# EUR-Lex - 52013DC0461 - EN

*|*

# 52013DC0461

**REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the evaluation of the Union's finances based on the results achieved /* COM/2013/0461 final */**

			*

			*

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL

on the evaluation of the Union's finances
based on the results achieved

1.           INTRODUCTION

This report
under Article 318 TFEU (the 'Report') is the third to be produced and reflects
the continued development of reporting on the evaluation of the Union's finances based on results achieved.

The Discharge
Authority and the European Court of Auditors have shown strong interest in the
Report and made suggestions for its further improvement, based on the two
earlier reports produced. The Commission has responded to these suggestions in
this year's Report to the extent possible under the existing framework for
monitoring, evaluation and reporting for the Multi-annual Financial Framework
(MFF) 2007 – 13. The improvements introduced in this year's Report move in the
direction envisaged for the further development of the Report under the next
MFF 2014 – 20, as described in Section 2. Section 3 reports on the monitoring
and performance results in 2012 with regard to expenditure programmes and
evaluations of these programmes carried out in 2012, providing an overview of
available performance evidence under each budget heading.

The Report is
now published significantly earlier in the year than the 2010 and 2011 reports
to align better with the adoption of the Synthesis Report and to ensure that it
is available to the Discharge Authority and the Court of Auditors in view of
the discharge procedure for the reported year.

This Report
covers EU programmes from all EU policy areas of expenditure of the current MFF.
This approach was welcomed by the Discharge Authority and the Court of Auditors
in the previous report. In response to the request of the Discharge Authority,
the results of external programmes (Heading 4) are explained in more detail and
progress towards achieving EU 2020 flagship initiatives is highlighted (where
results are available). Other performance-related information in addition to the
results of evaluations has been included in this year's Report to provide more
complete coverage of progress and results achieved. Sources include the Annual
Activity Reports of the Directorates General and the special reports from the
European Court of Auditors, as well as national reports and reports from expert
networks for the implementation of programmes under shared management, and
internal audit reports. Each policy heading under Chapter 3 includes a section
on progress in the implementation for the year 2012 and the main evaluation
results/other performance-related feedback on the programmes that became
available in 2012 relating to earlier years.

The Report is
accompanied by two Commission Working Documents. The first contains an Action
Plan setting out provisional planning for the further development of the
Report. This planning will be confirmed following the adoption of the legal
instruments supporting the Multi-annual Financial Programme 2014 – 20. The
second provides a comprehensive overview of 130 evaluations completed in 2012.
The majority of these evaluations concern expenditure programmes and the Evaluation
Report contains an analysis of cross-cutting issues and main
findings/recommendations of these evaluations.[1]
Core information on each evaluation is summarised, including information on
impacts, efficiency, effectiveness, and EU value added. The summaries include
hyperlinks to the webpage where the full report is accessible. These two documents
respond to requests of the European Parliament and the European Court of
Auditors.

2.           ACTION TO IMPROVE
MONITORING, REPORTING AND EVALUATION

In the context
of the EP Discharge for 2011[2]
the European Parliament included a section on 'Priority Action'. Parliament
referred to the need for a new culture of performance in the Commission
including defining targets and indicators in the Management Plans of the
Directorates General and all proposals for new policies and programmes.
Parliament also underlined the importance of the response of the European Court
of Auditors to the last Report and the need for a clear definition of EU added
value; for Annual Activity Reports of the Directorates General to measure their
performance and summarise results achieved; this Report to summarise
performance and results in AARs and to distinguish between internal and
external policies emphasising progress on the flagship initiatives for Europe
2020; and for all evaluation reports to be made available in full to
Parliament.

This year's
Report already builds on reporting in the Annual Activity Reports,
programme-specific reporting, evaluations and internal and external audit
results. As explained in this year's Communication on the 'Synthesis of the
Commission's management achievements in 2012'[3],
specific attention is being paid to developing the performance culture within
the Commission through its Management Plans and Annual Activity Reports
ensuring consistency between these internal management instruments, other
reports such as this Report to avoid duplication and to streamline performance
reporting. These proposals contain the "building blocks" to which the
Court referred in its response to last year's Report for a reliable system for
collecting performance data to identify results and impacts for the next MFF. As
requested by Parliament, this Report also summarises performance and results in
AARs, distinguishes between internal and external policies, includes references
to progress on the flagship initiatives for Europe 2020 and indicates where the
full texts of all evaluation reports is to be found in order to make them
available to Parliament

For the next
MFF, the Commission is working on a stronger and more coherent framework for
monitoring, evaluation and reporting on the performance of EU financial
programmes. The Commission proposals for the next set of programmes for 2014 -
20 focus on simplification to facilitate and accelerate programme implementation,
to improve monitoring of progress (to ensure improved identification of delays
or difficulties and quicker action to remedy deficiencies) and to improve
evaluation and reporting on performance.

Key elements
of this framework include: a set of the main objectives to be achieved by the
programmes, with appropriate links to the EU-2020 objectives; sets of strong
indicators providing the basis for clearer reporting on the progress,
efficiency and effectiveness of the actions taken; and strong arrangements for
monitoring and evaluation to ensure the availability of the necessary data and
opinion in time to support improved reporting on results and performance.

The
information and assessments that the Commission will be able to produce
year-on-year in its Annual Activity Reports and in its overall reporting for
the next MFF will largely depend on these key elements being maintained in the
legal instruments to be adopted by Parliament and Council to support the new
set of financial programmes.

In its Report
next year, the Commission will describe the framework for performance reporting
to the end of the next MFF that results from the co-legislative work on the
legal instruments for the next generation of programmes. It will include the
key objectives of the programmes, the main indicators, monitoring arrangements
and the timing and content of evaluations. It will show how annual reporting on
progress in the early implementation of the next MFF will be accompanied by
continuing work on the ex-post evaluation of the performance of the current
programmes. It will show when the main evaluations of the performance of the
current programme will have been completed and when and how performance
reporting on the next programme will be made, including Commission and Member State contributions for programmes under shared management.

Finally, in
the context of its Smart Regulation agenda, the Commission is also working on a
review of its policy on evaluation. It will hold a public consultation later
this year with a view to the adoption of the conclusions reached around the end
of the year. The results should make a further contribution to improved
reporting on the progress, efficiency, effectiveness and added value of EU
actions in achieving impacts on the economy and society.

3.           OVERVIEW OF RESULTS
ACHIEVED

HEADING 1A - COMPETITIVENESS FOR GROWTH
AND EMPLOYMENT

Enterprise and industrial policy

In 2012, the
macro-economic situation called for stronger efforts to stimulate growth and
job creation to reach the goals of the EU 2020 strategy. Reflecting the
economic slowdown, the EU targets for growth of industrial competitiveness and
job creation could not be met. On the other hand, innovation performance has shown
overall improvement, continuing convergence and higher leverage effects
measured in terms of additional innovation resulting from EU support,
particularly that for SMEs.

In 2012, the main
expenditure programmes in the field of enterprise and industrial policy were: (i)
the Space, Security and Galileo research programmes under the Seventh Framework
Programme for Research and Development (FP7; EUR 600 million); (ii) the
Entrepreneurship and Innovation Programme (EIP) as a part of the Competitiveness
and Innovation Framework Programme (CIP-EIP: EUR 335 million); (iii) the
European satellite navigation programmes (Galileo and EGNOS; EUR 169 million)
and (iv) the Global Monitoring for Environment and Security operational
programme (GMES-Copernicus; EUR 40 million).[4]

Regarding FP7,
the 2012 Space call has led to 49 research projects retained for funding
covering activities like climate change and the development of critical
technologies for space. The FP7 call for Security includes 54 topics covering
actions such as the fight against large scale fires and the fast rescue of
victims. With a participation of SMEs at over 21%, the security research theme
largely exceeds the 15% target set for the whole of FP7.

The Entrepreneurship
and Innovation Programme (EIP) is designed to provide a direct and practical
response to the core needs of SMEs. The specific financial instruments
developed under this programme - the High Growth and Innovative SME Facility
and the SME Guarantee Facility - have proven to be particularly effective in meeting
SMEs' needs for finance which otherwise would not have been met. Support for
equity investments has been provided to over 250 innovative and high growth
SMEs and over 200,000 SMEs have benefited from the loan guarantee facility. The
instruments create a positive leverage effect of 1 to 29 for loan guarantees
and 1 to 5 for venture capital, which means that for each Euro of public money
spent a much higher value is generated in the real economy.

The final
evaluation of the EIP confirmed that it addressed effectively the needs of SMEs
and had a positive effect on the start-up and growth of SMEs, in terms of
leverage and the development of eco-innovative activities. Furthermore, two evaluations[5]
completed in 2012 prepared the ground for initiatives on SME access to finance
planned for 2013. They provided information on how to access over EUR 50
billion of public finance in Member States and examined how to facilitate the
exchange of good practices on policies and support programmes across the EU.
The evaluations also provided indications on how support measures should be
designed to attract the investment from Business Angels, an important source of
funding in many countries. Follow-up was also given to the Commission's 2011
internal audit results to strengthen the monitoring of the programme’s
performance in the future. To this end, a set of appropriate indicators is being
developed to monitor the COSME programme, the successor to the EIP[6].

The programme
objectives for Galileo and EGNOS in 2012 have been met. The October 2012 launch
of two new satellites was successful and the deployment of the ground
infrastructure for the programme validation phase was accomplished. This
completed the first quartet of satellites out of the 30 satellites of the
future Galileo constellation. As for EGNOS, a third service (EGNOS Data Access
Service – EDAS) was officially launched in July 2012, adding to the already
available Safety of Life (SoL) and Open Services.

Concerning progress
on GMES-Copernicus, two of the six services for land monitoring and emergency
management became operational. On land monitoring, GMES is starting to provide
unique data products, for which there is already demonstrable demand from EU
policy makers and agencies, bringing the benefit of fully comparable data for
all Member States. GMES data were successfully used in disaster relief, for
example by rescue services in ship wreckage in Italy, earthquakes and in
fighting forest fires. The interim evaluation of the GMES initial operations
(GIO) indicates that the GIO is on-track to achieve the objective of developing
two fully operational services within the three year period set. The proposal
has been made for GMES to be continued and expanded through the Copernicus
programme 2014-2020.

Mobility
and Transport policy

Evaluations
showed that EU funding contributed to progress made in the modernisation of Europe's transport infrastructure (e.g. the implementation of the Priority Projects, the introduction
of tools for smart mobility, like the European Railway Traffic Management
system, and the reduction in the number of road fatalities).[7] Evaluations concluded
nonetheless that further efforts are needed to achieve the long term targets of
an efficient internal market in transport, measured for instance by prices for
citizens and business, and to ensure the transition to low-carbon and smart
transport, which contribute to the Europe 2020 Strategy. The Commission's
recent proposals aiming at further strengthening the internal market in the
railway sector and promoting clean fuel alternatives are steps in that
direction.

Expenditure in
the field of Mobility and Transport mainly concerns: further development of the
Trans-European Networks for Transport (TEN-T); the Marco Polo Programmes to ease
road freight congestion and pollution by switching to other modes of transport;
support for research and innovation through the Research Framework Programmes;
as well as support activities for European transport policy and passenger
rights. In 2012, the total budgets amounted to EUR 1.07 billion managed mainly
through indirect centralised management (81%) by the Trans-European Transport
Network Executive Agency (TEN-T EA) and the Executive Agency for
Competitiveness and Innovation (EACI). In November 2012, the Commission
launched a major call for proposals in the transport infrastructure programme
(TEN-T), totalling EUR 1.278 billion. This call will also support the
transition into the upcoming new framework of the TEN-T guidelines and the
Connecting Europe Facility in the next MFF for 2014 - 20.

In 2012, there
was a mid-term evaluation of the TEN-T Executive Agency (TEN-T EA) which showed
that the Agency has met its targets and annual specific objectives. Agency
management of TEN-T projects was confirmed as the most cost-effective solution.
The cost-benefit analysis indicates the cost savings of the Agency option
estimated at a 2012 net present value of EUR 8.66 million. The TEN-T EA
nevertheless recognises that there are still some areas for improvement, for
example, in areas such as traffic-flow forecasting, cost-benefit assessment of
transport infrastructure and cost engineering.

Information
Society and Media policy

The main
objectives of Information and Media Policy are set out in the Digital Agenda
for Europe (DAE) one of the EU 2020 flagships aimed at enabling Europe's citizens and businesses to get the most out of digital technologies. The Agenda
contains 13 specific goals which encapsulate the change to be achieved, such as:
full EU coverage by broadband by 2013; 50 % of the population having bought
something online by 2015; and a reduction of the difference between roaming and
national tariffs approaching zero by 2015. Progress towards these targets is
monitored annually through a Digital Agenda Scoreboard [8].

A review of
the Agenda was presented in December 2012. It showed that the Agenda is on
track to meet most of its targets. The data for 2012 show for instance that the
target of 100% broadband coverage by 2013 had been achieved (while 96% of the
EU population was covered by fixed broadband, the reminder was covered by
improvements in satellite) and that the proportion of the population ordering
goods or services online had increased to 45 %, putting it on track to reach
the 50% target by 2015. In addition, by the end of 2012, roaming tariffs had decreased
by at least 10% but are still considered as much higher than domestic tariffs
for voice, text-messages and data. However, it also showed a slow pace of
growth in cross-border e-Commerce , a slow uptake of high-speed broadband and that
extra efforts are needed to minimise or eliminate differences among Member
States in the use of it. The review also led to new digital priorities being
formulated for 2013 - 14, such as to create a more stable broadband regulatory
environment and to accelerate cloud computing through public sector buying
power.

Operational
expenditure of EUR 1.6 billion is for research and technological development
activities under FP7, including the Joint Technology Initiatives (JTIs), the actions
under the CIP Programme and related activities.

In 2012, the
study on the impact of the Sixth Framework Programme (FP6) measures on
Information Society Technologies (IST) stressed the positive value of exploring
new scientific/technological areas, the strengthening of research collaboration
and the increase in staff capability and expertise. Part of the programme was
based on specific industrial priorities and it was successful in creating
network structures around leading industrial players with the primary aim to
efficiently solve specific technological/scientific challenges. In some areas
(for example Components and Microsystems) projects integrated the key players
across different parts of the value chain, leading to medium term competitive
advantages and higher and wider impact on innovation.

Programme
activities focused on longer term scientific objectives were found to be
successful in creating network structures around universities and research
centres. This was the case of networks formed in, for example knowledge and
interface technologies or Future and Emerging Technologies. The study also
found that FP6-IST had positively affected a large proportion of the EU R&D
workforce on ICT and produced major spill-over benefits that are considered to have
largely exceeded the direct benefits of projects to Programme participants. A
high proportion of the knowledge produced in FP6-IST was published in leading
scientific and technical journals and was presented in high profile conferences
and exhibitions.

The Interim
Assessment of the Future Internet Public-Private Partnership (FI-PPP) in FP7
confirmed the effectiveness and relevance of this instrument and recommended
that the governance and industry commitment be further developed. Other evaluation
related studies[9]
confirmed EU value added in strengthening complementarities among the different
actors in the value chain of industry sectors, contributing for example to the
ability of the components industry to capture opportunities in higher parts of
the value chain. Embedded systems suppliers should also seek better to exploit
the possibilities brought by the increasing performance and functionalities of
components.

With regard to
the regulatory framework for electronic communications, the Study on the
Evaluation of the Board of European Regulators for Electronic Communications
(BEREC) and the BEREC Office, financed from the EU budget, found the structure
to be relevant, efficient and effective. However, the evaluation also suggested
improvements in governance and accountability (for example concerning the scope
and the regular review of its Work Programme and reporting on progress made).

Regarding the
influence of evaluations on the policy-making process, assessments led to a
refocusing on SMEs as innovation drivers in Horizon 2020. The study on the implementation
of the Digital Agenda helped to shape the DAE review, with data and inputs from
Member States. The evaluation of the compatibility and workability of
methodologies for measuring the energy and carbon footprint of the ICT sector
identified gaps across the main methodologies which would need to be addressed
to ensure future compatibility. The FI-PPP has also served as a main reference
point in designing the guidelines for contractual Public-Private-Partnerships
under Horizon 2020. An example of possible modifications in the management of
programmes was the recommendation to set up a 'one-stop-shop' operational unit
for the current ENIAC and ARTEMIS Joint Undertakings, a modification which the
Commission has taken up in its Horizon 2020 proposal.

Energy
policy

Europe 2020
priorities for the competitiveness, sustainability, and security of energy
supply, are supported by the European Energy Programme for Recovery (EEPR), the
Nuclear decommissioning programmes, the Intelligent Energy-Europe programme,
research and innovation through FP7, Trans-European Energy Networks (TEN-E) as
well as support activities for European energy policy and the internal energy
market.

In 2012, the
budget for these programmes amounted to EUR 607 million in commitments, with an
execution rate of 99.9%, managed mainly through direct centralised management
(59%) and indirect centralised management (27%).

Significant
funds were allocated to different projects via the European Energy Programme
for Recovery (EEPR), with the aim of stimulating investment. The implementation
of all 43 gas and electricity infrastructure projects with an EU contribution
of EUR 2.27 billion continued in 2012. A further seven projects were completed
by the end of 2012. Five out of six Carbon Capture and Storage demonstration
projects (CCS) projects are being implemented, with only one having been terminated,
despite difficulties in access to finance and regulatory problems. Out of the
entire EUR 565 million EU contribution to nine offshore wind projects, EUR 203
million had been paid to the beneficiaries by the end of 2012.

The support
for projects promoting renewables and energy efficiency through the Intelligent
Energy-Europe II (IEE II) Programme also continued. In 2012, the IEE triggered
48,580 tons of oil equivalent (toe) of renewable energy production, 90,350 toe
of energy savings and 517,000 toe of reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.
The programme has to date triggered sustainable energy investments of EUR 1,636
million with a total IEE budget of EUR 731 million, thereby confirming a
significant multiplier effect.

The
implementation of IEE II is delegated to the Executive Agency for
Competitiveness and Innovation (EACI). The process for the supervision of EACI
was improved in 2012, including the monitoring of quarterly performance
indicators. Three projects('Concerted Actions') have been financed by the IEE,
making it possible for the national implementing bodies in the Member states to
meet regularly and share experience on the transposition of the EU directives
on the energy performance of buildings, renewable energy and energy services.

The TEN-E work
programme 2012 was successfully implemented: EUR 21 million of commitments were
made to 19 electricity and gas projects during the year. The ex-post evaluation
of five projects funded under the Trans-European Networks-Energy found that the
projects were successful as they increased energy capacities between regions in
Europe, contributed to the integration of energy markets within the EU and
allowed for transportation of energy from locations with low cost production to
the locations of the consumers. Such integration activities were recognised as
generally contributing to the more competitive wholesale and retail pricing of
energy, which has the potential of decreasing overall energy costs.

The Commission
has followed-up on these evaluation assessments through new Energy
Infrastructure legislation, which entered into force on 15 May 2013. The new
regulation revises the existing TEN-E guidelines, including reporting on
projects. As permit granting was generally assessed as one of the major aspects
delaying the development of infrastructure projects, the new legislation
includes provision for accelerated permit-granting procedures.

In 2012, a
special report published by the European Court of Auditors on EU financial
assistance for the decommissioning of nuclear plants in Bulgaria, Lithuania and
Slovakia recommended that a detailed needs assessment, an analysis of available
resources, expected benefits and more meaningful performance indicators be
prepared before further spending. These recommendations have been taken up in
the Commission's recent proposal for a Council regulation on Union support for
the nuclear decommissioning assistance programme for Bulgaria, Lithuania and
Slovakia[10].

Research
policy

The most
important funding instrument for the Commission's research and innovation
policy implementation of the Innovation Union flagship within the Europe 2020
Strategy is FP7, with an EU overall budget of EUR 8.8 billion.

In 2012, 53
calls for proposals under FP7 were concluded. A total of 17,374 eligible
proposals were peer-reviewed, of which 3.089 were retained for funding,
resulting in a success rate of 17.78 % on a proposal basis. This is slightly
below the overall success rate of FP7 implementation during 2007-2012 (19%).

A total of
70,059 applicants took part in all eligible proposals, for a total requested EU
contribution of EUR 30.78 billion, of which 14,821 applicants were retained for
funding for a total requested EU contribution of EUR 4.98 billion. The overall
success rate was just over 21% in terms of applicants, which is close to the
average for FP7 implementation during 2007-2012.

Good results
have also been obtained as regards the mandatory target that 15% of the
Cooperation Programme budget should go to SMEs, as in 2012 over 16% of this
budget went to SMEs.

Up to March
2013, more than 13,000 grant agreements have been signed under FP7.[11] Over 2,800 projects were
completed of which 98% achieved their initial objectives. Based on the final
reports, completed projects each produced an average of 4.5 publications and recorded
a total of 531 Intellectual property rights. By the end of 2012, 76 European
Research Council (ERC) grantees had won prestigious international prizes (up
from 36 by the end of 2011), including five Nobel Prize winners and three Field
Medallists. During the same period, more than 7,900 peer-reviewed journal
articles acknowledging ERC funding were identified, an increase from the 3,396
identified by the end of 2011.

In 2012, DG
RTD published its first Annual Report on Programme Evaluation Activities, in
2011, starting a process of annual reporting alongside its yearly monitoring
reports. In 2012, 19 evaluation studies and reports were completed, covering
primarily activities under the Specific Programme Capacities, with the aim to
feed into the overall ex-post FP7 evaluation due to be completed by 2015.

Education
policy

In 2012,
programmes were implemented on schedule in all participating countries and are
on their way to achieving their objectives.[12]
In particular, the Lifelong Learning Programme (LLP) committed EUR 1.1 billion
(8% up on 2011). It was implemented as foreseen, including its horizontal
strand (for example the Jean Monnet actions), with its focus on intra-EU
learning mobility, be it of pupils (Comenius and Leonardo da Vinci), university
students (Erasmus), adults (Grundtvig) or educational staff.

The performance
data that became available in 2012 showed progress on all indicators linked to
Europe 2020 headline targets. The latest known results show a trend moving
closer to the target of 40% higher education graduates (2010: 33.5%; 2011:
34.6% and 2012: 35.8%). Likewise, the latest results with regard to the Europe
2020 headline target of reducing the proportion of early school leavers to 10%
show a positive trend (2010: 14.1%; 2011: 13.5% and 2012: 12.8%). In contrast,
in 2012, as in 2011, two key dimensions for this policy, employability and
youth economic situation both registered a deterioration, and also 2012 showed
deterioration as regards achievements in basic skills and foreign language
competences.

There was
again an overall upward trend in the demand for mobility in 2012 for all
sub-programmes, as well as for decentralised cooperation. Since the inception
of the programme, over 2.5 million students have benefited from Erasmus.
Surveys indicated that 97% of former Erasmus students consider having studied
abroad an advantage on the job market. The Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions
of the People Programme in FP7 committed EUR 0.9 billion (19% up on 2011).
Since 2007, it has supported about 44,500 researchers (11,100 in 2012) of 130
different nationalities working in more than 75 countries. More than 50% of
funded research projects directly address the major societal challenges defined
in the Europe 2020 Strategy (such as climate change). In line with objectives,
the comparatively high participation rate of women was maintained (36.5%) and
the participation of private enterprises as host organisations (24%) exceeded
the 20% target. In 2012, an estimated 79% of individual fellows have employment
positions two years after their fellowships. Due to budget cuts in the US and
Canada since 2011, the EU bilateral programmes with these countries were no
longer executed.

Two interim
evaluations became available in 2012: one on the expenditure programme on
international mobility of master level and doctoral students - Erasmus Mundus
II (EM II) - for the period 2009-11, and the other on the expenditure programme
on the international mobility of researchers - COFUND and Individual Fellowship
Actions, part of the 'People Programme' within FP7.

The evaluation
of EM II found that the programme provides strong support and makes an
important contribution to the internationalisation process of the European
higher education area. EM II promotes the development of skills relevant in the
labour market. However, in terms of employability, the evaluation found that
the present focus of EM II on academia and higher education does not fully
serve the needs of the EU. Activities could be more open to international
mobility and cooperation in the field of vocational education and training. The
evaluation also suggested strengthening links with related programmes in order
to increase synergies and avoid the identified overlaps. The evaluation found
that the programme was being implemented efficiently as most of the planned
outputs were likely to be achieved with lower costs than anticipated and the
outputs of the programme were being produced with analogous or lower costs than
those of comparable scholarship schemes. With regard to management aspects, the
findings revealed that coordination of EM II at strategic level remained
problematic due to the division of responsibilities between within the
Commission. Other suggestions have been made, such as in the area of
monitoring. The results have been used to inform the design of the 2014–20
'Erasmus for All' Programme.

The evaluation
of COFUND and Individual Fellowship Actions likewise found that these actions
are achieving their objectives and are strengthening the research capacity of
the EU through an increase in the quality and quantity of researchers. COFUND
Fellowships are contributing both quantitatively and qualitatively to the
reinforcement of the human resources potential of the European Research Area by
strengthening research capacities, capabilities and networks. The COFUND
programme has improved the administrative and operational procedures of around
a third of the host organisations, in particular in terms of increasing the
openness of recruitment to trans-national mobility and the use of
independent/peer review in selection processes.

Improvements
have also taken place in the transparency of procedures. The main impact on
host organisations is to expand research capacity and give institutions access
to high-quality researchers they might not otherwise have attracted. This in
turn leads to stronger institutional research outputs and the capacity to tap
into wider international knowledge networks. The interim evaluation also
identified areas for improvement. As a result the Commission will strengthen
the quality standards of Individual Fellowships through streamlined design and
raising their visibility outside Europe via international events, conferences
and dissemination activities. Procedures regarding information requirements and
budget negotiations will be simplified and COFUND is proposed to be opened to
commercial bodies under Horizon 2020 in the next MFF.

Taxation
and customs policy

The EU's
taxation and customs policy is supported by two expenditure programmes
'Fiscalis 2013' and 'Customs 2013' aiming to improve cooperation between Member
States and support the exchange of information. The two expenditure programmes
represented EUR 82.3 million in commitments in 2012. As regards Fiscalis 2013,
approximately 3,600 officials participated in around 300 programme activities
(workshops, project groups and Multilateral Controls). As regards Customs 2013,
approximately 5,400 officials participated in about 370 programme activities
(workshops and project groups). Both programmes also supported the development
of e-learning modules. The feedback from participants in programme activities
confirms that these activities systematically attain their objectives[13].

The programmes
contribute to the improved functioning of the European Information Systems
(EIS) for taxation and customs. The EIS for taxation handles the exchange of
850 million messages which are key in the fight against tax fraud. The EIS for
customs handles the trans-European part of 245 million customs declarations
each year, controlling the clearance of goods in 9 million trucks moving across
the EU, each using the transit regime and controlling the release of 12 million
exports from the EU[14]
. The Common Communication Network for the EIS, which is the backbone for the
operation of European IT systems for customs and taxation, was operational
99.73% of the time, which exceeds the target of 97%[15]. This means that
business-critical systems (VIES, NCTS and TARIC[16]) are available to users 24
hours a day, 365 days a year.

Heading 1b - Cohesion for Growth and
Employment

Employment
and Social Affairs policy

In 2012, in the
context of recession and economic crisis neither the employment nor the poverty
targets set out under the EU 2020 strategy have been met. Nevertheless, a wide
range of policy actions in the field of employment and social affairs have
achieved positive results and contributed to addressing the crisis-related
challenges. The European Social Fund, the European Globalisation Adjustment
Fund (EGF), the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA), the EU Programme
for Employment and Social Solidarity (PROGRESS), the European Progress Micro-finance
Facility for Employment and Social Inclusion (Microcredit Facility), and funds
allocated for working in Europe, social dialogue and mobility, all contributed
to support the results obtained.

Over EUR 11
billion was committed to the major spending areas (ESF and EGF). 94% of funds
were allocated to the Integrated Guidelines for Growth and Jobs which is well
in excess of the target set in the General Regulation[17]. The Funds reached 49.5
million citizens over the 2007 - 11 period and met its objectives in terms of
specific target groups (women, people belonging to vulnerable groups). By the
end of 2012, 88% of the overall 2007 - 13 allocation for ESF and EGF had been
already committed and 53.5% paid. The EGF, which also plays an important role
in the EU cohesion, helped over 10,000 workers to get back into employment in
2012.

Evaluation
information provided further evidence of the financial instruments' performance
covering implementation and programme effects. The evaluation of ESF support
for Life Long Learning (LLL) assessed the programming period 2000-06 and the
first four years of the period 2007-13. An estimated 25 million young people,
18 million individuals with low skills and 1.9 million older people, benefitted
from ESF supported LLL activity across the EU between 2000 and 2010. It was
concluded that, without the ESF, many of these interventions would not have
taken place. The ESF has ensured that groups which otherwise would not have
been reached, in particular subgroups among the low skilled and the young,
benefit from targeted interventions. The report identified activities which
were more successful in reaching these target groups and other factors of
success. The evidence collected in the course of the evaluation was used to
improve the content and expected delivery of the ESF-supported LLL activities
aimed at the three target groups in the 2014 - 20 programming period.

The evaluation
of the reaction of the ESF to the economic and financial crisis demonstrated its
flexibility as an instrument capable of responding quickly to the crisis. By
the end of 2010, 84 out of 117 Operational Programmes had been adapted. Most of
the changes concerned broadening of scope, launching specific calls and
including further target groups, depending on the concrete situation and the
particular local governance system. The ESF improved the consistency of the
anti-crisis measures within the long-term perspective of structural adaptation,
as ESF was broadly used to finance training schemes offering short-time work,
adding an active component to existing, more permanent, measures.

Two reports
from the ESF Expert Evaluation Network covered the performance of ESF on
'Access to Employment' and 'Social Inclusion'. Regarding access to employment,
over 12.5 million final recipients were supported with over 2.4 million obtaining
employment. However, little evidence was found on the sustainability of created
employment. Concerning social inclusion, over 14.5 million final recipients
participated, covering a broad range of target groups of the unemployed,
migrants, and young people. The most effective interventions proved to be
working in schools with young people at risk of early leaving or at the point
of transition from school to work, in interventions with families from Roma
communities and in activities to bring adults back into the education system.

The evaluative
study measuring the impact of changing regulatory requirements on
administrative cost and burden provided suggestions for the future 2014 - 20
ESF. The analysis showed that the overall administration costs were reasonable,
amounting to 4.8% of the total ESF 2007 - 13 budgets, when compared to similar
programmes run by the World Bank, IMF or United Nations. Nevertheless, further
efforts to reduce administrative costs and burdens were identified to be
targeted on those tasks which account for the largest proportion of
administrative costs and workload, such as information and publicity
requirements, which represent 18.5% of administrative costs. However, it was also
signalled that further reductions in administrative costs and burdens should
not be at the expense of positive aspects of programme administration, such as
the capacity built up for the selection of operations, as this would reduce the
cost-effectiveness of the programmes.

The mid-term
evaluation of the European Globalisation Fund (EGF) showed that
stronger-performing cases tended to be associated with the provision of
individual support for workers and those also benefiting from strong national
support measures. Apart from direct re-employment, EGF assistance also
generated other positive effects for individuals in terms of increased
confidence and improved job searching. The evaluation found that, in cases
where EGF support arrived a significant time after the job-losses, many
redundant workers had already re-entered the labour market, while those
remaining tended to have a 'harder-to-help' profile. Suggestions were made for
improvement of the EGF architecture to: increase flexibility of implementation,
speed-up the application process, strengthen the capacity for submitting
applications at national and regional/local level and provide further
opportunities for sharing lessons and good practices, as well as strengthening
monitoring and reporting.

Finally, the
mid-term evaluation of PROGRESS showed that the programme has delivered
positive results, improving at various levels the quality of debate, processes,
cooperation and sharing of best practices, as well as producing statistical
tools and indicators to reinforce evidence-based policy making. Moreover,
PROGRESS-funded activities have influenced EU policies and legislation (e.g.
Europe 2020 anti-poverty targets, reform of pension systems the implementation
of law on health and safety at work and broader labour law).

Regional
Policy

Regional
policy is delivered through shared management and funded by the European
Regional Development Funds (ERDF) and the Cohesion Fund (CF), which represent
more than 28% of the total 2012 EU budget in terms of commitments.

In 2012, EUR
38.2 billion was paid out, mainly through reimbursements to the Member States
from the ERDF and CF for the 2000 - 06 and 2007 - 13 programming periods. The
expenditure declared by Member States to the Commission for ERDF and CF 2007 - 13
reached an average of 41.2% at the end of 2012. However, in some Member States
expenditure rates are significantly below average (in particular in Romania and
Bulgaria), which is of concern and has given rise to calls to Member States to
accelerate mobilising available EU Funds and focus on targeting spending to
maximise the impact on growth and jobs.

In responding
to the crisis, more than EUR 30 billion from the ERDF and Cohesion Fund has
been re-programmed by making use of the flexibility allowed under the legal
framework to support the most urgent needs and to reinforce certain investment
areas. The main trends show a shift towards R&D, business support,
sustainable energy, cultural and social infrastructure, roads and labour market
across the EU-27. In order to safeguard growth and jobs investment strategies
and to reduce pressure on national budgets, EU co-financing rates have been
increased in nine Member States and further 'top-up' payments (increasing
co-financing rates up to 95%) were made to programmes for Greece, Ireland,
Latvia, Portugal, Romania and Hungary.

The evidence[18] shows that outputs and results
of the policy on the ground began to accelerate in 2011 after a slow start in
the early years of the period, also demonstrating the essential role of
Cohesion Policy in maintaining public investment in a number of Member States.
Aggregate data for the common indicators used showed the achievements over the
first five years of the current programming period. Highlights of achievements
which contribute to the European 2020 flagship initiatives of Smart,
Sustainable and Inclusive Growth are that: almost 400,000 jobs have been
created (of which 190,000 since 2010), including more than 15,600 research jobs
and nearly 170,000 jobs in SMEs. Over 142,000 SMEs have been supported; over
53,000 start-ups have been supported (of which 28,000 since 2010); nearly 1.9
million additional people have broadband access; over 5,000 transport projects
having been launched; and over 19,000 educational infrastructure projects have
been supported.

Several
evaluations were completed in 2012. In addition to evaluations carried out by
individual Member States[19],
and country reports through an expert evaluation network, the Commission itself
also completed evaluations on different aspects of cohesion policy[20]. Two ex-post evaluations on
ten major projects co-financed by ERDF and Cohesion Funds in 1994 - 99 and financed
by the Cohesion Fund in 2000 - 06 provided evidence on the impact and added
value of the Funds' infrastructure investment in transport and environment (see
below). The findings of the evaluations are being translated into programme
guidance for the period 2014 - 20.

The ex-post
evaluation on the Cohesion Fund 2000 - 06 confirmed that co-financed projects
had a marked effect in extending and improving the transport network in the
countries receiving support. For example, major improvements were made in many
of the transit routes crossing the countries concerned and in the transport
links with neighbouring countries. Although there is uncertainty about the
extent to which environmental projects generated benefits which exceeded the
costs of undertaking them, these projects have a significant effect in the
protection of the environment and reducing pollution, so improving both the
sustainability of economic development and the quality of life across many
parts of the countries receiving support. An important finding was the longer
term impact of investments in infrastructure projects, which can typically only
be assessed after some years of operation, often long after the funding period
is closed. The evaluation also reported on significant delays in the
implementation of projects. This is particularly the case in respect of
environmental projects, and for large projects generally in EU-12 countries.

The ex-post
evaluation for the period 1994 - 99 added further evidence on the length of
time before impacts can be identified, demonstrating that it is only after
around five years of the operation of major infrastructure projects that
medium-term effects can be soundly evaluated. The evaluation identified a
"list of ingredients" that can ensure maximum impact of public
investment projects. For example, successful investments are more likely to
materialise when there is the right mix of entrepreneurialism, professionalism,
managerial discretion and accountability to government.

In 2012, the
Court of Auditors also completed performance audits on some financial
instruments. The recommendations of the Court focused on issues such as the need
for regular monitoring, the use of comparable performance indicators and
improvements in selection criteria. The recommendations have been taken into
account by the Commission in the design of the future policy, for example
through ex-ante conditionalities and the design of common indicators with
definitions developed in co-operation with the Member States. Most importantly,
the emphasis of the Commission proposals for the future instruments on far more
explicit specific objectives and priorities aims to address the performance
issues raised by the Court.

Overall,
Member State reports, evaluations and the Commission's own analysis confirm the
appropriateness of the Commission proposals for the next programming period,
particularly as regards concentration, better programming and monitoring,
common indicators for the future and a performance framework with milestones
and targets, evaluation and accountability for results achieved as well as
resources spent. Furthermore, the regular political discussion on the
performance of the policy which is proposed for the future is confirmed as
necessary.

Heading 2 - Preservation and management of
natural resources

Environmental
policy

LIFE+ supports
environmental and nature conservation projects throughout the EU, as well as in
some candidate, acceding and neighbouring countries. It is implemented through
direct centralised management. In 2012, commitments amounting to EUR 332.9
million were made (0.2% of 2012 EU budget). By the end of 2012 a final
evaluation of LIFE+ (2007 - 13) became available, just over two years after the
mid-term evaluation and one year after the proposal for a new LIFE programme.
Given the timing of the evaluation, only very few projects funded under LIFE+
had been finalised (40 projects out of 1300 - 1400 foreseen) and consequently
the evaluation focussed on programme processes rather than assessment of
project performance.

The evaluation
confirmed added EU value, which derives from LIFE’s ability to act as a
platform for exchange of practice and knowledge-sharing, recommending that the
weight given to EU added value should be retained and strengthened. The
evaluation found improvements in some areas of programme implementation
compared to earlier evaluations. For example, more weight has been given to EU
added value in project selection, although beneficiaries remain largely
focussed on their individual projects and the profiles. Whilst the electronic
application process has reduced the administrative burden for applications,
this burden is slightly higher than for other EU programmes. There is potential
to expand the use of electronic reporting in project monitoring to further
reduce the burden. Evidence from evaluations and consultations has contributed
to the design of the new Programme. The proposal for the new Programme for the
next MFF includes the objectives of: establishing a better link with EU policy
priorities, including climate action; promoting the use of integrated projects;
developing synergies and complementarily with other EU Funds; promoting EU
added value and solidarity/effort-sharing; and simplifying the programme.

Agriculture
and Rural Development policies

The 2012
budget for Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) represents around EUR 58.59 billion
in terms of commitments.

With regard to
the first pillar of the CAP comprising direct income support, data on direct
aids shows that decoupled payments stabilise farm incomes and thus contribute
to the economic viability of farms. Direct payments continue to contribute
significantly to agricultural entrepreneurial income (family farm income).
Direct payments on average accounted for almost half of the family farm income
in 2012. Under the direct aid schemes, support is granted to more than 7
million farmers. The data on market measures shows that CAP reforms have
enhanced the market orientation of EU agriculture and reduced the public
intervention and private storage aid – these mechanisms, which were the
traditional tools of the CAP, having now become safety net measures to the
extent that public stocks have virtually been eliminated.

With regard to
the second pillar comprising rural development policy, further progress has
been made in 2012 in closing the programmes covering the 2000 - 06 period and
in the implementation of the rural development programmes 2007 - 13. While
there is still room for progress on the quality of data delivered by the Member
States, significant achievements can be reported on the basis of available
figures. For example, the value of agricultural production under recognized
quality label/standards supported by the Agricultural Funds for Rural
development (EAFRD) has currently reached EUR 13.2 billion which represents 80
% of the final programme target set for 2013 and 62 million citizens in rural
areas benefited from improved services supported by EAFRD, representing 87% of
the final programme target set for 2013. In financial terms, by the end of 2012,
EUR 58.9 billion of the total budget of EUR 96.2 billion for the 2007 - 13
period has been executed. Axis 1, 3 and 4 have now reached 43.8 % of the
allocated budget. However, there are significant uncertainties over the
continuation of this positive trend as the economic crisis reduces the
possibilities for Member States to provide the necessary matching funds and the
administrative capacity to implement the programmes.

In 2012 six
evaluations on different elements of the CAP were conducted examining in
particular the impacts of CAP measures on markets, farm income, production
structures, competitiveness, the environment and rural development. Also eight
special reports by the Court of Auditors provided performance-related feedback
on targeted measures[21]
. The results of these evaluations and special reports point to need for better
targeting of measures, simplification, and improved monitoring of the
achievements of results and objectives.

For rural development
policy, the ex-post evaluation of the rural development programmes (RDP) 2000 -
06, with a total budget of EUR 59.2 billion and the synthesis of mid-term evaluations
of RDP 2007 - 13, with a total budget of EUR 96.2 billion, were both completed
in 2012. The results indicate that RDP demonstrate a capacity to generate
positive economic and environmental impacts, although most measures have more
impact at the individual beneficiary level than at the level of the whole rural
economy and population. Income effects seem to be highly correlated with the
efficient targeting of measure-specific support and the combined application of
measures.

In addition,
rural development measures maintained or generated employment in rural areas.
Net employment effects of RDP measures seem to be generally lower than net
income impacts, although it is difficult to isolate the impact of RDP
interventions from that of other factors. The conclusions and recommendations
of these evaluations fed into the design of the rural development policy for
the period 2014 - 20, including the need for better targeting of measures,
improving rural development strategies and strategy making, complementarities
between measures, and strengthening complementarities between rural development
programmes and other programmes and funds.

Experience
gained with the 2008 wine reform enabled the Commission to conclude that the
reform has been implemented successfully and that there is no longer structural
surplus in the wine sector[22].
These conclusions were supported by the evaluation of the wine sector covering
the period 2001 - 11, focussing on the effects of the 2008 reform. The
evaluation included a further analysis of the Court of Auditors' special report[23] which pointed to the absence
of key performance indicators, the overly wide discretion of Member States in
implementing the restructuring and conversion measures and the too high level
of aid rates.

The evaluation
found that the implementation of measures through national support programmes,
allowing the flexibility and adaptability of support measures to local needs of
wine sectors, has been effective. However, some problems in policy management
limiting effectiveness have appeared, for example, by the application of too
rigid procedures. The evaluation of the measures strengthening the
competitiveness of EU wine-producers and the market considered that the
measures are more efficient, but implementation by some Member States/regions
(insufficient targeting of beneficiaries) reduced efficiency. Simplification
does not seem to have been achieved with the current approach and there is
inconsistency between the measure for promotion of private brands on third country
markets and those allowing generic promotion on the EU-market.

The evaluation
of the cereals sector confirmed that, while aid is needed to support producers'
income, the switch to decoupling limits distorting effects and ensures
coherence with the overall CAP objectives. Production decisions of farmers and
processors are more determined by market signals, contributing to enhancing
competitiveness and the smooth functioning of the internal market. The measures
have promoted the development of cereal crops and end-uses in which the EU has
a comparative advantage. The reform has been relatively efficient, as the cost
of cereal-specific measures has declined, while Member States' paying agencies
and, to a lesser extent, producers see administrative burden as manageable.

The evaluation
of the School Fruit Scheme examined the effects of this initiative launched in
2008. It found that the scheme was effective in increasing children's fruit and
vegetable consumption in the short term, whilst the brief implementation period
would not yet allow evaluation of the impact on improved eating habits in the
longer term. Regarding the influence of EU funding on the scheme's
effectiveness, the evaluation suggests that the EU aid has a positive or even
essential impact. The scheme is found to be pivotal for the implementation of
national or regional School Fruit Schemes in nearly all participating Member
States. The specific recommendations to increase the level of EU co-funding and
to broaden the scope of measures eligible for EU aid have been included in the
changes proposed to the scheme in the context of the CAP 2020 reform proposals.

Finally, the
ex-post evaluation of the EU Forest Action Plan examined the implementation of
the 18 specific actions of the plan during the period 2007 - 11. The results
and recommendations of this evaluation provide a main input in the review of
any future EU Forest Strategy.

Maritime
Affairs and fisheries policies

The EU's
maritime and fisheries policies are supported by expenditure programmes linked
to the implementation of the Common Fisheries Policy in the area of the Law of
the Sea, the European Fisheries Fund (EFF) and the EAGF (European Agricultural
Guarantee Fund). By July 2012, the Member States reported that commitments
under the EFF reached a total of nearly EUR 2.423 billion, representing 56.3%
of the amount programmed for the entire period.

In 2012, six
evaluations became available, including main spending areas: ex-post
evaluations of Fisheries Partnership Agreements (supported by funds of the
implementation of the Common Fisheries Policy and in the area of the Law of the
Sea) and an interim evaluation of the EFF covering 2007 - 2010. In addition to
these evaluations, special reports of the European Court of Auditors, internal
audits, and data from the EU fleet register provide further input on
performance.

The EFF
synthesis report mostly focused on programme implementation, due to its limited
time coverage and a corresponding lack of performance-related data. Notably,
data from national reports were very heterogeneous, making it impossible to
draw comparisons across Member States, an aspect which will need to be
corrected for the next MFF. The report showed that, whereas progress on most
priority areas ('Axes') was satisfactory, the achievement rate on Axis 4
concerning sustainable development of fisheries was the lowest, given that the
actions were generally still in the very early stages of implementation. The
main explanations for delays in implementation concerned limited co-financing
due the unfavourable economic environment, limited access to debt financing and
the late launch of programmes. Conversely, some success factors were mentioned,
including efficient administration and increased sector interest.

The synthesis
report indicated that the monitoring systems as a whole worked well, but that
the quality and definition of indicators needed further improvement. This has
been taken into account in the preparation of the evaluation and monitoring
system of the new EMFF (European Maritime and Fisheries Fund) which reflects
the stronger result-orientation given to the policy. This is achieved through
the introduction of a clearer intervention logic in the Operational Programmes,
using common output and result indicators for monitoring and by including a
performance framework and reserve in the programmes. In addition, updated 2012
data showed that by the end of 2012 delays on Axis 4 has been overcome and good
results are being delivered.

As
complementary information to the EFF synthesis report, the data in the EU fleet
register show that support for decommissioning fishing vessels has almost
reached the targets set in the Member States' operational programmes. 603
vessels were decommissioned in 2012 with EFF support. However, the European
Court of Auditors pointed out that the EFF support for decommissioning fishing
vessels did not have sufficient impact on fishing capacity or effort, nor did
it succeed in redressing the balance between fleet capacity and fishing
opportunities in a lasting way. The Commission took these findings into account
in designing the new EMFF for the period 2014 - 2020 by proposing to put an end
to those fleet measures that had failed to reduce the over-capacity of the
European fishing fleet.

The ex-post
evaluations of several Fisheries Partnership Agreements (FPAs) indicate that
the FPAs contribute to the creation of economic wealth and employment, both for
the EU and the Partner country. With respect to efficiency, the FPAs have guaranteed
access for EU vessels owners to a number of third country Exclusive Economic
Zone (EEZs) within a regulated framework, while providing funds to improve
local fishery governance. They can therefore be considered beneficial to both
the EU and the beneficiary Partner countries. However, an internal audit by the
Commission considered that there were some weaknesses to address in the current
process of evaluating individual agreements, and recommended developing and implementing
a standard methodology with a coherent and systematic approach to conduct both
the ex-post and ex-ante evaluations. These recommendations are currently being implemented
through new internal guidelines on FPA evaluations covering both methodological
issues and practical information on procedures and requirements. On that basis,
new terms of reference have been developed to be used for on-going and future
evaluations.

The ex-post
evaluation of the implementation of the compensation regime for the additional
costs incurred in the marketing of certain fishery products from the outermost
regions indicates that it is effective in fulfilling its objective of
contributing to the development and competitiveness of the concerned fishing
industry . . Therefore, for the next financial period , the Commission has proposed
a compensation scheme similar to the one currently in force in the proposal for
a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European
Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF).

Heading 3A – Freedom, security and Justice

In 2012,
policies in the field of home affairs were supported by a budget of EUR 1.37
billion in commitments. Support is organised through two programmes:
"Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows (SOLID)" and
"Security and Safeguarding Liberties". Financial performance results
have remained satisfactory with implementation rates of 100% on commitments and
99% on payment in 2012.

The 2012
evaluation of the EU Crime Prevention Network (EUR 845,000 support under the
'Fund on the Prevention of and Fight against Crime') showed the added value of
the network. On the basis of this evaluation, and responding to the request of
the European Council to study the possibility for establishing a Crime
Prevention Observatory, the Commission recommended consolidating progress made
and improving the functioning of the Network rather than establishing an
Observatory. The evaluation also indicated that a number of weaknesses,
including on organisation and governance, would need to be corrected through a
more systematic alignment of the Network with agreed EU priorities, a stronger role
in making inputs to EU and Member State policymaking and a more strategic
approach to determining activities. The Commission is currently following up on
the recommendations and weaknesses identified.

The European Court
of Auditors also carried out a performance audit in 2012 on the contribution of
the European Integration Fund and the European Refugee Fund to the integration
of third-country nationals. Overall, the Court highlighted actions and projects
showing positive results but was critical on the general effectiveness of the
Funds and made a number of recommendations including the need for
simplification of the programming arrangements and to have management and
control systems, and a system of common indicators, in place to measure outputs
and the outcome of the programme. The Commission proposals for the programmes
in the next Multiannual Financial Framework 2014 - 20 on the Asylum and
Migration Fund and Internal Security Fund took the Court's recommendations
on-board. However, the Commission did not agree with the conclusion of the
Court regarding the effectiveness of the Funds and potential overlaps or lack
of complementarity between the EIF and other EU funds. The Commission ensures
the necessary follow-up with Member States so that adequate arrangements are in
place at national level.

In the area of
Justice, the relevant programmes (Civil Justice Programme, Criminal Justice
Programme, Daphne III Programme, Fundamental Rights and Citizenship Programme,
Drugs Prevention and Information Programme and Progress-Equality and
Anti-discrimination strands) were implemented as foreseen, with a total budget
of EUR 119 million. No new evaluation results became available for these
programmes in 2012.

Heading 3B – Citizenship

Communication
policy

In 2012,
performance-related information showed progress in the implementation of the
three specific objectives of the "Europe for Citizens" programme
(2012: EUR 28.4 million committed).[24]
The programme reached its objectives, both in terms of financial performance
and actions delivered. On the first objective to develop citizens' sense of
ownership of European integration, 77.5% of the programme participants in 451
contracted projects feel more European, thereby exceeding the target of 75%.
The programme themes in 2012 most often taken into consideration by eligible
projects were 'Empowering citizens to play a full part in the democratic life
of the EU' (61%) and 'giving citizens the opportunity to interact and
participate in constructing a more integrated Europe' (58%). An impact study of
the 'Europe for Citizens' programme is foreseen in 2013.

Furthermore,
twelve evaluations became available in 2012. These concerned: the European Year
of Volunteering (EYV) 2011, 'Communication and the media' actions (Interim
evaluation of PressEurop) and different aspects of the 'Going local'
Communication (10 evaluations). In particular, evidence on the EYV 2011 (budget
EUR 7.7 million committed in 2011) showed that the programme has had a positive
impact on volunteering, both at European and at national level.

The evaluation
concluded that the objectives and activities of the Year were relevant and
targeted, and that the results-oriented approach was successful in reaching the
objectives in all Member States, even though the impact varied according to
specific national situations. The experience of EYV 2011 is that the national
programmes and the cooperation with National Coordinating Bodies in the Member
States and major European stakeholders constitute good practice models that
ensure that the messages of the European Year are spread widely and achieve
sustainable impact at national level and at the level of civil society. For
future European Years, better synergies with existing programmes and other
European Years could be developed.

Cultural
policy

Evidence of
progress was reported in 2012 in the implementation of the Youth in Action
programme (YiA), MEDIA 2007 - 13 and MEDIA Mundus, and the Culture Programme.[25] In 2012, programmes were implemented
as foreseen, on schedule, even earlier than in previous years, and in all
participating countries. YiA committed EUR 140.4 million (up 8% on 2011). In
2012, YiA supported an ever greater number of young people and youth workers;
with 200,000 participants, the programme has proven to be increasingly
attractive (more than 920,000 since 2007) and contributes to the recognition of
non-formal learning.

According to
the latest available monitoring survey, 67% of participants believe that their
job chances have increased thanks to their YiA experience (61% in previous
survey). In 2012, MEDIA 2007-2013 and MEDIA Mundus committed EUR 112.5 million.
The Culture programme in 2012 committed EUR 59.2 million (up 3% on 2011). As a
result of these programmes, it was estimated that over 19,400 artists/cultural
workers had been mobile, several thousand cultural works had been circulated in
2010 and getting close to 1,480 organisations were involved in 2011, either as
co-ordinators or co-organisers.

Health and
Consumer Protection policies

The policy in
the field of health and consumer protection is supported by the Public Health
Programme (EUR 48.9 million committed in 2012) and EU action in the field of
consumer policy (EUR 22 million committed in 2012). No new evaluations became
available in 2012.

Heading 4 - EU as a Global Player

Development
and External relations

EU external development
assistance is financed from the general EU budget and the European Development
Funds (EDFs). The most important instrument in financial terms are the EDF (EUR
3.7 billion committed in 2012), for countries in Africa, the Caribbean and the
Pacific, followed by the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument
(ENPI) (2.4 billion committed in 2012) and the Development Cooperation
Instrument (DCI) (EUR 2.3 billion committed in 2012).

In 2012, 10
geographic evaluations and 6 thematic evaluations related to EU Development
Policy were published. In general they show that at the strategic level, EU
interventions address the needs of the partner countries and populations, but
should stay flexible enough to anticipate and adjust to a changing context. In
fragile states, the EU should focus more on development and good governance.
Civil society organisations can act as a catalyst for improving the relevance
of EU strategies and for holding governments accountable.

An appropriate
mix of aid modalities enhances efficiency at a strategic level. This is more
important in a fragile context where aid instruments need to be particularly
flexible. Non-financial inputs are key factors of success, notably as regards
Budget Support, and a more inclusive and effective policy dialogue should be
developed. Budget Support is an effective tool to help improve public financial
management and other reforms, but it cannot buy reforms. It can enhance
alignment and support to institutions with the help of non-financial inputs
such as policy dialogue.

The EU’s
generally positive impact on poverty reduction can be further improved by
better coordination with other donors, better linkage between regional and
national programming and more synergies between the different sectors. EU
projects and programmes would benefit from a better and more structured
monitoring system. The EU should also encourage every partner to improve its
monitoring systems. EU delegations need to develop further their own technical
and sectorial capacity and expertise in order to improve coordination and the
management of programmes and to better anticipate long term trends.

Results of the
geographic evaluations will feed into the current geographic programming
process which will be finalised in 2014. The Commission and the European External
Action Service (EEAS) will take the results into consideration in preparing the
next country programmes which should be available next year.

The results of thematic evaluations are having an impact on policy
decisions. As a result of the evaluation of support in the health sector, an
internal programme for action will integrate existing policies and commitments
to improve implementation, and support in the health related interventions in
each partner country will be more concentrated. The evaluation of Human Rights
led to endorsement of an EU Strategic Framework for Human Rights and Democracy
and a related Action Plan by the June 2012 European Council, as well as the
release of a unified Strategic Framework for human rights for the first time
common to the Commission, the EEAS and the Member States, with a wide-ranging
plan of action for its implementation.

Economic
and Financial Affairs policy

Macro-Financial
Assistance provides balance-of-payments support to partner third countries in
the form of medium/long-term loans or grants and complements financing provided
in the context of an International Monetary Fund's reform programmes.
Evaluations of operations in Georgia (EUR 46 million in grants), Lebanon (EUR
15 million in grants and EUR 25 million in loans) and Kosovo (EUR 30 million in
grants) have confirmed that this type of crisis instrument contributes, in
combination with IMF programmes, to the macro-economic stabilisation and
external sustainability of the beneficiary countries. The impact of these
instruments is reinforced by making the assistance subject to structural
reforms in governance in the recipient countries. However, the evaluations of
the MFA to Georgia and Kosovo suggested that the Commission should be more
specific in formulating conditionality, especially in the case of softer
actions such as the development of action plans. It should also improve the
visibility of the MFA instrument. The MFA created added value through its
confidence-boosting effect, increasing the credibility of the country in the
eyes of the international community and potential investors. The Commission continues
to take account of the recommendations made in the evaluations in the design
and implementation of on-going and future operations.

Humanitarian
Aid and Civil Protection

The two main
instruments at the European Union's disposal to ensure rapid and effective
delivery of EU relief assistance are humanitarian assistance and civil protection).

The EU
intervenes when and where crises or natural disasters occur, helping affected
people in third countries and inside the EU. In 2012, the Commission committed
1,252 million as a response to new or protracted crises. The initial budget of
EUR 874 million was therefore increased on several occasions in order to
respond to new crises and natural disasters occurring during the year.

The Civil
Protection Mechanism (CPM) was activated 38 times during the year. A total of
31 of these interventions relate to natural disasters (snow storms, severe cold
weather, floods, earthquakes, tsunami, avalanche, storms, and forest fires) and
seven to man-made disasters (explosion, camps refugee settlement, marine
pollution). A total of 16 interventions concerned countries within the EU Civil
Protection Mechanism (EUCPM) and 22 concerned other countries.

Member States
and the European Commission acting on behalf of the EU as a whole together continue
to be the largest single donor of humanitarian assistance in the world. The EU
accounts for some 47% of the global humanitarian aid. The vast majority of the
funding in 2012 was dedicated to Africa (51%). Substantial assistance was also
provided in the Middle East (Syria and neighbouring countries), for
Myanmar/Burma, and the natural disasters in South East Asia and the Caribbean.
The Commission funded humanitarian aid activities which benefited more than 122
million victims.

In 2012 nine evaluations
were completed, of which five were country specific and four
thematic/cross-cutting.

Evaluations
have generally shown that the EU humanitarian assistance, is considered
effective and that the 'bottom-up' approach has proven its ability to respond
rapidly to crises. Recommendations to improve effectiveness that are of general
relevance can be summarised as follows. While the standard instruments take
prevailing risks into account and provide a basis for decisions to engage and
disengage, a greater emphasis on measuring longer term effects and impacts should
be made, including providing a set of appropriate indicators to measure impacts.
The efforts to be a driving force in terms of coordination between donors
should continue. It should also be ensured that community participation and
coordination with local civil society is the rule rather than exception. The
drive for innovation should continue and not follow any tendency to
standardized default responses. Exit strategies should be further ensured,
particularly in urban settings where disaster implications usually are more
complex. For certain projects it should be considered to extend timeframes
(e.g. beyond 12 months) to ensure the project effectiveness. .

As for
efficiency, the average cost of EU humanitarian assistance is approximately EUR
10 per person helped. Concerning the implementation framework, the evaluation
of the Framework Partnership Agreement (FPA) showed that the agreement allows
for greater flexibility of funding and lower response times for a small group
of 'quality partners'.

Based on the
establishment of good practice, lessons learned and a strengthened
coordination, opportunities to increase efficiency of interventions are
continuously being explored. The 2012 evaluations provided a number of inputs
on how to close efficiency gaps. As resources are often and inevitably spread
thinly over a large number of projects, a further integrated multi-sectorial
approach should be ensured. DG ECHO should review data collection procedures in
order to improve monitoring DG ECHO's efficiency. Mechanisms for learning and
knowledge exchange should be strengthened, to ensure a high-level technical
capacity in the field. .

Enlargement
policy

The
implementation of the Enlargement policy is supported by the instrument for
Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA) financial instrument 2007 - 2013. The added
value sought from the IPA program lies in its ability to act as a main driver
for the preparation of the candidate countries and potential candidates for
future EU membership. IPA is designed to introduce candidates to the
obligations of membership before accession, for example setting up institutions
for managing post-accession EU funds, and/or adopting the acquis and EU
standards. IPA is currently split into five components.

Management of
financial assistance to candidate countries and potential candidate countries
progressed largely as planned. In 2012, funds totalling nearly EUR 1,016.5
million were committed. Results in the field are materialising, as shown by the
progress made in general in the area of the Rule of law, the steady process of
convergence towards the European standards and values, the finalisation of the
negotiations with Croatia, becoming the 28th EU Member State in 2013.
Nonetheless, the impact of assistance can still be improved by continuing the
efforts to develop the capacities of national institutions and a more focused
and strategic allocation of resources.

In 2012, a
thematic evaluation of the EU's support for strengthening Governance, the Rule
of Law, Judiciary Reform and the Fight against Corruption and Organised Crime
in the Western Balkans was carried out. It showed that in all seven Western
Balkan countries the actions bring a clear added value to national authorities,
as there have been major improvements in the fundamental institutional and
organisational frameworks in the area of the Rule of law. Nevertheless, there
is a need for stronger political commitment.

In terms of
efficiency and effectiveness, the evaluation supports the simplification of IPA
II programming to fewer instruments, more sector programming with longer
time-horizons. On the beneficiary side, the evaluation indicated that judicial
reform programmes should have clear priorities reflected in national policy and
budget propositions, ensuring stable planning parameters and financing.

On the EU
side, it found that the EU should elaborate overall and programme objectives
with regard to Governance and the Rule of Law and should re-assess/increase the
IPA funding following the evidence based programming. Priority programmes could
have a four-to seven year horizon with clear 'stoppage points' for review and
adjustment. Taking into account the results of the current evaluation, the idea
of introducing multi-annual planning in IPA II assistance, covering the
duration of the next multi-annual financial framework, with a mid-term review,
was proposed. The evaluation also pointed out the importance of SMART
objectives and indicators of measurement to support programming and monitoring
of performance. Some of the proposed indicators are currently used to develop
an indicator framework for the programming exercise for IPA II assistance.

A thematic
evaluation on the judiciary and fundamental rights in Turkey suggested using a
sectoral programming approach in IPA II. Based on the evaluation, the EU
assistance on the judiciary and fundamental rights in Turkey was considered
supportive, adding value in enhancing human rights reforms, strengthening the
effectiveness of the court system and demonstrating an adequate level of
delivery of results in view of available resources. However, the evaluation
also pointed out weaknesses in the programming and implementation of
assistance, for example ownership by relevant institutions and transparency to beneficiaries.
Elements of flexibility, improved governance and ownership are envisaged for
the new IPA II programming.

The thematic
Evaluation of EU's Support to Civil Society in the Western Balkans and Turkey
suggested greater involvement of civil society and stakeholders in the
programming and project selection mechanisms. In addition it proposed better
synergy between EU and non-EU interventions in the programming and
implementation of IPA assistance. The evaluation proposed some modifications in
the management of the new IPA program in terms of increasing cooperation with
other donors and International financial institutions at strategic level. In
addition it supported enhancing stakeholder's participation in programming.

The evaluation
of the SIGMA (Support for Improvement in Governance and Management) reported
that the support is considered effective, but a structured and traceable
hierarchy of general and specific objectives and integrated risks is currently
lacking. Starting in 2013, in three countries, SIGMA assessments will become
the basis for a more effective policy dialogue, a tool for informing IPA
national and regional funding, and a tool for developing country reform plans.

Drawing on the
evaluations, the Commission's proposal for new IPA II programme seeks to make
the necessary adaptations to ensure continuity and transition from the current
IPA, to apply simplified and harmonised rules across all Commission
departments, and to facilitate access to funding for beneficiaries. For better
effectiveness and efficiency, the assistance will be made more result-oriented,
flexible and tailored to specific needs.

Improved links
between implementation of financial cooperation and achievement of the policy
goals set out is being pursued. More relevant performance indicators are
proposed for the 2014 - 2020 programming exercise.

4.           CONCLUSIONS

Evaluation
results point to a need for simplification, more focused objectives, common
indicators and a performance framework with clear milestones and targets for
the next Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF).

The Commission
has taken this into account in making its proposals for the new generation of
programmes under the next MFF and calls upon the European Parliament and the
Council to maintain this focus in the legislative proposals for the next MFF to
ensure a more manageable, targeted and measurable process for the next
financial period.

The Commission
is developing more thorough, systematic and targeted progress and performance
reporting which will be based on the monitoring, evaluation and reporting
framework set by Parliament and Council for the next MFF. It will present the
new framework for this Report in 2014. In the meantime, it has instructed its
services to strengthen and streamline progress and performance measurement and
reporting to underpin all future Annual Activity Reports and future versions of
this Report.

This year's
report provides a picture of general progress in advancing EU programme
objectives contributing to EU 2020 targets, but with results sometimes
negatively affected by the economic downturn. Funding produced important
leverage effects particularly on innovation performance, with good progress
made on the creation of an efficient internal market in transport and the
integration of energy markets. Evaluations confirmed this progress while much
remains to be done. The ESF, ERDF and Cohesion Fund proved their flexibility to
respond to the downturn. The contribution of the ESF to access to employment has
been confirmed, with uncertainty remaining over the sustainability of the
results. The role of EU financing is confirmed in maintaining public investment
in a number of Member States, to safeguard jobs, growth and investment
strategies, reducing the pressure on national budgets, including substantially
increased co-financing rates for nine Member States.

[1]               Other evaluations covered in the Annex concern mainly
regulatory and communication, information and coordination activities and
internal administrative processes of the EU Institutions.

[2]               European Parliament resolution on the discharge for
implementing the EU

General budget for the financial year
2011- P7 TA-PROV(2013)0122.

[3]               COM(2013)334 final.

[4]               All figures for expenditure on programmes in the
Report are for 2012.

[5]               Evaluation of Member State Policies to Facilitate
Access to Finance for SME and Evaluation of the EU Business Angels Markets and
Policies

[6]               Proposal COM(2011)834

[7]               See the Annual Activity Report for DG MOVE at http://ec.europa.eu/atwork/synthesis/aar/

[8]               https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/scoreboard.

[9]               Study on the Future impact of Joint Technology
Initiatives ARTEMIS and ENIAC (ARTEMIS
Industry Association is the association for Embedded Systems actors in Europe.
It represents the research community including industry, universities and
research institutes in the ARTEMIS Joint Undertaking) and ENIAC (The ENIAC Joint Undertaking is a public-private
partnership focusing on nano-electronics that brings together ENIAC
Member/Associated States, the European Commission, and AENEAS (an association
representing European R&D actors in this field)

[10]             (COM (2011)783).

[11]             For projects managed by the Directorate General for
Research and Innovation (DG RTD) and the Research Executive Agency (REA).

[12]             See the Annual Activity Report for DG Education and
Culture at http://ec.europa.eu/atwork/synthesis/aar/

[13]             Evaluation forms completed by participants in the
programme activities

[14]             Source: Measurement of Results - annual report 2011

[15]             Source: CCN/CSI Project Monthly Report

[16]             VAT Information Exchange System (VIES); New
Computerised Transit System (NCTS); Online customs tariff database (TARIC)

[17]             Regulation 1083/2006: General regulation for the
Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund

[18]             Stemming from COM(2013)210 final Cohesion Policy:
Strategic report 2013 on programme implementation 2007-2013 which analyses 27
national strategic reports presented by the Member States in 2012 summarising
how their programmes were contributing to the objectives of cohesion policy;
Member States' latest annual implementation reports concerning 2011; country
reports of an expert evaluation network; and evaluations undertaken for DG
REGIO.

[19]             http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/evaluation/pdf/eval2007/expert_innovation/2011_s

ynthesis_national_reports.pdf

[20]             Ex-post evaluation of projects co-financed by ERDF and
Cohesion Fund in the period 1994-1999; ex post

evaluation of the Cohesion Fund
2000-06; Jaspers evaluation.

[21]             Special Reports No 14/2011; 1/2012; 7/2012; 8/2012;
9/2012; 11/2012; 14/2011; 16/2012.

[22]             COM (2012)737

[23]             The special report focused on the
"grubbing-up" and "restructuring and conversion of
vineyards" measures; the

two largest areas of spending.

[24]             See the Annual Activity Report for DG COMM at: ;
http://ec.europa.eu/atwork/synthesis/aar/

[25]             See the Annual Activity Report for DG EAC at: http://ec.europa.eu/atwork/synthesis/aar/