The uneven distribution ofenforcement costs frustrates the creation of a uniformand thus also an effective removal practice. Cost com-pensation instruments and incentive mechanisms aswell as supracantonal centres of expertise37 shouldprovide support in this respect. More consistencyin the prosecution of people smugglers also calls fora smaller number of interfaces, which is what ob-jective 4.3–2 seeks to achieve.

As shown with objective 4.3–5, the successful pre-vention of people smuggling also requires moretargeted training and greater awareness amongthose involved. Cases of people smuggling must beprosecuted more consistently in general (individualobjective 0.3–2).

The measures formulated to meet the above individualobjectives are listed in the following table.

48

38Themeasure

number

iscomprisedofthefilter

number

asper

thefour-filter

model(firstposition),thenumber

oftheproblemarea

withinthefilter

(secondposition),

thenumber

oftheindividualobjectivewithintheproblemarea

(thirdposition)andthenumber

ofthemeasure

withintheindividualobjective(fourthposition)

39Indicates

thestartofimplementation,cf.Section6.2

Mea

sure

38Ex

planation

Responsibility

Rea

lisation

phase3

9

Duration

Indicators

Commen

ts

4.2–

2–1:

Mecha

nism

sto

redis-

tributetheen

forcem

entcosts

inrelatio

nto

immigratio

nan

dasylum

(feasibilitystud

y)

Stud

yto

presen

tthediscrepa

ncies

that

curren

tlyexistin

theen

forcem

ent

costsin

immigratio

nan

dasylum

aswellasexam

inationof

vario

uscost

compe

nsationinstrumen

tsan

dincen-

tivemecha

nism

s

Lead

:FO

M

Participation:

Can

tons

11year

Com

pletionof

feasibility

stud

yTh

ismeasure

simultane

ouslycovers

individu

alob

jectives

4.2–

1to

4.2–

3

4.2–

4–1:

Cen

treof

expe

rtise

forprocessing

immigratio

ncasesfrom

railtraffic

throug

hapilotprojectin

Bern

(feasi-

bilitystud

y)

Stud

yto

exam

inethepo

ssibilitie

san

dworkou

tapilotprojectforan

oper-

ationa

lcen

treof

expe

rtisein

theCity

ofBe

rnfortheproc

essing

ofcanton

alan

dsupracan

tona

limmigratio

ncases

Lead

:EM

Fof

theCity

ofBe

rn,

SBG

Participation:

FOM

21year

Com

pletionof

feasibility

stud

y

Evalua

tionof

thestud

yprod

uces

ade

cision

onwhe

ther

toim

plem

entapilotprojectin

Bern

Theinform

ationreferssolelyto

the

stud

y.Th

iswilliden

tifythecosts,

saving

s,preciserespon

sibilitiesan

dthetim

ingof

anysuch

implem

enta-

tion.

Itwillalso

provideinform

ation

onthepo

ssible

need

fororga

nisa-

tiona

lorinstitu

tiona

ladjustm

ent

4.3–

1–1:

Listof

prob

lem

States

with

rega

rdto

enforce-

men

t

Creationan

dup

datin

gof

aliston

coop

erationwith

coun

triesof

origin

inthesuba

reas

of“Ide

ntificatio

n”,

“Issue

oftraveldo

cumen

ts”an

d“E

xecutio

nof

specialfl

ights”

asa

basisforha

rmon

isingmigratio

nfor-

eign

policywith

respectto

returns

Lead

:FO

M0

Perm

anen

tHighe

rnu

mbe

rof

depa

rtures

(measuredusing

depa

rturestatistics)

Thismeasure

hasalread

ybe

enim

ple-

men

ted(based

onaFede

ralC

ouncil

decision

of15

June

2012

)and

form

stheba

sisformeasure

4.3–

1–2

4.3–

1–2:

Inclusionof

thelist

ofpriorityreturn

coun

triesin

the“Interna

tiona

lMigratio

nCoo

peratio

n”structure

Add

ition

ofthelistof

priorityreturn

coun

tries(cf.mea

sure

4.3–

1–1)

tothe

“Interna

tiona

lMigratio

nCoo

peratio

n”structure.

Lead

:FO

M

Participation:

SDC,D

PA,S

ECO,

occasion

alinclusion

ofothe

rag

encies

asne

cessary

0Perm

anen

tGreater

willingn

essam

ongtheStates

inqu

estio

nto

coop

eratewith

Switzerland

inha

ndingover

theirow

ncitizen

s

Dep

ende

nton

measure

4.3–

1–1

5.5.2Mea

sures

49

38Themeasure

number

iscomprisedofthefilter

number

asper

thefour-filter

model(firstposition),thenumber

oftheproblemarea

withinthefilter

(secondposition),

thenumber

oftheindividualobjectivewithintheproblemarea

(thirdposition)andthenumber

ofthemeasure

withintheindividualobjective(fourthposition)

39Indicates

thestartofimplementation,cf.Section6.2

40NAA:N

ewresidentpermitforforeigners,RE3:Realisationphase3oftheproject

Mea

sure

38Ex

planation

Responsibility

Rea

lisation

phase3

9

Duration

Indicators

Commen

ts

4.3–

4–1:

Biom

etric

reside

nce

perm

its(study)

Replacem

entof

theexistin

gpa

per

perm

itsby

cred

it-card-sized

IDswith

better

forgeryprotectio

n

Clarifi

catio

nof

thepo

ssibility

ofad

ding

biom

etric

data

totheresi-

dencepe

rmits

ofEU

/EFTAcitizen

san

dthene

edto

doso

Lead

:FO

M,V

KM

Participation:

SBG,fed

pol,occasion

alinclusionof

othe

rag

en-

cies

asne

cessary

03years

Stud

yor

projectresults

areavailable

Incase

ofintrod

uctio

nof

thebiom

etric

reside

nce

perm

it:Re

ductionin

thenu

mbe

rof

forged

reside

nce

perm

its(targe

t:nu

mbe

rof

forgeriesin

relatio

nto

thetotaln

umbe

rof

arou

ndon

emillionisno

greaterthan

60)

Measure

with

inthescop

eof

theexistin

gprojectNAARE

340

4.3–

5–1:

Training

inthepre-

ventionof

qualified

peop

lesm

ugglingat

theSw

issPo

lice

Institu

te(SPI)a

swellasaw

are-

ness

andinform

ationa

levents

andmaterials

Training

andraisingaw

aren

esswith

intheag

encies

involved

inpreven

ting

qualified

peop

lesm

uggling

Lead

:fedp

ol,K

KPK

S,SPI

Participation:

Allfede

ral,canton

alan

dlocalage

nciesinvolved

inpreven

tingpe

ople

smug

gling

1Perm

anen

tCou

rses

onqu

alified

peop

lesm

ugglingofferedin

Fren

chan

dGerman

attheSPI

Organ

isationof

internaltraining

coursesab

out

qualified

peop

lesm

ugglingby

thepo

liceforces

andtheSB

G

Inform

ationa

land

awaren

ess-raisingeffortsfor

othe

rag

encies

Dep

ende

nton

measures0.3–

2–1

and0.3–

2–3

0.3–

2–1:

Clear

assign

men

tof

investigations

inthefie

ldof

qualified

peop

lesm

uggling

Explicitassign

men

tof

investigative

authority

inthecanton

sin

thefie

ldof

qualified

peop

lesm

uggling

Reco

mmen

datio

nby

theKKPK

S/KKJPD

onassign

men

tto

thecrim

inal

investi-

gatio

npo

lice

Lead

:Can

tona

linvestig

ative

agen

cies

Participation:

KKPK

S/KKJPD

11year

Clear

assign

men

tof

respon

sibility(in

vestigative

authority)w

ithin

thecanton

sto

anorga

nisatio

nal

unitwith

crim

inalinvestigativeresources

Recommen

datio

nby

theKKPK

S/K

KJPDha

sbe

enmad

ean

dim

plem

ented

Impa

cton

measures0.3–

2–2

and0.3–

2–3

0.3–

2–2:

App

ointmen

tof

specialists

with

inthepo

lice

andprosecutingau

thorities

inthefie

ldof

qualified

peop

lesm

uggling

Explicitap

pointm

entan

dtraining

ofspecialists

forpreven

tingqu

alified

peop

lesm

ugglingam

ongthecanton

alinvestigativeag

encies

andprosecution

authorities

Lead

:Can

tona

linvestig

ative

agen

cies

andprosecution

authorities

Participation:

KKPK

S/K

KJPD/K

SBS

11year

Specialists

appo

intedan

dtraine

dby

thecompe

tent

investigativeag

ency

andprosecutionau

thority

Recommen

datio

nby

theKKPK

S/KKJPD/KSB

Sha

sbe

enmad

ean

dim

plem

ented

Dep

ende

nton

measure

0.3–

2–1

5.5.2Mea

sures

50

Mea

sure

38Ex

planation

Responsibility

Rea

lisation

phase3

9

Duration

Indicators

Commen

ts

0.3–

2–3:

App

ointmen

tof

in-

vestigativegrou

psin

thefie

ldof

qualified

peop

lesm

uggling

App

ointmen

tof

servicegrou

pswith

intheinvestigativeag

ency

defin

edin

measure

0.3–

2–1forinvestigations

incasesof

qualified

peop

lesm

uggling,

requ

iring

compreh

ensive

investigations

Lead

:Can

tona

linvestig

ative

agen

cies

Participation:

KKPK

S/KKJPD

11year

Servicegrou

psap

pointedwith

inthecanton

alinvestigativeag

encies

Recommen

datio

nby

theKKPK

S/K

KJPDha

sbe

enmad

ean

dim

plem

ented

Dep

ende

nton

measure

0.3–

2–1

0.3–

2–4:

Optionof

assign

ing

fede

ralautho

rityin

prosecu-

tionof

qualified

peop

lesm

ug-

gling(study)

Stud

yof

theop

tionof

assign

ing

fede

ralautho

rity(w

iththeexplicit

approvalof

thecanton

sinvolved

)to

bringprosecutions

inrelatio

nto

qualified

peop

lesm

ugglingeven

with

outthepresen

ceof

acrim

inal

orga

nisatio

n,as

requ

iredun

derthe

SwissPe

nalC

ode

Lead

:FO

J

Participation:

Office

oftheAttorne

yGen

eral,fed

pol,KKPK

S,SSK

0Perm

anen

tStud

yor

projectresults

areavailable.

Dep

ending

onthestud

yor

projectresults:

Legislativean

dcontractua

lprecond

ition

sexist

fortheop

tionof

assign

ingfede

ralautho

rity

Thismeasure

willbe

addressedan

dexam

ined

with

inthefram

eworkof

aworking

grou

pap

pointedby

the

KKJPD.Itconcerns,interalia,coo

pe-

ratio

nbe

tweenthecompe

tent

autho-

rities.Alsoinvolved

inan

othe

rFO

J-led

working

grou

pthat

exam

ines

any

amen

dmen

tsto

fede

rallaw

0.3–

2–5:

Con

sisten

tutilisatio

nof

investigativeinform

ationin

relatio

nto

qualified

peop

lesm

uggling

Optim

isationof

coop

erationin

relatio

nto

qualified

peop

lesm

ugglingbe

tween

theSB

Gan

dthecanton

alinvestigative

agen

cies

throug

hmasterprocesses

andstan

dardised

agreem

ents

Lead

:SB

G,c

antona

linvestig

a-tiveau

thorities

Participation:

KKPK

S

1Perm

anen

tCom

pilatio

nof

masterprocessesan

dcompletion

ofstan

dardised

agreem

ents

Increase

inthenu

mbe

rof

peop

lesm

ugglingcases

takenon

bythecanton

alinvestigativeau

thorities

Greater

availabilityof

inform

ationon

peop

lesm

ug-

glingforop

erationa

lcrim

inalan

alysis

–

0.3–

2–6:

Obtaining

inform

a-tio

non

peop

lesm

ugglingin

thefirstasylum

interview

Expa

nsionof

thefirstinterview

with

asylum

seekers(aspa

rtof

atestop

e-ratio

nin

Zurich)

toob

tain

inform

ation

onpe

ople

smug

glers,includ

ingthe

system

aticusean

ddissem

inationof

theinform

ationob

tained

Lead

:FO

M

Participation:

SBG,fed

pol,canton

alan

dmun

icipalpo

lice

12years

Regu

lar,specifican

dap

prop

riatelyad

dressed

forw

arding

ofinform

ationob

tained

from

asylum

seekerson

peop

lesm

ugglingto

the

compe

tent

policeau

thorities

Thismeasure

requ

iresfurthe

rclarificatio

n,espe

ciallyrega

rding

data

evalua

tionan

dan

ylegislativeam

endm

ents

5.5.2Mea

sures

38Themeasure

number

iscomprisedofthefilter

number

asper

thefour-filter

model(firstposition),thenumber

oftheproblemarea

withinthefilter

(secondposition),

thenumber

oftheindividualobjectivewithintheproblemarea

(thirdposition)andthenumber

ofthemeasure

withintheindividualobjective(fourthposition)

39Indicates

thestartofimplementation,cf.Section6.2

51

5.5.3 FindingsA total of seven measures41 were formulated on themore comprehensive prevention of people smug-gling. These focus on ensuring a more efficient pros-ecution and simplified interagency investigations bydefining clearer responsibilities, without encroachingon the cantons’ sphere of competency. Of particularimportance for extensive investigations is measure0.3–2–4: the option of assigning federal authoritywould enable the cantons – if they wish – to leavecriminal proceedings in cases of qualified peoplesmuggling to the Confederation, even if these casesdo not meet the requirement for being classified asorganised crime. This would remove some of the bur-den from those cantons agreeing to this and wouldsimplify and improve the efficiency of prosecution insuch cases, which are often intercantonal. The workon this measure is conducted within the context oftwo working groups established by a KKJPD mandatewith all of the stakeholders involved. Two significantmilestones have been reached to date: First, a frame-work agreement was signed in November 2013 be-tween the FDJP and the KKJPD to promote and sup-port increased and better coordinated cooperationbetween the Federal Criminal Police (FCP) and thecantonal and municipal police forces. Secondly, theOffice of the Attorney General and the Conferenceof Law Enforcement Authorities of Switzerland (KSBS,now SSK) signed in November 2013 a joint recom-mendation on cooperation in the prosecution of com-plex crimes, particularly human trafficking. This rec-ommendation serves to improve coordination andintensify mutual support and information betweenthe cantonal prosecution authorities and the Officeof the Attorney General. The other measures in rela-tion to people smuggling seek to obtain more infor-mation on this phenomenon as well as more targetedtraining and raising of awareness among all agenciesinvolved.

Another key measure of the ”Internal“ subprojectinvolves a feasibility study on the pilot operation ofa centre of expertise for processing cases of illegalimmigration in Bern (measure 4.2–4–1). This exam-ines whether and to what extent an interagency pro-cessing centre can help to optimise cooperation. Thecentre is jointly operated by the SBG and the EMF ofthe City of Bern. Cases of illegal residence discoveredby the SBG in rail traffic are transferred to the police;detention pending deportation under immigrationlaw is ordered and travel documents obtained. Basedon practical experience and service requirements, aswell as its geotactical situation and close cooperationbetween the agencies involved, the City of Bern issuitable for such a pilot project. The study will alsoprovide information on further issues.

The measures already implemented are those in thearea of enforcement: 4.3–1–1 (List of problemStates for enforcement) and 4.3–1–2 (Inclusion of thelist of priority return countries in the “InternationalMigration Cooperation” structure), developed onthe basis of a Federal Council decision of June 2012.These instruments will improve cooperation withcountries of origin in relation to returns and thusallow for a long-term, consistent enforcement policy.

No measures were formulated regarding objective2.3–242 as the agencies represented in the sub-project believed that this goal could be met withinthe framework of the existing cooperation andthus without any concrete measures. Likewise, nomeasures were formulated for objective 4.3–2.43

Based on their experience, particularly in operations,the agencies involved in this subproject agreedthat the existing difficulties in cooperation werenot due to interface problems.

Implementation of the measures is at all threegovernment levels. This includes stakeholderswith a wide variety of interests and different oper-ational or strategic orientations, a fact likely tofurther complicate implementation of the measures.

41 Measures 0.3–2–1 to 0.3–2–6 as well as 4.3–5–142 National police conferences regularly exchange findings with other police conferences, particularly those from neighbouring countries,

on the prevention of illegal immigration and people smuggling43 Overlapping in enforcement is minimised; any remaining areas of redundancy do not hinder enforcement

52

5.5.4 Financial impactsThe primary requirement for implementation ofthe measures within the ”Internal“ subproject ispersonnel resources.

The majority of measures in relation to people smug-gling result first and foremost in organisationalchanges. They thus incur only minor personnel orother expenses. However, measures 0.3–2–4 (Optionof assigning federal authority in prosecution of quali-fied human trafficking [study]) and 0.3–2–6 (Obtain-ing information on people smuggling in the first asy-lum interview) could result in substantial personnelcosts for the Confederation in the area of prosecutionand the evaluation of information. The precise calcu-lation of these costs, as well as any allocation thereof,will be clarified as part of the implementation work,insofar as this is possible.

The costintensive measure 4.3–4–1 (Biometric resi-dence permits [study]) already forms part of a sepa-rate project structure.44 The expenses at federaland cantonal level therefore fall outside the scopeof this action plan.

The study costs for measure 4.2–4–1 (Centre of exper-tise for processing immigration cases from rail trafficthrough a pilot project in Bern [feasibility study]) willbe borne by the two lead agencies (SBG and EMFof the City of Bern) and are estimated at around 50man-days each. The study will provide informationon any operating costs for running such a centreof expertise.

The financial impact of redistributing the differentenforcement costs will be shown by measure 4.2–2–1(Mechanisms to redistribute the enforcement costsin relation to immigration and asylum).

5.5.5 SummaryThe measures in the ”Internal“ subproject result pri-marily in a more efficient prevention of people smug-gling. This is done by clearly designating the compe-tencies, obtaining more detailed information aboutthe phenomenon, and raising awareness amongthe agencies concerned. Failures in relation to enforce-ment are targeted within the pilot project on aninteragency centre of expertise. Moreover, a studyof the different enforcement costs should indicatepossible mechanisms for cost compensation. Success-ful prevention of illegal immigration is also achievedby issuing residence permits that, through technicalinnovations, offer greater security against forgeries.

44 NAA RE3, a project between the FOM and the VKM

53

5.6 “General” subproject

5.6.1 OverviewThe title of the “General” subproject indicatesthe wide range and heterogeneity of the individualobjectives covered. This subproject covers all individ-ual objectives that, on account of their cross-cuttingnature, could not be clearly assigned to one of theother four filters. The starting point was formed bythe following problem areas:• Inadequate gathering, dissemination and/or use

of information available on site (P1.1)• Individuals reach the external border who do not

fulfil the entry requirements and should not beallowed to travel (P1.2)

• Inadequate exchange of information andinsufficient networking (P4.1)

• Enforcement is circumvented by individuals whoevade immediate removal by submitting a futileasylum application (P4.4)

• Lack of information and analysis (P0.1)• Inadequate exchange of information between

the levels of operations and strategic policy (P0.2)• Insufficient prevention of people smuggling (P0.3)

The strategy defines 18 individual objectives for theseproblem areas, divided into four subject areas:

The largest group of individual objectives (with 11)is that of “Information flow and analysis”. Thisgroup covers all individual objectives that relate tothe generation of raw data, the interagency andcircular flow of information, and the comprehensivestrategic analysis regarding immigration (particularlywhen illegal).

The “Systemic” group of individual objectives con-tains those that seek to ensure better utilisation ofexisting systems and processes. All of the relevantdatabases that could potentially be queried in thecourse of a typical migration process (particularlyin the case of illegal immigration) are systematicallyused. There should also be a systematic matchingof personal data based on the necessary legal andtechnical foundations.

Another group deals with individual objectives relatedto the asylum procedure (“Asylum” group of individ-ual objectives), striving mainly to accelerate the pro-cesses. As numerous measures have already beendrawn up under the FOM’s lead independently ofthis action plan (particularly with regard to speedingup the procedures), some of which are already beingimplemented, these are simply outlined here in theaction plan.

Finally, independent objectives were defined in relationto “Cooperation at the external border”, whichseeks to reduce the number of persons reachingthe Schengen external border who do not have therequired entry requirements (i.e. INAD: inadmissible).

The following table presents 23 measures that havebeen formulated to attain the individual objectives.

54

45Themeasure

number

iscomprisedofthefilter

number

asper

thefour-filter

model(firstposition),thenumber

oftheproblemarea

withinthefilter

(secondposition),

thenumber

oftheindividualobjectivewithintheproblemarea

(thirdposition)andthenumber

ofthemeasure

withintheindividualobjective(fourthposition)

46Indicates

thestartofimplementation,cf.Section6.2

Mea

sure

45Ex

planation

Responsibility

Rea

lisation

phase4

6

Duration

Indicators

Commen

ts

1.2–

1–1:

Carrie

rsanctio

nsIm

positio

nof

dissua

sive,e

ffectivean

dap

prop

riate

sanctio

nsag

ainstairline

carriersthat

failto

perform

theirdu

-tie

sof

diligen

ceas

perArt.9

2FN

A

Lead

:FO

M0

Perm

anen

t20

%redu

ctionin

thenu

mbe

rof

entryrefusals

onaccoun

tof

notha

ving

avisa

(adjustedforthe

increase

in[non

-Schen

gen]

passen

gernu

mbe

rs)

with

inthefirst

fiveyears

–

1.2–

1–2:

New

web

site

with

Sche

ngen

entryrequ

iremen

tsCreationof

acitizen

-frie

ndlyweb

site,

preferab

lyinteractive,

ontheSche

n-ge

nen

tryrequ

iremen

ts,tosupp

le-

men

ttheexistin

gdirectives

aimed

atamorespecialistread

ership

Lead

:FO

M

Participation:

GS-FD

JP(CCWeb

),CD

3Perm

anen

t20

%redu

ctionin

thenu

mbe

rof

entryrefusals

onaccoun

tof

notha

ving

avisa

(adjustedforthe

increase

in[non

-Schen

gen]

passen

gernu

mbe

rs)

with

inthefirst

fiveyears

–

1.2–

2–1:

Coo

peratio

nag

reem

entswith

airline

sDraftingof

aco

ncep

tpa

peron

coop

erationbe

twee

ntheFO

M,

border

controlage

nciesan

dairline

s,includ

ingthecorrespo

ndingstan

dard

MoU

Con

clusionof

coop

erationag

ree-

men

tswith

thelead

ingairline

s

Lead

:FO

M

Participation:

Airlines,C

PBE

,CPGE,

CPSO

,CPVS,

CPZH

2Perm

anen

tIncrease

inthenu

mbe

rof

airline

swith

which

Switzerland

conclude

saco

operationag

reem

ent

(based

onastan

dard

MoU

)

–

4.1–

2–1:

Training

andpe

riodic

retraining

ofZE

MISusers

Add

ition

ofco

nten

ton

thede

pend

-en

cies

ofZEMISwith

othe

rsystem

sto

allZEM

IStraining

andfurthe

red

ucationco

urses

Acq

uisitio

nof

aZEMISe-learning

tool

Activeprom

otionof

ZEMISco

urses

specially

oriented

towards

thestaffof

policeop

erations

centresan

dforeign

natio

nalservices

Lead

:FO

M1

Perm

anen

tDeclinein

thenu

mbe

rof

fusion

applications

inZEMIS

with

intw

oyears

Thismeasure

also

covers

individu

alob

jective4.3–

3

5.6.2Mea

sures

55

Mea

sure

45Ex

planation

Responsibility

Rea

lisation

phase4

6

Duration

Indicators

Commen

ts

4.1–

2–2:

Expa

nsion

ofZEMISaccess

rights

Ada

ptationof

unde

rlyinglegislation

soas

toa)

gran

tcanton

alan

dmun

icipalpo

lice

forces,the

SBG,m

igratio

noffices

andtheFISaccess

tothefacial

imag

esco

ntaine

din

ZEMIS,a

ndb)

gran

ttheSIRE

NEoffic

e(fed

pol)

access

tothee-do

ssiersattached

inZE

MIS

Lead

:FO

M3

3years

Detectio

nof

over

ado

zencasesof

misuseeach

year

throug

hthesystem

aticverifi

catio

nof

iden

titiesthat

aremaintaine

dthou

ghno

tproven

byforeignna

tiona

lsby

means

ofthefacial

imag

esstored

inZEMIS

–

4.1–

2–3:

Dep

loym

entof

e-do

cread

ersat

migratio

noffices

(pilotsche

me)

Dep

loym

entof

devicesforread

ing

andch

ecking

inform

ation(i.e.

visual

imag

ean

dpe

rson

alde

tails)from

e-do

cumen

ts(i.e.

biom

etric

passpo

rts

andreside

ncepe

rmits)a

swellasau

to-

maticch

ecking

ofcertainsecu

rity

features

ofe-do

cumen

tsforkn

own

indicatio

nsof

forgery(pilo

tsche

me)

Lead

:EM

Fof

theCity

ofBe

rn1

1year

Dep

loym

entof

threeread

ingde

vicesover

sixmon

ths

Existenceof

afin

alrepo

rtthreemon

thsafter

completionof

thepilotsche

me

Con

tributionmad

eby

theha

rdwarean

dsoftware

used

inthepilotsche

meto

detect

misuse/illeg

alim

migratio

n

Thismeasure

also

covers

individu

alob

jective4.3–

4

4.1–

2–4:

Use

ofexistin

ge-do

cread

ersat

represen

ta-

tions

abroad

(pilotsche

me)

Dep

loym

entof

devicesalread

yexistin

gbu

tlargelyun

used

atrepresen

tatio

nsab

road

forread

ingan

dch

ecking

infor-

mation(i.e.

visual

imag

ean

dpe

rson

alde

tails)from

e-do

cumen

ts(i.e.

biom

et-

ricpa

sspo

rtsan

dreside

ncepe

rmits)a

swella

sau

tomaticch

ecking

ofcertain

secu

rityfeatures

ofe-do

cumen

tsfor

know

nindicatio

nsof

forgery

Lead

:FD

FA2

1year

Dep

loym

entof

read

ingde

vicesat

three

represen

tatio

ns

Existenceof

afin

alrepo

rtthreemon

thsafter

completionof

thepilotsche

me

Con

tributionmad

eby

theha

rdwarean

dsoftware

used

inthepilotsche

meto

detect

misuse/illeg

alim

migratio

n

Dep

ende

nton

measure

4.1–

2–5.

Theoverallb

iometrics

strategy

shou

ldindicate

whe

ther

orno

tapilotsche

mewillbe

laun

ched

4.1–

2–5:

Overallbiom

etrics

strategy

Form

ulationof

ana

tiona

lbiometrics

strategy

tobe

subm

itted

totheFede

r-alCou

ncil.Key

issues:B

iometrics

compe

tencywith

intheCon

fede

ratio

n,verifi

catio

nof

existin

gbiom

etrics

documen

ts,increasingde

man

dson

thee-do

cumen

tsystem

platform

,etc.

Lead

:TechnicalC

ommittee

for

IDDocum

ents

Participation:

FOBL,FOM,S

BG,fed

pol,

CPZH

,CD,K

KPK

S,SV

ZW,V

KM

11year

Existenceof

astrategy

Ackno

wledg

men

tof

thestrategy

bytheFede

ral

Cou

ncil

Avo

idan

ceof

unne

cessarysystem

costs

Improvem

entin

thequ

ality

ofda

tarelated

toim

migratio

nan

dasylum

law

–

5.6.2Mea

sures

45Themeasure

number

iscomprisedofthefilter

number

asper

thefour-filter

model(firstposition),thenumber

oftheproblemarea

withinthefilter

(secondposition),

thenumber

oftheindividualobjectivewithintheproblemarea

(thirdposition)andthenumber

ofthemeasure

withintheindividualobjective(fourthposition)

46Indicates

thestartofimplementation,cf.Section6.2

56

45Themeasure

number

iscomprisedofthefilter

number

asper

thefour-filter

model(firstposition),thenumber

oftheproblemarea

withinthefilter

(secondposition),

thenumber

oftheindividualobjectivewithintheproblemarea

(thirdposition)andthenumber

ofthemeasure

withintheindividualobjective(fourthposition)

46Indicates

thestartofimplementation,cf.Section6.2

Mea

sure

45Ex

planation

Responsibility

Rea

lisation

phase4

6

Duration

Indicators

Commen

ts

4.1–

2–6:

Add

ition

ofa

“PCNnu

mbe

r”search

box

inRIPO

L(feasibilitystud

y)

Feasibility

stud

yon

whe

ther

and

unde

rwha

tcond

ition

sRIPO

Lcould

begivenane

w(searcha

ble)

field

foren

terin

gthePC

N

Lead

:fedp

ol

Participation:

FOM,ISC

-FDJP

21year

Writtenrepo

rtthat

commen

tson

thefeasibility

ofasearchab

lefie

ldforPC

Nnu

mbe

rsor

compa

rable

measuresan

dillustrates

thelega

l,technicaland

operationa

lcon

ditio

nsun

derwhich

thismeasure

canbe

realised

Theinform

ationreferssolelyto

the

stud

y.Th

iswillmakestatem

ents

oncosts,saving

s,preciserespon

sibilities

andthetim

ingof

anysuch

implem

en-

tatio

n

4.1–

2–8:

Simplified

ISR

queries(feasibilitystud

y)Feasibility

stud

yon

adap

tingthe

tech

nicala

ndpo

ssiblythelega

lbasis

toen

ablepo

licean

dbo

rder

control

bodies

toqu

eryISRforiden

tificatio

npu

rposes

basedon

lyon

thelast

and

firstna

mes

andda

teof

birth

Lead

:FO

M

Participation:

SBG,fed

pol,ISC-FDJP,

CPBE

,CPGE,

CPSO

,CPVS,

CPZH

,KKPK

S

11year

Writtenrepo

rtthat

commen

tson

thefeasibility

ofad

aptin

gISRan

dillustrates

thelega

l,technical

andop

erationa

lcon

ditio

nsun

derwhich

this

measure

canbe

realised

Theinform

ationreferssolelyto

the

stud

y.Th

iswillmakestatem

ents

oncosts,saving

s,preciserespon

sibilities

andthetim

ingof

anysuch

implem

en-

tatio

n

4.1–

2–9:

Simplified

ISA

queries

Ada

ptationof

thetechnicaland

lega

lba

sisto

enab

lepo

licean

dbo

rder

controlb

odiesto

queryISAforiden

ti-ficationpu

rposes

basedon

lyon

the

lastan

dfirst

names

andda

teof

birth

Lead

:fedp

ol

Participation:

SBG,

CPBE

,CPGE,

CPSO

,CPVS,

CPZH

,KKPK

S

02years

Possibility

fortheSB

Gan

dthede

sign

ated

canton

alan

dmun

icipalpo

liceforces

toqu

eryISAforiden

ti-ficationpu

rposes

basedon

lyon

thelastan

dfirst

names

andtheda

teof

birth

Thismeasure

hasalread

ypa

rtially

been

implem

entedthroug

hthe

passingof

theGeissbü

hler

Motion

(10.39

17)b

ytheParliam

ent.

Nofurthe

rstep

sareplan

nedfor

thetim

ebe

ing

4.1–

3–1:

CS-VIS

asylum

Com

parison

ofasylum

seekers’fin

ger-

prints

(EURO

DAC)w

ithfin

gerprin

tsstored

inCS-VIS

forthepu

rposeof

iden

tifying

undo

cumen

tedasylum

seekersan

dpo

ssiblyinitiatingDUBLIN-

OUTproced

ures

Lead

:FO

M

Participation:

ISC-FDJP

0Perm

anen

tTh

eCS-VISasylum

projectwas

com-

pleted

in20

12an

den

teredinto

ope-

ratio

nat

thestartof

2013

5.6.2Mea

sures

57

Mea

sure

45Ex

planation

Responsibility

Rea

lisation

phase4

6

Duration

Indicators

Commen

ts

4.1–

3–2:

Inclusionof

fedp

olin

VISIONconsultatio

n(feasi-

bilitystud

y)

Feasibility

stud

yon

whe

ther

andho

wpo

liceinform

ationsystem

s(particularly

JANUSan

dIPAS)

couldbe

automati-

cally

queriedwith

intheVISIONvisa

consultatio

nproced

urean

dtherefore

removethecurren

tblindspot

inthe

securitypo

lice’sfin

ding

s

Lead

:fedp

ol

Participation:

FOM,ISC

-FDJP,FIS

01year

Writtenrepo

rtthat

commen

tson

thepo

ssible

optio

nsof

includ

ingpo

liceinform

ationsystem

sin

theVISIONconsultatio

nprocessan

devalua

tes

theseop

tions

from

alega

l,technical,fin

ancial

andop

erationa

laspect

Theinform

ationreferssolelyto

the

stud

y.Th

iswillmakestatem

ents

onco

sts,saving

s,preciserespon

sibilities

andthetim

ingof

anysuch

imple-

men

tatio

n

4.1–

3–3:

“Ide

ntificatio

n”clearin

gun

it(feasibilitystud

y)Feasibility

stud

yon

whe

ther

andho

wthevario

usda

taba

sesinvolved

inthe

migratio

nprocess(ORB

IS,V

IS,E

URO

-DAC,S

IS,Z

EMIS,R

IPOL,etc.)a

ndthe

finding

sprocessedin

thesecouldbe

better

aligne

dwith

each

othe

r

Lead

:FO

M,fed

pol

Participation:

FOJ,FD

PIC,S

BG,K

KPK

S,SV

ZW,V

KM,V

SAA

21year

Arepo

rtpa

ssed

byallo

fficesinvolved

that

contains

thepo

ssiblevaria

ntsof

aclearin

gun

itan

d/or

ane

wroleconcep

tan

dpresen

tsthelega

l,technical

andorga

nisatio

nalcon

ditio

nsun

derwhich

these

varia

ntscanbe

realised

Theinform

ationreferssolelyto

the

stud

y.Th

iswillmakestatem

ents

oncosts,saving

s,preciserespon

sibilities

andthetim

ingof

anysuch

implem

en-

tatio

n

4.4–

1–1:

Nosocial

bene

fits

inthecase

ofmultip

leasylum

applications

Norig

htto

social

bene

fitsforpe

rson

ssubm

ittingmorethan

oneasylum

application(onlyem

erge

ncyaidto

begran

ted)

Lead

:FO

M

Participation:

Can

tons

0Perm

anen

tRe

ductionin

theprop

ortio

nof

clearly

futile

multip

leasylum

applications

filed

–

4.4–

2–1:

Expe

ditedasylum

proced

ures

Implem

entatio

nof

anexpe

dited

asylum

proc

edure(48ho

urs)for

eligible

asylum

applications

(e.g.visa-

exem

ptEu

rope

ansafe

coun

triesor

othe

rco

untrieswith

alow

recogn

ition

rate

andfasten

forcem

entpo

ssibilitie

s)

Implem

entatio

nof

afast-track

proced

-ure(decisionwith

in20

days

durin

gstay

inan

RPC),whe

refasten

force-

men

tisno

tpo

ssible

Lead

:FO

M0

Perm

anen

tDissuasiveeffect

byshortening

theleng

thof

theproced

ure

Redu

ctionin

thenu

mbe

rof

asylum

seekers

from

theselected

states

–

5.6.2Mea

sures

45Themeasure

number

iscomprisedofthefilter

number

asper

thefour-filter

model(firstposition),thenumber

oftheproblemarea

withinthefilter

(secondposition),

thenumber

oftheindividualobjectivewithintheproblemarea

(thirdposition)andthenumber

ofthemeasure

withintheindividualobjective(fourthposition)

46Indicates

thestartofimplementation,cf.Section6.2

58

45Themeasure

number

iscomprisedofthefilter

number

asper

thefour-filter

model(firstposition),thenumber

oftheproblemarea

withinthefilter

(secondposition),

thenumber

oftheindividualobjectivewithintheproblemarea

(thirdposition)andthenumber

ofthemeasure

withintheindividualobjective(fourthposition)

46Indicates

thestartofimplementation,cf.Section6.2

Mea

sure

45Ex

planation

Responsibility

Rea

lisation

phase4

6

Duration

Indicators

Commen

ts

4.4–

3–1:

Entryba

nfor

expe

ditedasylum

proc

edures

Moreco

nsistent

impo

sitio

nof

entry

bans

inthecase

offailedexpe

dited

asylum

proced

ures,ifthede

parture

dead

lineexpires,thereisadisturba

nce

topu

blicorde

ror

security,or

inthe

case

ofun

substantiatedmultip

leap

pli-

catio

nsan

dclearcasesof

misuse

Lead

:FO

M

Participation:

Can

tons

0Perm

anen

tRe

ductionin

thenu

mbe

rof

futilemultip

leap

plications

–

4.4–

3–2:

Advan

cefees

inthe

case

offutilemultip

leasylum

applications

Increasedcharging

ofad

vancefees

oncostsforsubm

ission

ofarene

wed

asylum

applicationafterthefin

alruling

ofan

initial

asylum

proced

urean

dwhe

rethene

wap

plicationisfutile

Lead

:FO

M0

Perm

anen

tRe

ductionin

theprop

ortio

nof

clearly

futile

multip

leasylum

applications

filed

;ordism

issal

ofalargenu

mbe

rof

such

applications

onacco

unt

ofno

n-pa

ymen

tof

thead

vanc

efees

–

4.4–

3–3:

Crim

inal-la

wsanc

-tio

nsin

thecase

ofab

usive

politicalactivities

ofasylum

seek

ersin

Switzerland

Introd

uctio

nof

crim

inal-la

wsanctio

nsag

ainstasylum

seek

erswho

exercise

publicpo

liticalactivities

inSw

itzerland

solelywith

theintentionof

creatin

gsubjectivepo

st-flight

grou

ndsor

againstan

ype

rson

sassistingan

asylum

seek

erin

thisrespect

Lead

:Can

tona

ljustice

authorities

Participation:

FOM

0Perm

anen

tFina

ncialcon

sequ

encesforan

yone

subm

ittingmul-

tipleap

plications

who

enga

gesin

political

activities

inexile

inSw

itzerland

solelyforthepu

rposeof

crea

tingsubjectivepo

st-flight

grou

nds

Redu

ctionin

theprop

ortio

nof

such

applications

–

0.1–

1–1:

Quick

winsin

theinform

ationflo

wOccasiona

limprovem

entsin

theex-

chan

geof

inform

ationbe

tweendiffer-

entbo

rder

man

agem

entag

encies

Lead

:FO

M,S

BG,C

PZH

0–

Coveringof

repo

rted

need

sin

term

sof

data

andan

alytics

–

5.6.2Mea

sures

59

Mea

sure

45Ex

planation

Responsibility

Rea

lisation

phase4

6

Duration

Indicators

Commen

ts

0.1–

2–1:

Nationa

lstatistics

onilleg

alreside

nce

Mon

thlyintegrationinto

theILAof

theda

taco

llected

bytheFede

ralO

ffice

forStatisticson

policeregistratio

nsforilleg

alreside

nce

Lead

:FO

M,F

SO0

Perm

anen

tForw

arding

ofmon

thlyfig

ures

onpo

liceregistra-

tions

forilleg

alreside

nceby

theFSO

totheFO

M

Inclusionof

thesefig

ures

intheILA

–

0.1–

3–1:

Jointna

tiona

lana

-lysiscentre

formigratio

n(w

orking

title:G

NAM)

Establishm

entof

ajointstrategic

analysiscentre

formigratio

n(particu-

larly,tho

ughno

texclusively,illeg

alim

migratio

n)ledby

theFO

M,w

ithrepresen

tatives

ofallrelevan

tbo

rder

man

agem

entag

encies

Lead

:FO

M

Participation:

DR,

SBG,fed

pol,

CPBE

,CPGE,

CPSO

,CPVS,

CPZH

,CD,

KKPK

S,FIS,

VKM

1Perm

anen

tAna

lysiscentre

inop

eration

Effectiven

essof

thene

wan

alysiscentre:U

seof

syne

rgies,threat

detection,

circular

data

and

inform

ationflo

w,rem

ovalof

system

icweakn

esses,

curren

treco

mmen

datio

nsan

dop

tions

available

Two-year

concep

tan

dset-up

phasebe

fore

thecentre

becomes

operationa

l

0.2–

2–1:

Reinforcem

ent

ofan

alytical

skillswith

intheFO

M

Expa

nsionof

theremitof

theFO

M's

“Ana

lysis”

unitto

includ

e“A

nalysis

ofilleg

alim

migratio

n”

Lead

:FO

M0

Perm

anen

tCreationan

ddissem

inationof

analytical

prod

ucts

inthefie

ldof

illeg

alim

migratio

n–

5.6.2Mea

sures

45Themeasure

number

iscomprisedofthefilter

number

asper

thefour-filter

model(firstposition),thenumber

oftheproblemarea

withinthefilter

(secondposition),

thenumber

oftheindividualobjectivewithintheproblemarea

(thirdposition)andthenumber

ofthemeasure

withintheindividualobjective(fourthposition)

46Indicates

thestartofimplementation,cf.Section6.2

60

5.6.3 FindingsMeasures 4.1–2–5 (Overall biometrics strategy) and0.1–3–1 (Joint national analysis centre for migration)are the two central measures of this subproject.

Biometrics data and verification thereof are gainingground in the various procedures under immigrationand asylum law (registration and storage of biometricdata when issuing Schengen visas, issue of biometricresidence permits, travel documents for foreign nation-als, etc.). At present, the e-document system platformis primarily used for the issuing of ID documents.Some of the same system components are also usedin border control. The current system platform willprobably have to be replaced end 2019 on accountof contracts expiring and the age of the componentsused. With this in mind, it should be examined whichoffices require such a system platform and whethersuch an application should continue in the future tocover the needs of both those who issue and thosewho check ID documents. In general, it can be saidthat there is no consistent overall strategy shared byall relevant agencies behind these different systemshooked up to the platform, creating the risk of agen-cies acting only from their own viewpoint as the buyerand/or user of such systems rather than taking acomprehensive overall approach. Also of importanceis interagency coordination and cooperation forthe longer term, as envisaged in measure 4.1–2–5.

The joint national analysis centre fills a gap in thecurrent fragmented analytical landscape. This commonapproach gives an all-round picture of the phenom-enon of migration (particularly illegal immigration),forming the basis for a targeted and efficient deploy-ment of resources at an operational level.

While these 23 measures essentially cover a wide area,many of them serve to simplify identification ofpersons. Almost all of the measures seek to give policeand border control agencies easier access to the dataavailable. In practically all cases, the newly proposedaccess rights call for technical adaptations to the exist-

ing databases and/or the acquisition of new hardwareand/or software systems. On account of the technicallinkages and dependencies between systems, it wasnot always possible within the subproject work toestimate reliably which systems are affected by suchchanges, as well as how and to what extent, and whatcosts are associated with the changes. It should alsobe assumed that some measures will require legislativechanges. For all of these reasons, some measures areformulated solely as studies in which the outstandinglegal and technical issues have yet to be clarified.

There are also certain discrepancies between the indi-vidual objectives passed by the Federal Council inthe strategy and other requirements of the FederalCouncil. Specifically, in acknowledging the “Inte-grated Border Management” strategy, the FederalCouncil approved objective 4.1–3 (“Personal detailsare systematically matched against the relevantdatabases on the basis of the underlying legislationand technical facilities required”). Based on thisindividual objective, an attempt was made to improveexchange of data between migration and socialsecurity agencies as part of the working group “Legalstatus of undocumented migrants”. However, it wasnot possible to include this subject in the discussionpaper for the Federal Council, resulting in the FederalCouncil deciding on 13 February 2013 that therewas “no need for a re-examination of the exchangeof information between the areas of immigration law,social security and undeclared employment”.47

Responsibility for implementing the measures lies withthe FOM in most cases; in fact, there are only threemeasures in which the FOM is not involved. Overall,there is a wider distribution of offices, agencies andadministrations involved in this subproject than in anyof the others – which is hardly surprising given thecross-cutting topics addressed here.

47 http://www.bfm.admin.ch/content/bfm/de/home/dokumentation/medienmitteilungen/2013/ref_2013-02-131.html

61

5.6.4 Financial impactsMost of the complex measures exist only in the formof studies that will clarify some outstanding issueson technical, legal and operational implementation.Only after completion of these studies will it thenbe possible to make well-founded statements on thefinancial impacts.

Overall, the expenses for the measures not yet initi-ated are estimated as follows: Non-recurrent materialcosts of almost CHF 0.25 million are assumed, ofwhich around 75% is incurred by the Confederationand around 25% by the cantons. Some 70% ofthese costs are generated by measures 1.2–1–248 and4.1–2–249 through the procurement of external ser-vices. The non-recurrent personnel costs are esti-mated at 700 man-days, of which some 550 are borneby the Confederation and around 150 by the cantons.Around 60% of these expenses are incurred by justthree measures: 4.1–2–550, 0.1–3–151 and 4.1–3–352.The estimated recurrent costs are only 30 man-days,all of which are down to measures 1.2–1–153 and1.2–2–154 (both for the Confederation).

Most of the savings are primarily recurrent in nature;any non-recurrent savings are negligible. Regardingthe material costs, measure 4.1–3–155 in particularproduces annual savings of an estimated CHF 3 millionfor the cantons. In terms of man-days, measures1.2–1–156 and 1.2–1–257 in particular are estimatedto save over 50 man-days. Overall, the recurrentsavings in terms of personnel come to around 70%for the cantons.

5.6.5 SummaryAlthough some measures in the ”General“ subprojecthave not yet been sufficiently developed for directimplementation, this subproject produces a raft ofexpedient measures. These relate to the operationalas well as the strategic level. Particularly in regardto data flow and analysis, the measures seek a betterexchange of data and information between the agen-cies and a joint (interagency) and therefore nationalanalysis of the phenomenon of migration (primarilythough not exclusively illegal immigration). Numeroussystem-relevant improvements are also sought. Forexample, some measures greatly optimise or simplifythe identification possibilities, facilitating the day-to-day work of those agencies involved in operations.At the strategic level, the overall biometrics strategy,in particular, creates a long-term and sustainableorientation that is adopted by all agencies involvedand will serve as a guideline for all future decisionsin relation to biometrics.

48 New website with Schengen entry requirements49 Expansion of ZEMIS access rights50 Overall biometrics strategy51 Joint national analysis centre for migration (GNAM)52 “Identification” clearing unit (feasibility study)53 Carrier sanctions54 Cooperation agreements with airlines55 Asylum CS-VIS (project)56 Carrier sanctions57 New website with Schengen entry requirements

62

6. Implementation of the measures

6.1 Finance

Around half of the measures under this action planwere already initiated or even fully implemented in thecourse of the project work (measures under realisationphase 0). This was only possible – prior to formalacknowledgement of the action plan – thanks to abroad consensus among the agencies involved. Thismeans that financing has already been secured forall such measures (cf. Chapter 5.1), and so they arenot further discussed here.

The 38 measures still to be implemented have financialand personnel impacts on the organisational unitsinvolved (measures from realisation phases 1, 2 and3). The estimated expenses for these measures drawnup in the project phase for the Confederation andcantons are as follows:

58 FTE = Full Time Equivalent; 1 FTE equals 220 man-days59 This includes 1.5 FTE for monitoring of the action plan by the Entry Division of the FOM60 For example, simply setting up a joint national Migration Centre (measure 0.1–3–1) will not be sufficient to make savings.

However, the work done in the centre will contribute to the more efficient and effective prevention of illegal immigration,

e.g. by pooling the know-how available and generating synergies61 For instance, while the costs for expanding ZEMIS access rights (measure 4.1–2–2) are borne solely by the Confederation,

the savings are felt mainly by the cantons

Material costs Personnel costs

Non-recurrent Annual Non-recurrent Annual

Confed. approx. CHF 1.75 m approx. CHF 0.5 m approx. 6 FTE58 approx. 2 FTE59

Cantons approx. CHF 1.5 m approx. CHF 0.5 m approx. 1 FTE approx. 1 FTE

Total approx. CHF 3.25 m approx. CHF 1 m approx. 7 FTE approx. 3 FTE

The expenses and savings – whether in terms of ma-terials or human resources – can be clearly calculatedfor only certain measures. This can be explained bythe lack of detail for some measures, mainly as a re-sult of time constraints or their complexity, or thefact that savings are often made indirectly only60 anddo not necessarily benefit the same agency that borethe costs.61 Due to these circumstances, only esti-mates are given for many measures.

Where certain measures could not be defined in suffi-cient detail on account of their complexity, thesewere formulated as studies or concept mandates.This work will seek to complete the missing details,whether in terms of technical, legal or financialaspects. Correspondingly, information on the preciserequirements for potential implementation canonly be given at a later stage, targeting long-termbudget neutrality (see below) at all times.

All of the measures set out in this action plan makea contribution to consolidating and improving internalsecurity, protecting the national social systems andmaking Switzerland less attractive for illegal immi-grants and people-smuggling gangs.

63

Moreover, the costs for border management arelargely driven by external factors, such as, for example,the increase in the flow of persons and tourist traffic.In view of the sharp rise predicted for this pheno-menon, a marked increase in spending on bordermanagement is to be expected in the future. Thebenefit of the action plan will primarily lie in stemmingthis growing demand for resources and thus curbingexpenditure growth.

Despite the aforementioned difficulties, the action plancomplies with the requirements of budget neutrality,assuming that budget neutrality is defined as an inte-gral factor covering all government levels that cannotbe proven numerically throughout the entire actionplan. Where the savings cannot be calculated, it canbe assumed at least on the basis of the steering com-mittee’s estimates that the “benefit” of the measuresjustify the cost of their implementation.

The overall project management has examined numer-ous financing options, e.g. a flat-rate co-financingoption, a flat-rate allocation formula or a separatecredit line. However, due to numerous practical prob-lems (particularly the large number of players andthe heterogeneity of the measures), none of theseoptions proved appropriate. The financing of meas-ures thus remains the responsibility of the agenciesentrusted with implementation.

6.2 Schedule

In principle, the subprojects have defined a separate,isolated schedule for all measures. In the overview ofall 38 measures yet to be implemented, it should benoted that the measures are staggered in time, dif-fering in some respects from the schedules drawn upin the subprojects. This is necessary to ensure com-plete implementation of the measures, particularly inthose heavily burdened by day-to-day operations.The measures are also weighted to a certain extent soas to take account of their broad distribution in termsof content and their varied scope.

The above-mentioned staggering of measures is cre-ated by way of three realisation phases. Key criteria indistributing the measures among these three realisa-tion phases are the effectiveness (i.e. the relation be-tween the current situation and the target situation) aswell as the feasibility (i.e. the time frame within whichthe objective can be attained). Measures with higheffectiveness and good feasibility should be imple-mented as promptly as possible, while those withsomewhat lower effectiveness and feasibility shouldnormally be allocated to a later realisation phase.Subsequently, this initial distribution is followed byanother allocation round taking different criteria intoaccount, such as the potential and the urgency ofthe measure in question. This injects a certain degreeof political weighting to the process, alongside themore mechanical considerations. Annex III givesan overview of the three realisation phases andthe measures allocated to each one.

Realisation phase 1 contains 19 measures. Imple-mentation of these will commence directly afteracknowledgment of the action plan by the FederalCouncil, though no later than end 2015. In principle,the lead agencies are free to decide when exactlywithin this 18-month period they want to commenceimplementation, although obviously they should beginthe work as early as possible. This flexible time frame

64

should enable the agencies responsible – togetherwith the other players involved – to align the com-mencement date within their own unit with otherproject-specific and line tasks and thus also allow foran appropriate and resource-saving planning ofoverall tasks.

Implementation of all 13 measures in realisationphase 2 should be started as soon as possible,and by 2016 at the latest. Implementation shouldbe prompt in those cases where the lead agencyand also those involved have the resources requiredfor implementation at their disposal.

The remaining six measures are grouped togetherunder realisation phase 3 and should also be initi-ated as early as possible, though by 2017 at the latest.As with measures in realisation phase 2, implemen-tation should be brought forward if at all possible.

Those measures that are currently in progress or haveeven already been implemented (cf. Chapter 5.1) areallocated to realisation phase 0. These make up atotal of 30 measures drawn from all five subprojects.

As already mentioned in Chapter 6.1, this implemen-tation schedule is subject to approval of the resourcesrequired for implementation in the appropriate politi-cal processes.

Fig. 7: Realisation phases

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Realisierungseinheit 0

Realisation phase 3Implementation of 6 measures:no later than end 2017

Realisation phase 2Implementation of 13 measures:no later than end 2016

Realisation phase 1Implementation of19 measures:no later than end 2015

Ratifi

catio

nof

actio

nplan

The 30 measures are in progress or already implemented Realisation phase 0

65

6.3 Monitoring

Monitoring of the action plan will be undertaken bythe Entry Division of the FOM, which was previ-ously responsible for overall project management ofthe strategy and the action plan. Apart from variouscommunication and marketing tasks, this departmentwill also monitor and document the status of imple-mentation tasks on an ongoing basis and evaluatethe progress. It will check that the time requirementsare met with regard to the start and duration of im-plementation (cf. Chapter 6.2) and, if necessary, issuea reminder for adhering to the action plan. It will alsoobserve all border management activities. This con-cerns not only the measures mentioned in the presentaction plan but also new developments. In particular,it ensures that potential synergies are exploited (e.g.in legislative amendments) but also that duplicationof efforts is avoided. Furthermore, at the start ofeach year, the Entry Division of the FOM will draw upa report on the past calendar year, to be presented tothe Border Steering Committee for approval (cf. nextsection). The Border Steering Committee will then in-form the Federal Council and the KKJPD. The annualreport focuses on the status of implementation work.Apart from administrative and coordination tasks,the Entry Division of the FOM also performs technicaltasks, such as further development of the strategy,alignment of Switzerland’s position with developmentsin Europe and/or the Schengen Area, etc. However, itwill not conduct any concrete implementation work;this remains the responsibility of the relevant leadagencies. As the financing of the measures is alsoleft to the lead agencies and is subject to the relevantpolitical processes (cf. Chapter 6.1), this departmentis explicitly not responsible for monitoring finance.

The Border Steering Committee in its expandedconfiguration62 is formally responsible for monitoringthe action plan. This makes sense as the Committeeis already familiar with examining the strategy.63 Usingthe annual report drafted by the Entry Division of theFOM, the Border Steering Committee in its expandedconfiguration monitors, in particular, the status ofthe implementation work and informs the FederalCouncil and the KKJPD annually on the progress made.It also performs other IBM tasks, particularly in thestrategic field.

6.4 Framework agreement

The cantons play a key role in implementation of thestrategy and thus also implementation of the meas-ures. A framework agreement between the FDJP andthe KKJPD provides the basic commitment and con-sensus on the action plan. As well as the standard for-mal points (such as purpose and effective date, etc.),it also governs the main points for implementationof the action plan. This mainly concerns matters ofcooperation, organisation and monitoring (cf. in par-ticular Chapter 6.3).

62 FOM, fedpol, SBG, CP GE, CP ZH once a year expanded with the CD, KKJPD, KKPKS, FIS, VKM63 Section 5.5 of the strategy

66

7. Overall conclusion

Illegal immigration and cross-border crime, along withtheir far-reaching implications in many socially relevantareas (e.g. labour market or social security), generatehigh costs that are ultimately borne by the generalpublic. Efficient and effective prevention of these twocomplex and diverse phenomena calls for an inte-grated and coordinated approach that takes accountof the federal as well as, in some cases, local circum-stances.

At the same time, facilitating legal entry to Switzer-land – particularly for business purposes – is of centralimportance. Given the steady rise in the number oftravelling public, a fast entry procedure is essential andcounts as an important calling card for Switzerlandto gain an advantage in a highly competitive market.

In this respect, the action plan comprises a numberof various measures, relating to operational as well asstrategic aspects. They range from one-off measuresfor optimising the existing situation to large-scaleinnovations. Some of them have already been imple-mented, while some exist only in the form of studies.Taken individually, but especially as a whole, all of themeasures make an important contribution to improv-ing Swiss border management, laying the foundationfor attaining the general goals defined in the strategy(cf. Chapter 4.1).

There are numerous positive effects of the action plan:even the project work itself – for both the strategyand the action plan – has intensified the level of inter-agency cooperation and personal contact, reinforcingthe integrated approach to border management. Theindividual agencies’ understanding of the proceduresand options has improved to a certain extent and, atthe same time, opened up new perspectives. The workon the action plan also proved to be an eye-opener,revealing the interactions not previously known toall players in that form. What’s more, the action planoffered the possibility of viewing some previously fruit-less efforts in certain areas in a broader context, there-by increasing the chances of success in realisation.Despite differing interests in many cases, the partici-patory approach for most measures produced a rela-tively high level of agreement. Another plus point isthe possibility of evaluating the inclusion of new play-ers in border management. Some measures intensifythe involvement of certain organisations (e.g. labour-market authorities), institutions (e.g. Swiss Tourism)or private firms (e.g. airlines) that were previously notsufficiently included – thereby further promoting theintegrated approach to national border management.To sum up, it can be said that the integrated bordermanagement strategy and the resultant action planprovide a basis to view certain instruments and activi-ties in a broader context and to identify the interac-tions and dependencies. Integrated border manage-ment thus forms the common umbrella for all effortswithin Switzerland’s complex border managementlandscape.

67

Nonetheless, the work on the action plan also high-lighted how difficult it is to develop universally sup-ported solutions in a context of differing viewpointsand, in some cases, highly diverging interests. This re-sulted in certain measures having to settle for a com-promise at the lowest common denominator – despitethe fact that more advanced and far-reaching solutionshad originally been worked out. The realities of a fed-eral state and institutional constraints posed majorchallenges to the work on the ”Internal“ subproject,in particular, leaving their mark on the measures for-mulated in this subproject. It should also be notedthat implementation of the measures does not liein the hands of overall project management but withthe relevant lead agencies in each case. It is up tothese to drive implementation and, where necessary,request the financial means from the appropriatepolitical instances.

With the IBM strategy and the resulting measures,Switzerland’s border management authorities aremaking a first, major and important step towards acoordinated, harmonised and comprehensive bordermanagement. The changes brought by the upcomingimplementation work will be visible and perceivable.Nonetheless, fulfilling the general goals of the strat-egy64 will take continuous, intensive efforts on thepart of all players in every area of border management.

Through its comprehensive approach, the concept ofintegrated border management greatly improves inter-agency networking and cooperation. It also allows fora longer-term, strategic approach to the actions under-taken to detect future challenges in border manage-ment at an early stage and take the necessary pre-cautions. The harmonisation and simplification ofprocesses will also noticeably increase efficiency atthe operational level without impairing the qualityof border management.

64 Prevention of illegal immigration (particularly professional people smuggling) and the associated cross-border crime,

facilitation of legal entry, and legal compliance of border management as a whole

68

ANNEX I: Overview of individual objectivesby main topic group

Intensification of nationwide approach

Situational awareness, information exchange and analysis at an operational and strategic level

Obj 1.1–4: A circular flow of information exists between border management agencies and Swissrepresentations abroad and is compiled in a central immigration analysis.

Obj 1.1–5: The objectives of tourism promotion, business location marketing, etc. are alignedwith those of visa agencies and border control agencies.

Obj 2.1–2: Switzerland has a documented position regarding the further development of a nationaland European security architecture.

Obj 2.2–1: Participation in international committees regarding the prevention of illegal immigrationis prepared on an interagency basis.

Obj 2.2–2: The results of participation in committees on migratory issues are forwarded to all federaloffices involved.

Obj 2.2–3: A regular and systematic flow of information exists between the federal offices and the cantonsregarding the immigration-related topics discussed on the various committees.

Obj 3.2–1: The border control agencies regularly exchange operational and strategic findings.

Obj 4.1–1: All of the agencies involved in the enforcement process cooperate extensively and systematicallyand are subject to a reporting obligation where there are any indications of illegal immigrationor people smuggling.

Obj 4.1–3: Personal details are systematically matched against the relevant databases on the basisof the underlying legislation and technical facilities required.

Obj 0.1–1: Results of studies flow back along official channels to the operational level(circular flow of information).

Obj 0.1–2: National statistics exist on the apprehension of illegal persons and people smugglerswithin the territory.

Obj 0.1–3: All relevant information related to illegal immigration and cross-border crime is analysedat a superordinate, integral and national level (centre of expertise).

Obj 0.1–4: A platform accessible to all involved agencies exists for the purpose of circulating findingsin the prevention of illegal immigration.

Obj 0.2–1: Operational findings/outcomes form the starting point and benchmark for the strategicorientation with respect to third countries and countries of origin.

Obj 0.2–2: There is a regular exchange of information between the levels of strategic policyand operations.

Obj Objective

0 Filter no. (0 = applies to all filters)

0 Problem area no.

0 Objective no.

Numbering of individual objectives:

69

Obj 0.2–3: Issues regarding illegal immigration and people smuggling are given higher priorityin immigration policy.

Obj 0.2–4: Switzerland’s assistance to the countries of origin and transit of illegal immigrants is contingentupon their adoption of measures against people smuggling.

Obj 0.3–1: Consistency in the gathering and evaluation of information on people smugglingin all four filters.

Incentives and cost compensation

Obj 4.2–2: The decisive and consistent prevention of illegal immigration is promoted by way of incentives.

Obj 4.2–3: Cost compensation instruments exist in the prevention of illegal immigration.

Obj 4.3–1: Enforcement practices are aligned with long-term national interests and not short-term policyguidelines.

Optimisation and harmonisation of training,equipment, infrastructures and procedures

Obj 4.2–4: Supracantonal centres of expertise exist for the prevention of illegal immigration,people smuggling and the associated and/or subsequent offences.

Optimisation

Obj 1.1–1: Staff at Swiss representations abroad are aware of the specific migratory phenomena in relationto illegal immigration and people smuggling at their location.

Obj 1.1–2: The consular representations have sufficient qualified staff with regard to the number of visaapplications to be processed and the migratory pressure at their specific location.

Obj 3.1–1: The border control agencies follow uniform best practices.

Obj 3.3–1: Despite computerisation, the staff in the third filter are aware of the need to also consider“soft” factors, such as inconsistencies in behaviour and appearance or unusual profiles.

Obj 3.3–2: Synergies are sought and harvested in the technical development and procurement of newequipment.

Obj 3.4–1: Legislation is in place that requires airport operators to provide border control agencies withthe infrastructure needed for enforcing border control and removal measures and whichspecifies the extent to which airport operators have to contribute to border control costs.

Obj 3.5–1: Measures are intensified to identify persons who conceal their nationalityand/or the airline they used in border checks.

Obj 4.1–2: Systemic potential for identifying and preventing illegal immigrationand people smuggling is systematically utilised.

Obj 4.2–1: Substantial increase in the likelihood of detection within the entire territory.

Obj 4.3–2: Overlapping in enforcement is minimised; any remaining areas of redundancydo not hinder enforcement.

Obj 4.3–3: The agencies responsible for enforcing removal measures follow uniform best practices.

Obj 4.3–4: Agencies that issue residence permits systematically check travel documents for forgeriesand have the necessary know-how in this respect.

Obj 4.3–5: Training of investigative agencies is promoted on the subject of preventing people smuggling.

70

Obj 4.4–1: Fewer clearly futile asylum applications are filed.

Obj 4.4–2: Clearly futile asylum procedures are rejected at an earlier stage.

Obj 4.4–3: The filing of multiple futile asylum applications has consequences for the individual concerned.

Obj 0.3–2: Consistency in the prosecution and punishment of people smuggling.

Harmonisation

Obj 3.1–2: Border control staff training follows the same standards and is completed with a set of examswith harmonised content.

Obj 3.1–3: The border control agencies have the same or at least equivalent technical equipment.

Obj 3.2–2: The border control agencies establish a joint permanent committee on the coordinationof IT and infrastructure projects in the field of border control.

Obj 3.2–3: Official internships or exchange programmes are promoted between the border controlagencies.

Improvement to cooperation at international leveland with private-sector stakeholders

Obj 1.1–3: Swiss representations draw on their network of on-site contacts within the context of localSchengen cooperation to learn more about the phenomena of illegal immigration and peoplesmuggling and to circulate their own findings on these subjects.

Obj 1.2–1: The number of people who reach the external border despite not fulfilling the entryrequirements is reduced.

Obj 1.2–2: Greater cooperation and information exchange between public agencies and the private sector.

Obj 2.1–1: Switzerland intensifies its cooperation with EU Member States in the developmentof a European security architecture.

Obj 2.3–1: Formalised contact exists between Swiss and foreign border control agencies. Swiss bordercontrol agencies regularly and systematically exchange findings with foreign border controlagencies on the prevention of illegal immigration and people smuggling.

Obj 2.3–2: National police conferences regularly exchange findings with other police conferences,particularly those from neighbouring countries, on the prevention of illegal immigrationand people smuggling.

71

Lead“Third Countries”

subproject

FOMCD

Lead“InternationalCooperation”subproject

FOMDEA

Lead“Border”subproject

SBGCP ZH

Lead“Internal”subproject

Office for Migration & CivilLaw GR

EMF City of BernCP VS

Lead“General”subproject

FOM

Project management

FOM

Steering Committee(AP IBM working group)

Lead:Member of FOM Executive

Board

Principal

Federal Council

ANNEX II: Agencies and organisationalunits involved in the action plan

SBGfedpolFIS

FOJDILSBGfedpolCD

Cantonal representativeat the FOJ

FOMSBGfedpolCP BECP GE

FOMSBGfedpolCP TICP ZHKKPKS

FOMFOJSBGfedpolCDFIS

CP ZHKKPKSVKM

72

ANNEX III: Measures by realisation phase

Realisation phase 065

M-ID Measure Realisationphase

1.1–2–2 Project for optimisation of the visa procedure (POV) 0

1.2–1–1 Carrier sanctions 0

2.1–1–1 Examination of Switzerland’s participation in the European MigrationNetwork (EMN)

0

2.1–1–2 Examination of the introduction of a Swiss Registered TravellerProgramme (study)

0

2.1–1–3 Greater commitment in the field of visa liberalisation EU / third countries 0

2.1–1–4 Examination of cooperation with other European states regardingidentity checks and return

0

2.1–1–5 Examination of adopting the Prüm Decision for improvingthe prevention and prosecution of criminal offences

0

2.1–2–1 Prioritisation of projects for the Internal Security Fund (ISF)-Borders(needs analysis)

0

2.2–1–1 Catalogue of possible concessions regarding visas within the Schengenlegislation

0

2.2–1–3 Vade mecum with working principles for Swiss delegations in workinggroups at a European level

0

2.2–2–1 Optimisation of the dissemination of information on Switzerland’spositions in relation to migration at a European level

0

2.2–2–2 Contact list for “Illegal immigration / people smuggling” 0

3.1–2–1 E-learning tool for basic and further training in relation to border control 0

3.5–1–3 Strategy for performing key-point checks at the gate 0

3.5–1–4 Regular contact with airlines 0

4.1–2–9 Simplified ISA queries 0

4.1–3–1 CS-VIS asylum 0

4.1–3–2 Inclusion of fedpol in VISION consultation (feasibility study) 0

4.3–1–1 List of problem States with regard to enforcement 0

4.3–1–2 Inclusion of the list of priority return countries in the “InternationalMigration Cooperation” structure

0

4.3–4–1 Biometric residence permits (study) 0

4.4–1–1 No social benefits in the case of multiple asylum applications 0

4.4–2–1 Expedited asylum procedures 0

4.4–3–1 Entry ban for expedited asylum procedures 0

4.4–3–2 Advance fees in the case of futile multiple asylum applications 0

65 Measures that are in progress or have already been implemented (as at 31 December 2013)

73

M-ID Measure Realisationphase

4.4–3–3 Criminal-law sanctions in the case of abusive political activitiesof asylum seekers in Switzerland

0

0.1–1–1 Quick wins in the information flow 0

0.1–2–1 National statistics on illegal residence 0

0.2–2–1 Reinforcement of analytical skills within the FOM 0

0.3–2–4 Option of assigning federal authority in prosecutionof people smuggling (study)

0

74

Realisation phase 166

M-ID Measure Realisationphase

1.1–1–1 List of hot spot countries (illegal immigration vsSwitzerland’s economic/tourism interests)

1

1.1–1–2 Coordination of Airline Liaison Officers (ALOs), Immigration LiaisonOfficers (ILOs), Police Attachés (PAs) and Defence Attachés (DAs)

1

1.1–1–3 Training module “Illegal immigration” and “People smuggling”for representations abroad

1

1.1–2–1 Clarification of needs regarding tasks, resources and specific know-howfor the leading representations in the countries on the hot spot list

1

3.1–3–1 Coordination of procurement processes in the field of border control 1

3.2–1–2 Examination of restructuring of existing working groups in the fieldof border control

1

3.4–1–1 Participation of airport owners in the costs of border control and legalbasis for airport categories

1

4.1–2–1 Training and periodic retraining of ZEMIS users 1

4.1–2–3 Deployment of e-doc readers at migration offices (pilot scheme) 1

4.1–2–5 Overall biometrics strategy (study) 1

4.1–2–8 Simplified ISR queries (feasibility study) 1

4.2–2–1 Mechanisms to redistribute the enforcement costs in relationto immigration and asylum (feasibility study)

1

4.3–5–1 Training in the prevention of qualified people smuggling atthe Swiss Police Institute (SPI) as well as awareness and informationalevents and materials

1

0.1–3–1 Joint national analysis centre for migration (working title: GNAM) 1

0.3–2–1 Clear assignment of investigations in the field of qualified peoplesmuggling

1

0.3–2–2 Appointment of specialists within the police and prosecuting authoritiesin the field of qualified people smuggling

1

0.3–2–3 Appointment of investigative groups in the field of qualified peoplesmuggling

1

0.3–2–5 Consistent utilisation of investigative information in the field of qualifiedpeople smuggling

1

0.3–2–6 Obtaining information on people smuggling in the first asylum interview 1

66 Implementation to commence by end 2015

75

Realisation phase 267

M-ID Measure Realisationphase

1.1–3–1 Targeted use of local Schengen cooperation (LSC) by the representationsabroad

2

1.1–5–1 Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between administrative,tourism and economic bodies on raising awareness and coordinationof marketing activities

2

1.2–2–1 Cooperation agreement with airlines 2

2.2–1–2 Inclusion of measures to facilitate entry in negotiations on migrationagreements and partnerships

2

3.1–1–1 Mutual audits of the Schengen external border airports 2

3.2–1–1 National exchange of information on strategic and operational mattersin the field of border control

2

3.4–1–2 Examination of abolishing the exemption regime for non-Schengen flightsat Category D airports

2

3.5–1–1 General concept for the utilisation of flight passenger data 2

3.5–1–6 Examination of the possibility of the FOM delegating removal authorityto the border control agencies

2

4.1–2–4 Use of existing e-doc readers at representations abroad (pilot scheme) 2

4.1–2–6 Addition of a “PCN number” search box in RIPOL (feasibility study) 2

4.1–3–3 “Identification” clearing unit (feasibility study) 2

4.2–4–1 Centre of expertise for processing immigration cases from rail trafficthrough a pilot operation in Bern (feasibility study)

2

Realisation phase 368

M-ID Measure Realisationphase

1.2–1–2 New website with Schengen entry requirements 3

2.3–1–1 Exchange of information with foreign border control agencies 3

2.3–1–2 Joint visits of foreign border control agencies 3

3.5–1–2 Automated border control at airports 3

3.5–1–5 Expansion of the deployment of Airline Liaison Officers (ALOs) (concept) 3

4.1–2–2 Expansion of ZEMIS access rights 3

67 Implementation to commence by end 201668 Implementation to commence by end 2017

76

Notes

77

78

Notes

Federal Office for Migration FOMwww.fom.admin.ch

Konferenz der Kantonalen Justiz- undPolizeidirektorinnen und -Direktoren KKJPDwww.kkjpd.ch