EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 7.2.2019 SWD(2019) 14 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Mid-term evaluation of Regulation (EU) No 1294/2013 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 11 December 2013 establishing an action programme for customs in the European Union for the period 2014-2020 (Customs 2020) and repealing Decision No 624/2007/EC Accompanying the document Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council



Mid-term evaluation of the Customs 2020 programme {COM(2019) 57 final}



Table of Contents 1.Introduction Context Purpose and scope of the mid-term evaluation 2.Background to the intervention Description of the intervention and its objectives Baseline and points of comparison 3.Implementation / state of Play Description of the current situation Awareness of the programme 4.Method Short description of methodology Limitations and robustness of findings Changes to the original design 5.Analysis and answers to the evaluation questions EQ 1: Do the different objectives of the programme (in the Regulation and in its work programmes) correspond to the needs of the national customs administrations, economic operators and citizens? EQ 2: To what extent has the programme reinforced cooperation and improved information-sharing between customs authorities of participating countries? EQ 3: To what extent have economic operators used and benefited from the programme? EQ 4: To what extent has the programme contributed to the achievement of its specific objectives?

EQ 5: To what extent have the design and management of the programme been conducive to achieving the desired results? EQ 6. To what extent have the programme's resources produced best possible results at the lowest results at the lowest possible costs ? EQ 7: To what extent does the programme demonstrate internal and external coherence? EQ 8: To what extent does the programme provide EU added value? 6.Conclusions Annex 1: Procedural information Annex 2: Stakeholder consultation Annex 3: Methods and analytical models Annex 4: Key features of the joint actions Glossary AEO Authorised Economic Operator AFIS Anti-fraud Information Systems ART Activity Reporting Tool ATIS Anti-Fraud Transit Information System AWP Annual Work Programme CCN/CSI Common Communication Network/Common Systems Interface CELBET Customs Eastern and South-Eastern Land Border Expert Team CIRCABC Communication and Information Resource Centre CIS Customs Information Systems CLEP Common Learning Events Programme COPIS anti-Counterfeit and anti-Piracy Information System CRMF Common Risk Management Framework CRMS Customs Risk Management System CRS Customer Reference System CS/RD Common Services / Reference Data DG TAXUD Directorate General for Taxation and Customs Union EBTI European Binding Tariff Information ECICS European Customs Inventory of Chemical Substances ECS Export Control System EIS European Information Systems ENS Entry Summary Declaration EORI Economic Operator Identification and Registration EU Customs CFW EU Competency Framework for customs ICS Import Control System IPR Intellectual Property Rights MFF Multiannual Financial Framework NCTS New Computerised Transit System OLAF European Anti-Fraud Office PCG Programme Coordination Group PICS Programmes Information and Collaboration Space PMF Performance Measurement Framework RIF Risk Information Forms QUOTA Electronic system for quota management / allocation REX Registered Exporters IT System SASP Single Authorisation for Simplified Procedures SMS Specimen Management System STTA Standard Transit Test Application TARIC The integrated Tariff of the European Unions UCC Union Customs Code 1.Introduction Context The Customs Union is a foundation of the European Union and an essential element in the functioning of the single market. Many of the activities in the customs area are of a cross-border nature, involving and affecting all Member States. The EU Customs Union territory is governed by common rules and procedures laid down in the Union Customs Code (UCC) . They require proper and uniform implementation and application across the EU. Moreover, customs policy and the customs administrations constantly need to adapt to modern trade realities and modern communication tools. The UCC is a milestone in modernising EU customs, and the EU’s Customs 2020 action programme is indispensable in supporting its implementation. The Customs 2020 programme was set up by Regulation (EU) No 1294/2013 of 11th of December 2013 as a multiannual action programme for customs in the EU, to facilitate and enhance cooperation between national administrations. In accordance with Article 18(1)(2) of the Regulation, the Commission carried out a mid-term evaluation of the programme. Purpose and scope of the mid-term evaluation The purpose of the mid-term evaluation is to assess the programme since its start on 1st of January 2014 up to the half-way of the programme’s implementation. The temporal scope of the evaluation runs from the programme’s establishment until 2017, depending on the availability of relevant data. The mid-term evaluation sought to shed light on the (1) achievement of the objectives and programme’s performance so far; (2) strengths, weaknesses and value for money of the different activities supported; (3) continued relevance of the programme for the Customs Union and customs administrations; (4) coherence and synergies with other EU policies and priorities; and (5) value added thanks to acting at the EU level. Moreover, the evaluation examined (6) any unintended and/or unexpected effects of the programme and its activities; (7) how well the Performance Measurement Framework, which was put in place to monitor the programme in 2014 has delivered on its objectives, and finally (8) implementation and follow-up of recommendations made for previous evaluations. For accountability and learning purposes, the evaluation provided recommendations for future improvement of the programme’s functioning.

The evaluation took into account the programme’s full range of funded and management activities, stakeholders (national administrations, the Commission services and economic operators) and participating countries (including candidate and potential candidate countries). The present evaluation staff working document is based on the findings and conclusions presented in the supporting external study (see: Annex 1 for organisational details). The Commission appreciates the overall quality of the said study, acknowledges the methodological difficulties and efforts undertaken to mitigate them. The findings are deemed robust and the conclusions accurately drawn. 2.Background to the intervention Description of the intervention and its objectives Figure 1 presents the main features of the Customs 2020 programme in terms of its objectives, supported activities, beneficiaries and overall financial envelope. The intervention logic underpinning the evaluation is presented in Annex 3. Figure 1 . Key features of the Customs 2020 programme Source: DG TAXUD; Altogether, 34 national administrations take part in the programme’s activities. The Commission manages the Customs 2020 programme centrally through direct management, with assistance the of the Customs 2020 Committee ensuring external coordination. The Customs 2020 Committee is a comitology committee composed of delegates from each Member State. The internal Commission coordination is ensured via various mechanisms, including a Programme Coordination Group. The internal coordination aims at, among others, identifying policy priorities for the Annual Work Programmes, reinforcing coherence between the programme activities and the customs policy, coherence between the programme activities themselves, monitoring of the programme’s performance and increasing the overall transparency and dissemination of information. Baseline and points of comparison The Customs 2020 programme builds upon previous iterations of the programme and the Customs programme as such has been in place for over 25 years. It allows for continuity of the efforts towards a well-functioning Customs Union, and thus single market, and EU’s broader policy goals. At the same time, despite the continuous character of all supported activities, the incremental changes introduced throughout the years to the supported IT systems, as well as changing priorities and objectives pursued, it would have not been useful to establish any performance benchmarks or seek trends across the programme’s iterations . The IT systems, constituting approximately 85% of the programme’s expenditure, have long become an integral part of the national and EU customs landscapes. In fact, the programme (and its iterations) has been around too long for most stakeholders to meaningfully consider the situation before it started. The programme has evolved along the changes of the customs landscape including the opportunities of increasing digitalisation and automation. Still, in line with the Commission’s commitment to monitor the EU budget and ensure the accountability for value for money, to facilitate this task DG TAXUD has developed a framework for monitoring the outputs and results of the programme – the Performance Monitoring Framework (PMF). It is a results-based monitoring system containing intervention logic, adjustable indicators, data collection schemes and reporting arrangements. The PMF has been put in place for the current iteration of the Customs programme, following recommendations of earlier evaluations to provide more and better data to assess programme implementation and performance. Whereas it does already facilitate performance management, the framework is still too fresh to provide insightful benchmarks for the programme’s performance or establish and examine trends. Nevertheless, whatever comparisons could have been drawn across the years of the programme’s operations are included in the analysis. 3.Implementation / state of Play Description of the current situation The Commission reports on the implementation and performance of the programme annually, through the Annual Progress Reports. To date, reports for 2014, 2015 and 2016 are available. The overview of the programme’s implementation presented here is based mostly on the latest available report updated for most recent information where available. The vast majority of funding goes into the development and operation of the IT systems, followed by the organisation of the joint actions, studies and training activities. Table 1 presents the committed expenses per year and by main categories of activities. Category of activity 2014 2015 2016 2017 Total 2014-2017 % Joint actions (Grants) € 5 993 000 € 5 500 000 € 5 400 000 € 5 350 000 € 22 243 000 7.7 % Joint actions (Reimbursements) € 200 000 € 200 000 € 120 000 € 170 000 € 690 000 0.2 % Expert teams (Grants) - € 1 500 000 € 1 960 000 - € 3 460 000 1.2 % Studies (Procurement) € 2 300 000 € 2 000 000 € 3 445 000 € 2 830 000 € 10 575 000 3.7 % IT (Procurement) € 56 300 000 € 58 001 000 € 58 146 000 € 71 800 000 € 244 247 000 84.6 % Training (Procurement) € 1 500 000 € 1 600 000 € 2 662 000 € 1 745 000 € 7 507 000 2.6 % Total € 66 289 000 € 68 801 000 € 71 733 000 € 81 895 000 € 288 722 000 100 % Source: ‘Mid-term evaluation for the Customs 2020 programme’, Customs 2020 Work Programmes 2014-2017, figures rearranged into the main spending categories; There are a few aspects worth mentioning. Firstly, in 2016 the Commission rolled out a new type of joint action – expert teams. Since the nature of the expert teams is specific enough to distinguish it from other joint actions, this category appears in the budget breakdown as a separate category.

Secondly, there is a noticeable increase in IT expenditure recorded in 2017. This increase is indeed built into the deployment of the Customs 2020 IT components relates to the multiple new IT developments and research needed for the implementation of the UCC. The most important ones included the preparation and deployment of Registered Exporters IT system REX and some of the UCC Customs Decisions applications, which were scheduled for implementation in 2017, and the construction of CLASS and INF-SP (pilot) scheduled to be operational in 2018. In 2017, there were 19 systems in the development phase and 11 in the research phase. In total, more than a half of the IT projects were progressing in line with the requirements, time and budget limitations, with a smaller number of projects were delayed due to additional legal or business clarifications needed. The number of existing IT applications by the end of 2017 was at 49. The key exchange network is the CCN/CSI network (Common Communication Network/Common Systems Interface), common to customs and taxation areas. It is composed of 112 gateways in 49 CCN/CSI sites located in 33 different countries. Over the years of the Customs programme iterations, there has been a steady increase in the number and volume of data exchanged (see Figure 2 ). This soaring trend has somewhat flattened in 2017, where some 4.8 billion messages of 5.5 terabytes of volume were exchanged. The availability of the network and key customs systems remained high and reliable, reaching 99.98% for the CCN/CSI, 98.70% for centralised IT customs applications and 99.03% for New Computerised Transit System NCTS, Export Control System ECS and Import Control System ICS. Source: DG TAXUD; Thirdly, there is fairly significant increase in the training expenditure in 2016, which was mainly due to development and deployment of an extensive EU eLearning programme supporting the implementation of the UCC, which entered into force on 1st of May 2016. The module consists of 1 overview module and 14 customs domain specific modules. The uptake of the UCC eLearning programme was high from the start; 15 participating countries have immediately integrated the UCC overview module and 9-12 took up the domain specific courses. Overall reported number of e-trainees since the beginning of the programme was 68 915 by the end of 2017, of which 53 276 were for the UCC programme. In addition, the UCC training material has been downloaded 18 423 times in total via EUROPA site by the end of 2017, covering around 726 000 reported trainees. All the eLearning courses are incorporated into national training programmes by the participating countries according to their needs. In 2017, the combined number of various eLearning courses used by the participating countries was 271 (up from 174 in 2014 and 183 in 2015 although down from 307 in 2016, which however seem to be a common pattern) . The number of actions, events and participants in Customs 2020 programme joint actions remains at a high constant level (see Figure 3 ). The small dip in 2014 is due to the programming aspects as Customs 2020 became operational only in May 2014 following a transition from the previous iteration of the programme. Figure 3. Number of and participation in Customs 2020 joint actions Source: SWD(2018)107 "Customs 2020 programme – Progress Report 2016" + ART data for 2017; Awareness of the programme The Commission monitors regularly the awareness levels of the programme and its potential amongst customs officials. Raising this awareness is considered vital in fulfilling the programme's objectives. Approximately every 18 months, the Commission runs the programme poll measuring the extent of familiarity with the programme and networking levels. The poll is distributed in all customs administrations of the participating countries, inviting both participants and non-participants to the programme's activities to take part. The latest poll relevant for this mid-term evaluation took place in January 2017. Around 3 500 customs officials from 32 participating countries returned the survey. According to its results, the Customs 2020 programme is known to 55% of all customs officials, which represents a modest rise of 4% in the awareness levels indicated in the 2014 poll but sits well below the 2011 benchmark of 65.7%. In 2016, the Commission adopted a new communication strategy for the Customs 2020 programme. It included new communication tools and channels, as well as a promotion of common effort between the EU and national programme teams in the distribution of information on the programme. Some of the actions already started to be implemented in 2016, e.g. preparation of an animation video highlighting the benefits of expert teams as new type of joint action, update of the guidance of the programme’s tools or launch of the programme newsletter informing national administrations of the highlights in the programme community. Other actions will be continuously implemented until the end of the programme while first taste of their effectiveness should be known with the programme poll 2018. 4.Method Short description of methodology The overall approach to the mid-term evaluation can be classified as theory-based evaluation. It implies examination of the causal mechanisms in which the programme was expected to generate the desired results and impacts, through collection of evidence to test the initial theory. Such approach allows to confirm (or not) the supposed causality and understand how and why these mechanisms led to expected or observed results. In doing so, the evaluation seeks to identify and assess the extent to which external factors might have hindered or supported the process. In the context of a cooperation programme such as Customs 2020, which often plays a supportive role in implementation of EU policies and priorities, this approach seemed particularly suited. Not0 least due to inherent difficulties of attributing measurable results to the functioning of the programme. The underlying intervention logic for the Customs 2020 programme was set up at the launch of the Performance Measurement Framework and constituted the point of departure for the analysis. The evaluation work built on three distinct pillars: (1) overall programme assessment focusing on the programme as a whole in terms of its implementation and performance, (2) thematic case studies probing into specific agreed topics for in-depth qualitative research, and (3) engagement with the economic operators to gather views from the stakeholders who, although not direct beneficiaries of the programme, are impacted by some of its outputs, notably IT systems or eLearning modules. The intervention logic for Customs 2020 programme, the analytical diagram for the three-pillar approach and details behind the data collection tools and techniques behind each pillar, are presented in Annex 3.

Limitations and robustness of findings The evaluators laid down the challenges and limitations at the start of the assignment and suggested mitigating measures where relevant. The proposed approach and methodology were chosen in such a way as to counterbalance some of the challenges. The evaluators classified the key challenges, which the evaluation had to cope with, as follows: ·nature of the programme (or long causal chains) – the programme support a range of (policy, legislative, operational and IT) processes and systems. These in turn contribute to objectives at various levels, but often in indirect ways, alongside other factors such as the administrative capacity and priorities of national administrations, and prevailing economic and trading conditions. Due to this, it was difficult at outcome level and close to impossible at impact levels to attribute change to the programme in any quantifiable way. In-depth qualitative research, especially from the case studies, allowed to mitigate this to a certain extent by examining the likely contribution of the programme’s activities across a wide range of areas; ·IT systems embedded within the national IT infrastructure and/or required by law – this interplay makes it difficult to attribute perceived faults or experiences with a given IT system to the performance of a specific component, the programme itself or the national IT capacity and architecture. Moreover, the fact that the evaluation was not focusing on assessing the technical functionalities of the IT systems but their use and support to implementing the policies, the data collected paint a superficial picture of the IT systems. Publically available annual e-Customs reports contain more information on the technical functionalities of the IT system; ·data availability and timing – the Performance Monitoring Framework was expected to alleviate some of the monitoring weaknesses identified during previous evaluations, providing more and better data to assess programme implementation and performance (especially at activity and outputs levels). However, that data was patchy in places and of limited usefulness at the impact levels. Moreover, the timing of the evaluation was such that at the time of the exercise annual reports on the programme’s performance were only available for the first three years of the programmes’ implementation (2014-2016). This made it difficult to establish and examine trends. The combined effect of these issues is that relevant data were not available for some of the indicators defined in the original evaluation questions matrix. The evaluators acknowledged such situations, explained the circumstances and made some changes to the affected indicators and sources to deal with it. Wherever possible and available, latest data were used in the present report and integrated within the analysis; ·reliance on samples – the large number of funded activities, the timeframe and limited resources meant that the evaluation could not cover every aspect of the programme in the same level of detail and proportionate approach was necessary. The evaluation therefore relied on a relatively high-level assessment of the programme’s general features and achievements, combined with more in-depth examination of samples of Annual Work Programme projects, funded actions and stakeholders. By conducting fieldwork in a fairly large and diverse sample of countries and triangulating from several research methods, the evaluators were able to broaden the evidence base enough to make some generalisable inferences with acceptable degree of confidence; ·stakeholder response rates – much of the methodology depended on stakeholder feedback, including questionnaires, surveys and interviews. Overall response rates for the questionnaire for national authorities, survey to economic operators and interview requests in most fieldwork countries were very good, though the IT-focused questionnaire elicited less responses. The evaluators experienced nevertheless some difficulties in setting up interviews in some of the case study countries to discuss cooperation between customs administrations and customs authorities or in arranging interviews with several stakeholders. This owes mostly to several studies with similar scope and timeframe, such as the simultaneously ongoing impact assessment for the next funding period, and all respective consultation activities organised. To mitigate the effects, the evaluators took care to promote the consultations to boost response rates or use the results of these other studies when available while focusing their data collection on different groups and individuals. This strategy was largely successful, but some of the insight that would have come from better response rates was not there while the entire evaluation suffered from some delays. These are both syndromes of the consultation fatigues and the evaluators made some practical recommendations to alleviate similar issues in the future; ·stakeholder and researcher bias – similarly, the stakeholders who engaged with the evaluations will have their own priorities, leading to potential biases in the opinions and views they express. In-depth stakeholder analyses early in the evaluation process, a diverse evaluation team and a robust process for triangulating all findings helped to identify such biases and mitigate the risks they pose. Changes to the original design Three changes to the original design of the evaluation are worth mentioning. Firstly, the original approach to the organisation of cases studies meant to examine programme outputs (e.g. recommendations, guidelines produced through joint actions, etc.). However, during the structuring phase of the evaluation that initial intention proved to be too unwieldy as unit of analysis, making it difficult to define specific themes for in-depth studying. In order to keep the agreed focus on the programme’s outputs and users while defining more tangible theme the evaluators examined instead a selection of the policy projects included in the Annual Work Programme. This change had the benefit of including multiple types of programme activities and outputs, chance to study the stated interactions between them. Secondly, in line with the requirements of the Better Regulation Guidelines, the evaluators were to assist the Commission service in conducting a public consultation on the programme’s functioning. The original methodology was designed in such way as to use the public consultation to elicit views and perceptions of these stakeholders who would have not been otherwise reached under the key evaluation tools, notably the economic operators, citizens and various organisations. During the preparations for the launch of the public consultation, the Commission issued central instructions to group all public consultations relating to mid-term reviews and future proposals of all of the Commission’s spending programmes and funds into one public consultation, divided in cluster of themes. As the general objective of the Customs 2020 programme is to support the functioning and modernisation of the Customs Union in order to strengthen the single market, the programme was included in the cluster on investment, research and innovation, SMEs and single market. The original public consultation questionnaire prepared for the mid-term evaluation of the Customs 2020 was subsequently transformed into a targeted survey to economic operators and as such implemented. Thirdly, the evaluators encountered some problems in organising data collection and interviews in some of the case study countries. Whereas in most cases the problems were limited to causing delays in field work – and subsequently of the entire project by several weeks – one of the originally proposed case study countries – Germany – had to be ultimately withdrawn. Upon agreement of the Commission, Germany was replaced by Austria. This change is not deemed to have had any negative impact on the scope of the foreseen analysis. 5.Analysis and answers to the evaluation questions EQ 1: Do the different objectives of the programme (in the Regulation and in its work programmes) correspond to the needs of the national customs administrations, economic operators and European citizens? Relevance refers to the need for an initiative and examines the match between the initiative’s objectives and activities, and the needs of stakeholders and broader goals. For Customs 2020 programme, the broader goals relate to the good functioning of the Customs Union. The Customs Union is an area of exclusive Union competence, which defines the policy and legal context, but for which the Union shares the responsibility for its implementation with the Member States. The direct needs to make the Customs Union work seamlessly are therefore predominantly on the side of customs administrations, which operate in conditions of increased necessity to exchange information, cooperate and build their administrative capacity to do so. ►Customs 2020 programme addresses the needs of national customs administrations of the participating countries The impact assessment supporting the proposal for the current programme listed several challenges and practical problems for customs administrations to deal with in the run towards fully implemented and well functioning UCC. The challenges included growing trade and globalisation, pressure on safety and security, need for harmonisation and uneven distribution of burden. These challenges have resulted in practical problems for customs administrations such as (a) pressure to process growing volumes of trade and difficult balance between facilitation and control, (b) gaps in skills, competences, resources and experience to face new requirements, (c) incoherent and inefficient application or rules and practices, (d) diverging interpretations of rules and practices, (e) difficulties in harmonised implementation of interconnected and interoperable IT systems, and (f) high administrative burdens for some of the Member States. The Customs 2020 programme was found relevant to address all needs stemming from these problems. In fact, in some areas the programme was judged so deeply integrated with working practices that imagining a “world without Customs programme” was very difficult. Customs authorities within the Customs Union apply the same basic rules and all Member States are dependent on the others to play their part in collecting the revenue and regulatory protection. This interdependence requires close cooperation . The customs officials interviews confirmed that the various underlying problems and needs created a natural demand for better cooperation and the exchange of information as well as harmonisation of approaches, administrative procedures and rules. The Customs programme makes it easier for customs authorities in participating countries to work and share information with each other. The programme offers various types of eligible activities, which Member States find well suited to address the customs policy needs.

If taking sheer participation in the programme’s activities as an indication of its relevance to the needs of national administrations, the numbers speak for themselves. There have been 16 864 project groups, 1 897 workshops, 1 106 working visits, 947 seminars, 203 join communication actions, 180 capacity building and supporting actions and 72 monitoring activities organised across all participating countries within the programme’s first 4 years in operation . Nearly 4.8 billion messages of around 5.5 TB total volume were exchanged over the CCN/CSI network in 2017 alone. Over 11.2 million transit movements (7% increase on 2016) were released through the New Computerised Transit System NCTS, with the average number of movements released per business day reaching over 44 000. 5.1 million indirect export movements were recorded in the Export Control System ECS (5.9% increase on 2016) and some 48 million Entry Summary Declarations ENS were lodged in EU through the Import Control System ICS (9% increase on 2016). By 2017, the combined number of the various eLearning courses used by the participating countries was 271, thanks largely to the new eLearning programme for the UCC implementation. Its uptake was high from the start: 15 participating countries have immediately integrated the UCC overview module and 9-12 took up the domain specific courses. The overall number of UCC trainees was in the range of 53 276 (out of the 68 915 total for all eLearning ) and another nearly 40 000 is forecasted for the year 2018 . That is 1 in 4 customs officials from all participating countries trained thanks to the programme . The UCC training material has been downloaded 18 423 times in total via EUROPA in 2018, reaching around 726 000 reported trainees. Participating countries were highly supportive of the extent to (and ways in) which the programme fosters cooperation between customs administrations in various dimensions. The programme was not only instrumental in facilitating convergence at the strategic level, but also regarding approaches, interpretation of rules and administrative procedures. The participating countries saw the Customs programme a relevant forum for exchanging best practices, hosting discussions and facilitating reflection on experiences. The programme has been especially important in relation to the implementation of European IT systems. It supported the participating countries through funding of the EU components and providing specifications and guidelines. While access to, exchange and processing of data and information in electronic fashion is mandated by the EU legislation , the burden of implementation of the supporting IT systems is shared between the Commission and the Member States. The need for interoperability, interconnectivity and reliance of the electronic customs systems with a unified data system for a well functioning EU Customs Union justifies the design and scope of the programme. In that context, the Customs 2020 programme's design directly addresses the needs for a paperless environment for customs and trade. The increased focus on the implementation of Union law and policy in the field of e-Customs for trade facilitation, customs governance and simplifications shows that the programme evolves together with the changing needs. By the end of 2016, 91 e-Customs-related meetings with a total of 892 participants were convened under the auspices of the Customs 2020 programme . It shows not only the high relevance of the programme but also proves the appropriateness of its design, conducive to synergies between eligible actions (here between the IT systems and the joint actions that support their implementation) for better, faster and more sustainable results. The Customs programme’s coverage is very broad and its implementation needs scoping and prioritising. Each year, through the Annual Work Programme (AWP), the Commission sets the key priority areas for the given year. National customs administrations are involved in the setting of priorities through the comitology procedure. It guarantees the relevance of the programme’s activities and has created a powerful sense of ownership among the participating countries over the successive programme iterations. However, agreeing on a set of priorities that correspond to the needs of all national administrations can be sometimes challenging. The wide coverage is generally seen as an advantage and most of the AWP priorities were considered to be of high importance. However, some of the participating countries wished the programme were more focused for greater relevance. Going specifically into the types of joint actions funded by the Customs 2020 programme, each type of action was assessed relevant to the needs of customs administrations in specific circumstances, i.e. depending mostly on the desired outcome. The evaluation gathered specific feedback and experience from individual participants across actions and drew a picture of key characteristics and benefits of all types of joint actions. Annex 4 presents them in detail. It should be stressed here that the relatively low level of awareness of the programme, as reported in section 3 on implementation and state of play, does not demonstrate the programme’s irrelevance. Thousands of officials and economic operators use the IT systems supported by Customs 2020 but accessible through national-level front-end interfaces, as well as joint actions outputs, without necessarily being aware of the programme’s existence or role due to the lack of a strong brand. The launch of a new communication strategy for the programme in 2016 is expected to bring a positive change. Overall, the current mix of eligible actions available under the programme largely satisfies the needs of the participating countries. At the same time, some stakeholders indicated additional aspects, which are not currently supported by the programme, namely: (1) equipment for border customs officers, (2) equipment for European customs laboratories in the Member States, (3) implementing parts of the mandatory IT systems, (4) cooperation with third countries, and (5) localisation and translation of EU training modules developed (though it should be noted that the programme now provides support for these two important aspects). ►Customs 2020 programme addresses the needs of some economic operators and European citizens While national administrations are the main beneficiaries of the Customs 2020 programme, thousands of economic operators interact with the Customs-funded IT systems on a regular basis. They do so either through a legal obligation (e.g. registration in the Economic Operator Registration and Identification (EORI) system) or to find required information (through for e.g. the EU Customs Tariff (TARIC) database). It should be noted that the explicit focus on economic operators in the assessment of the programme is a new concept and has yet to gain traction. So far, 404 external participants, mainly economic operators, have taken part in several joint actions. A prime example of a joint action with an economic operator focus is the EU Customs Single Window project. Its key objective is to enable economic operators to lodge electronically and only once all the information required by customs and non-customs legislation for EU cross-border movement of goods. In general, the needs of economic operators oscillate around customs processes being dealt with efficiently and effectively as speed and reliability of customs clearance impact directly on business productivity and profitability. Some research show that a 10% reduction in transit and processing time at customs can generate between 2.5% and 5% growth in trade . This is best done through, on the one hand, paperless environment for customs and trade and, on the other, through timely access to all information that an economic operator needs to know from the customs side of its processes. Some 726 000 of mostly economic operators were trained from the UCC eLearning training material downloaded directly from the EUROPA site. It shows that the need to get guidance for the new set of rules is also pertinent to them . How specifically the economic operators benefit and use the programme is described at length under the effectiveness question EQ 3. Economic operators who responded to the evaluation survey agreed on the relevance of all the operational objectives of the Customs programme for national customs administrations. The fight against fraud was the most important for them, followed closely by the safety and security of goods and reduction of red-tape in customs transactions. For these reasons, the economic operators acknowledged the cross-border nature of the modern customs and welcomed the programme’s focus on enhancing cooperation and exchange of information within the EU. Finally, Customs 2020 programme addresses issues of general concern for European citizens. They are not direct beneficiaries of the programme and mostly unaware not only of the programme but also of the key elements of the Customs Union in general . Nevertheless, the programme contributes to their protection as far as customs themselves can influence it. The specific objectives of the programme relating to safety and security of citizens have increased in relevance as organised crime, terrorism and fraud have become greater public concern. Against a backdrop of ever-increasing volumes of world trade, the customs authorities are tasked with protecting citizens against international trafficking and smuggling of illicit goods, as well as with protecting consumers against goods, which pose a risk to their safety or their health. Customs 2020 programme supports them in all of these areas. Even though the citizens themselves are not always capable of linking explicitly the works of customs with their concerns, this link is actually there. This conclusion emerged from the analysis of the stakeholders’ responses to the public consultation, with regard to the question on the challenges before the Commission’s spending activities (see Figure 4 of Annex 3). Despite the methodological constraints of the consultation and the inability to ascertain anything, it came clear that the Customs 2020 programme’s design and role fully match the preoccupations of the stakeholders, justifying not only the programme’s sheer existence but also the direction of its evolution. EQ 2: To what extent has the programme reinforced cooperation and improved information-sharing between customs authorities of participating countries? ►joint actions are beneficial, appreciated and reinforce each other Participants and organisers of the joint actions are always asked to provide their feedback on the extent of achieving the results. This is done through the event assessment forms and action follow-up forms. Regardless of the type of joint action, roughly 75% of the actions participants agreed that they met their expectation, achieved the intended results and were useful. This satisfaction was notable for all the objectives.

Across all types of actions, the participants praised the programme for helping the administrations to identify, disseminate and take-up best practices, which led to practical uptake of working methods in customs administration and a more harmonised approach to the implementation of the EU customs law. The joint actions resulted in high degrees of networking. 95-97% of the participants have used the opportunity to build and expand networks and contacts, and have used these connections to solve day-to-day problems. The 2017 programme poll results show that majority of the customs officials have used their contacts frequently, either several times per month (14%) or several times per year (59%) against 19% who have used them once and 9% who have not used them at all. National administrations agreed almost in unison that the Customs 2020 programme helped to build trust, which was a natural by-product of face-to-face interactions and personal contact. The notion of trust spilled over to other areas, notably to the relationship between customs and business, illustrated anecdotally by one country, which noticed a change in the administrative culture thanks to the Authorised Economic Operator (AEO) programme, which Customs 2020 supports. The Performance Measurement Framework data suggest as well that the outputs of the joint actions (e.g. recommendations, guidelines, studies, best practice, working documents, administrative procedures, etc.) are shared extensively. 95% of participants declared diffusing the outputs within their administration while 80% use them actively in their work. Defining specific outputs can sometimes be difficult due to the sheer divergence of them. Moreover, some of the outputs are not easily captured in any monitoring framework as they concern less tangible and more difficult to measure networking. It seems however that whatever knowledge was gained through the joint actions was broadly used and shared. Perceived usefulness of the joint actions is correlated with their participation levels (which in turn is due to the nature and scope of the joint actions). However, they are all appreciated in the right circumstances, as it was already established under the analysis of relevance (see also Annex 4 for detailed features of all joint actions). Seminars, workshops, working visits and project groups score the highest but the evaluation gathered anecdotal evidence on the utility of all types of actions. For example, a working visit on detection equipment provided opportunity to examine and test such equipment for national context before deciding on the purchase. The project group of AEO Network has enabled an exchange of information and discussion on practical questions and problems regarding the consistent implementation of the AEO programme across the EU. It ensured coherence and coordination of the different ad-hoc actions and produced a concrete output in the form of AEO guidelines. The Customs Eastern and South-Eastern Land Border expert team (CELBET) was mentioned regularly as a successful example of the new type of joint action – the expert team. This specific action allowed experts share experience and good practice on coordinated management of external EU borders, map non-commercial border-crossing points, create border control standards and risk profiles, common performance indicators and recommendations on improvement of control and detection equipment and working methods, and more. Common Learning Events Programme (CLEP) workshops, assisted by the project group of Training Support Group, reinforced customs officials’ skills and competences on critical topics, allowed for best-practice sharing and contributed to the long-term, less quantifiable outcomes such as changes in attitudes and increased cohesion in the training domain. Project groups such as the Electronic Customs Coordination Group or the Risk Management Strategy Implementation Coordination Group were praised for their role in coordination of implementation of multiannual plans and strategies, complex work streams of multiple IT projects, allowing ultimately for collective understanding and common vision. The working visits on Single Authorisation for Simplified Procedures (SASP) between Germany and the Czech Republic facilitated a common business model, including control plans and measures, and allowed for better organisation and arrangements for the exchange of information. A regional workshop on a similar topic organised by the Finnish authorities sought in turn to prepare grounds for application of the simplified procedures in the Baltic region. Its regional character allowed for contextual and specific cooperation. The high-level seminar on cooperation between customs and other authorities on Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) was a unique platform uniting customs officials, police, judicial authorities and other stakeholders to discuss exchange of information and intelligence relating to IPR as well as challenges faced by each authority. Similar ‘bridging’ focus was behind the high-level seminar on the strengthening of cooperation between customs and tax authorities, which gathered over 100 participants from across the countries and authorities, although it is yet to be followed up by targeted actions. ►there exist generalizable factors determining success of joint actions The evaluation revealed several factors that seem general enough to consider them as essential in determining the success of the most used joint actions: ·clear EU policy drive fosters senior level buy in, engagement and commitment to results; ·participation of people with the right knowledge, practical experience and language capacity affects active participation and productivity of discussions; ·good choice of the type, scope, format, frequency of meetings and balanced number of participants of the joint actions determines active participation, constructive discussion and outputs; ·coordination between projects that have broad agendas and cover wide spectrum of topics is necessary to avoid duplication of efforts and create synergies between projects of comparable objectives; ·sense of ownership and engagement depends sometimes on pragmatic issues such as style of chairing or level of interaction; ·‘bottlenecks’ or uncertainties around and beyond the domain of actions have detrimental effect on achieving the sought-for results; ·perceived administrative burdens related to organisation of joint actions, such as working visits or expert teams, risk resulting in lower uptake of and engagement in joint actions.

►European IT systems help Member States to communicate with each other securely and efficiently and increase collaboration especially in areas with a strong legal base The core objective of the UCC is to create seamless and efficient customs processes across the EU, based on digital tools. It is up to the EU Member States to make this ‘happen’. To do so, they need to operate effectively within the single market and cooperate with each other. 49 different IT systems, applications and supporting infrastructure are already in operation and many more are to come. About 85% of the Customs 2020 programme funding goes into the operation, maintenance and development of the IT systems . The Customs programme supports the production of common system specifications, co-ordination of the deployment, conformance testing, monitoring of service quality, etc. All the major centralised IT systems, as well as the supporting architecture (CCN/CSI, CCN2, SPEED2), were available for 99% of the time and they play a central role for the smooth functioning of customs procedures and the single market as a whole. The best indicator for the utility of the IT systems for cooperation and exchange of information is the sheer number and volume of messages exchanged. Nearly 4.8 billion messages of over 5.5 terabyte of volume were exchanged over the CCN/CSI network in 2017 alone (evolution of exchanges was presented in Figure 2 ). Various customs departments use the systems relevant to their work routinely in performance of their tasks and appreciate the swiftness and access to various data. In general, the supporting IT architecture and centrally operated systems, which score as most useful, are the ones, which have been in operation for a long time and underpin the more traditional role and needs of customs in goods classification, tariff management or movement control. These systems include the CCN/CSI network, the TARIC database for integrated Tariff in the European Union, the EBTI-3 data base for European Binding Tariff Information, the EORI system for Economic Operators Registration and Identification Number, the New Computerised Transit System NCTS, the Customs Risk Management System CRMS or the COPIS system for anti-Counterfeit and anti-Piracy Information. The two latter have been analysed in-depth through the case studies under the evaluation and can serve as illustration of the potential of the Customs 2020 programme in fostering cooperation and exchange of information. Additionally, Annex 4 presents more detailed features of various IT systems. The CRMS, together with Risk Information Forms (RIF), allows for systematic real-time exchange of risk information for all modes of transport (land, air, sea), for major ports, airports and border posts across the EU, as well as national risk analysis centres, with all 28 Member States. The customs risk managers and analysts see it indispensable in their day-to-day work and a practical and effective way to disseminate risk-related information to all who need it. CRSM directly improves risk management, in particular in the cross-border context, while disturbing as little as possible legitimate trade through better risk analysis. Access to CRMS is also granted to Commission services such as the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), DG Health and Food Safety and DG Agriculture and Rural Development, which further increase its effectiveness in contributing to safety and security and preventing fraud. As for COPIS, customs authorities use it to register the application for action from rights-holders and all infringements. It allows for instant notification of violations of rights across all Member States. From 2010 to 2015, the number of applications from rights-holders have almost doubled, from 18 000 to 32 000 , showing that the problem is growing and coordinated action needed. In 2016 alone, more than 41 million fake and counterfeit products were detained at the EU's external border to an estimated EUR 670 million in domestic retail value . Some IT systems are less used, customs officials are less familiar with them and may appear in the evaluation as less useful. Examples include the NCTS-TIR-RU , European Customs Inventory of Chemical Substances ECICS or Suspensions or Customer Reference System CRS. However, these are specific ‘niche’ systems used mostly by specialised customs departments and the evaluation ultimately confirmed that also these are indispensable for those who need them. In the case of NCTS-TIR-RU for example, it is not relevant for all EU Member States to use it due to their geographical location; many customs authorities are not aware of it for that reason . Similarly, Suspensions is mainly an internal tool for Commission staff allowing management of the suspension of import duties for certain goods published in the official journal, which is not visible to anyone else. CRS is another sub-system that makes information available by acting as communication layer between systems generating and managing information (e.g. Customs Decisions Management System CDMS Economic Operators’ System EOS, Registered Exporter System REX) and systems consuming information (e.g. the New Computerised Transit System NCTS, Export Control System ECS or Import Control System ICS). Finally, the ECICS evaluation showed that the database meets the specific needs of stakeholders, including customs authorities, customs laboratories and economic operators, and that it contributes substantially to the work of its core users. Audiences consulted praised it for several reasons, including the accuracy/reliability of the data, speed, content, coverage and user interface . All these examples serve to demonstrate that the utility of the IT systems needs to be always assessed from the perspective of the users. The secured platform for information exchanging and sharing provided through the CCN/CSI helped Member States and economic operators to overcome their reluctance of sharing sensitive data, which hindered effective cooperation. ►training activities fill an important role Customs programme originated as a training programme in 1991. Although the relative weight in the Customs 2020 programme’s funding dedicated to training is small (3-5%), it has an important and unique role, supporting also the performance of joint actions and IT systems. At the same time, its benefits may indeed seem less palpable, not easily measurable and less wide-reaching. The human competency building component of the programme includes the eLearning modules available to national customs administrations and economic operators, the common training materials and IT training for European customs IT systems. The numbers behind the eLearning paint a positive picture of their use and utility even though majority of the participating countries seem to be using the training material to some or little extent only. Defining use in the context of training is however difficult as one-off use is as likely to bring benefits as recurring uses, depending on the nature of training, content and need. Overall, most participants were highly satisfied with the eLearning modules, with an average score of 78 equivalent to “very good” . However, given large variations over appreciation of the same training material across the years, the scores appear to be rather subjective. Annex 4 offers insight into the specific training modules, their uptake and satisfaction levels. In the eyes of the participants, having common training base was conducive to shared understanding, alignment of interpretations of the customs provisions, standardisation of terminology and ultimately more uniformity in application of the EU law across the Member States. The timely launch of the UCC modules was highly appreciated in that respect. Same assets were mentioned in relation to the training courses supporting implementation and use of the IT systems, particularly the ones related to the UCC. The training offer more than doubled over the years of Customs 2020 operation and the number of trainees tripled . Use and utility of the IT systems and more uniform approach to application of EU customs law were the two highest scored benefits brought in by the training under Customs 2020 programme. In fact, training is by nature user-oriented and brings rather individual benefits such as personal feeling of knowing or understanding. It is the likely explanation why better cooperation and sharing of good practice through eLearning were less commonly brought up by participants amongst advantages, for which other forms of cooperation, including face-to-face interactions, traditional teaching methods or simple exchanges of work-related experiences were found by some as more suitable. ►there exist generalizable factors determining success of training The evaluation revealed several factors that seem essential in determining the success of the training component, and in particular the eLearning courses: ·availability of training material in a national language significantly impacts participation and use while translation pose a challenge to the national administrations; ·some eLearning modules duplicate efforts that have already been taken at national level, particularly for these countries who have more advanced training programmes;

·some eLearning module use technology that is not compatible with some of the national systems. EQ 3: To what extent have economic operators used and benefited from the programme? ►economic operators benefit from the Customs 2020 outputs on a daily basis As the programme’s joint actions promote competition and trade by supporting more efficient and harmonised customs practices, economic operators benefit indirectly but significantly from this programme component. Economic operators have participated in seminars, workshops and project groups, and can benefit directly through learning, but their involvement is primarily to provide their insight and perspective that will eventually benefit all economic operators. Feedback received in the course of several such joint actions, such as the EU Authorised Economic Operator (AEO) programme workshop, the project group on the AEO guidelines or a series of joint actions supporting the Simplified Procedures, confirmed that involvement and dialogue with economic operators allowed better understand their needs and take them on in the development of best practice amongst customs administrations. As a result, the AEO guidelines, for example, were rewritten to be more understandable, concise and precise, ensuring thus uniformity in implementation of the AEO programme. Moreover, working together with the economic operators under the aegis of the joint actions has contributed to, more or less prominent, changes in the relationship between customs administrations and business stakeholders, stepping away from the more traditional 'command and control' approach to customs to a more 'customs-to-business' partnership. As much of the programme’s support to IT systems works towards better communication and exchange of information among participating countries, economic operators currently benefit only from IT databases that provide various types of information. The most used and highly ranked was the TARIC (80%), a multilingual database integrating all measures relating to EU customs tariff, commercial and agricultural legislation. Together with the equally popular European Binding Tariff Information EBTI database (63%), they provide legal certainty in regard to tariff classification no matter in which Member States they operate. With this information, economic operators get a clear view of measures to be taken, such as upfront calculation of prospective charges or documentary requirements, when importing goods into or exporting out of the EU. There is about 970 040 Binding Tariff Information items in the database and tens of thousands are being created each year (51 415 created in 2017). It saves them time and allows keeping them up to date with legislative changes. Other most appreciated systems include EORI system for Economic Operator Identification and Registration (64%), Customs Offices (63%) and AEO (59%) databases, all of which were praised for providing information that was not available elsewhere in a time-saving manner, helping the economic operators to reduce some of the administrative burdens and simplifying procedures. There is over 6 million valid EORI records as for end of 2017. The new Registered Exporters IT system REX has started bringing about its benefits (it became operational on the 1st of Jan 2017 but there were already over 13 000 active registrations added for beneficiary countries and over 23 000 for Member States modules before the end of the year). REX simplifies the certification of origin of goods under the Generalised System of Preference of the EU, as it works on the principle of self-certification by the registered economic operators (exporters) themselves, rather than a governmental authority. When importing from registered exporters, it will be easier to manage and control the origin of products. Progressively, the REX system will also be applied in the context of bilateral trade agreements between the EU and the partner countries. Although promising, it is too early to draw any firm conclusions on its functioning. As it was already stated, the economic operators are also users of the eLearning modules supported by Customs 2020, mostly the UCC learning courses, which were downloaded from the EUROPA site over 12 000 times. Most of the users are professional associations or multinationals, who then make the eLearning available to their staff. Other most popular courses concerned the AEO and EORI and were broadly found useful. In general however, the uptake of eLearning by economic operators seems to be low, looking purely from the vastness of this group of stakeholders. Lack of awareness, time to prioritise the modules or incentives as well as linguistic or technical barriers (in particular for smaller businesses) were amongst the factors impeding a broader use. EQ 4: To what extent has the programme contributed to the achievement of its specific objectives? ►Customs 2020’s activities contribute to the achievement of the programme’s specific objectives To recall, the specific objectives of Customs 2020 programme relate to protecting the financial and economic interests of the EU and its Member States (including combating fraud and protecting Intellectual Property Rights), increasing safety and security, protecting citizens and environment, improving the administrative capacity of customs administrations, and strengthening competitiveness of businesses. With regard to the protection of the financial and economic interest of the EU and its Member States, relevant activities were successful at facilitating and simplifying processes and procedures, pooling expertise, supporting the correct application of procedures, and reinforcing the monitoring and control of credibility checks. For example, a series of actions related to TARIC system for integrated tariff of the EU helped to identify problem areas and shortcomings in the implementation of the system and related legislation and measures, training needs and the increased awareness on the importance of the uniform application of TARIC measures. Similar benefits were mentioned for the joint actions related to correct implementation of the preferential rules of origin, which helped to identify problem areas and familiarised the origin experts with the renewed concepts, and the preparation of Union positions in the revision of the rules of origin in the Pan-Euro-Mediterranean Convention. Support under the Customs programme has proved instrumental for guaranteeing a level playing field throughout the EU, and for ensuring the respect of the rules by the EU’s partners on imported goods. Works of the numerous project groups on the customs tariff and classification sped up resolving technical issues around the system, clearing out classification divergences and specific cases between countries or coming up with ideas for modernisation of the Common Nomenclature. The Customs Information System (CIS) established under the Council Regulation (EC) No 515/97 assist the Member States to in the prevention, investigation and prosecution of customs infringements by making information available more rapidly. It also helps the customs officials to perform, according to their risk strategies, regular or occasional data exchanges on goods or traders. It thus increases the effectiveness of the cooperation and control procedures. In 2017, some 95 million messages exchanged over the New Computerised Transit System NCTS and Export Control System ECS between Member States in application of the Regulation 515/97 were duplicated into OLAF's CCN gateway (Anti-Fraud Transit Information System ATIS). In order to eliminate practical problems with the CIS and ultimately enhance its performance, the Member States organised a dedicated Customs 2020 project group on reporting on customs seizures in Customs Risk Management System CRMS and Anti-fraud Information System AFIS, which work with the CIS. That example illustrates well the mutually reinforcing character of the Customs programme various activities (and complementarity of the programme to other initiatives, discussed at length under evaluation question EQ 7 on coherence). Under the same amended regulation, the Commission collects data on the goods transported in maritime containers, responsible for 90% of the world’s overall cargo. It is done through the ConTraffic system and the container status movement messages. The Member States and the Commission were looking at integration of the data collected under the ConTraffic with the information available through the Entry Summary Declaration (ENS) . To validate the data in time to support the ConTraffic-ENS testing, a pilot project group under the Customs 2020 programme was set up to test the application of data analytics techniques . It processed a large number of transactions and confirmed the business value of matching of the information. Further works are ongoing to increase the effective integration of the ConTraffic data within the real-time risk analysis. The implementation of the EU Action Plan on the Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) was a long-standing project carried out between 2013 and 2017. While results are still materialising, the programme activities equipped the participating countries with tools, guidance, common approaches, best practice, shared understanding and interpretation of IPR customs enforcement legislation. They also helped to map the needs and the development of cooperation strategies with third and neighbouring countries, which demanded close coordination among the Member States. There have also been some positive, albeit not fully reaped, results of closer cooperation between tax and customs authorities facilitated by the programme. These included identification of field for closer cooperation, best practice and new trends. However, there is still room to support practical ways of harmonising and developing stronger connections between customs and tax administrations in matters of common interest.

With regard to increasing safety and security, protecting citizens and environment, Customs 2020 programme support the customs administrations in their works on risk management, management of the external borders, customs detection technology and protection of cultural heritage or nature. For example, customs risk management is governed by the Common Risk Management Framework (CRMF) and implemented by the EU Action Plan, which the Customs 2020 programme support through joint actions and dedicated IT systems. Most of that support is dedicated to works on common data for risk management and risk assessment, as well as working methods and technologies. Security threats is a daily operation that relies on the robust exchange of information between authorities, the identification of reliable operators and the possibility for them to have access to simplified procedures. Identification of common needs and high-quality, multi-layered approaches at Member State and Union level for the management of supply chain risks led to more effective and efficient control of risks and enhanced cooperation with third countries and businesses. For example, the Prohibition and Restrictions (PARCS) project group, which is composed of representatives of the Commission and national experts on prohibitions and restrictions, has produced a list of prohibitions on import and export of goods, and factsheets for a selection of laws that set prohibitions and restrictions at the EU border. Each factsheet gives a description of the legislative framework, the role of customs and the documentary and physical checks that have to be carried out in close cooperation with other authorities . The first joint workshop for customs and veterinary authorities regarding import controls on live animals and products of animal origin from third countries took place in 2016. In the drug precursors area, a project group under the Customs 2020 programme united national experts on drug precursors legislation and risk management from within the EU as well as third countries (Colombia and Peru) and international bodies (International Narcotics Control Board and the US Drug Enforcement Administration). Messages concerning drug precursors are regularly uploaded in the Customs Risk Management System while the EU experts contribute to the Precursor Incident Communications System of the International Narcotics Control Board. The current Import Control System (ICS) includes provisions on the handling of pre-loading and pre-arrival declarations and the linking of these documents with the risk analysis. The ICS 2.0 project has been launched to manage the improved filing of supply chain data and ensure increased capacity to detect security and safety risks at the point of entry of goods. Another topical area where the support of Customs 2020 was extensively used was in the operational working methods at the external border and in-depth controls, where 29 actions were initiated. The results included sharing of identified problems and good practices, the analysis of potential solutions, and the enhancement of cooperation between external border posts. These outputs have in turn contributed to reinforcing a common understanding of legal requirements and the harmonised application of working methods from the UCC and other legislative measures in the fight towards the protection of the EU external borders. With the increase of use of technology and equipment in customs matters, Customs 2020 programme was also able to support the deployment of detection technology through the development of a network of customs detection technology experts who can share information and best practices as well as provide training. This work has been conducive in improving detection capability and performance standards of customs administrations. Customs 2020 programme has played a role in the protection of health and safety of citizens, the environment and cultural heritage. Contribution of the Customs 2020 programme in this respect was very pragmatic and resulted in the issuing of new guidelines or adjustments to existing ones, the establishment of common risk criteria, the creation of a toolbox of online services, and awareness raising activities addressed at the business community and the wider public. With regard to increasing administrative capacity of customs authorities, Customs 2020 programme's support in multipronged, ranging from technical and operational issues to more strategic legal implementation and uniformity. The project on operational and organisational customs processes helped participating countries to improve the performance of their administrations in the supply chain of goods by identifying gaps and needs in terms of customs modernisation, formulating recommendations to increase their performance, identifying training needs and setting-up of an action plan to implement the suggested improvements. The networking between European Customs Laboratories facilitated by the programme focused on benchmarking activities, updating of databases, cooperation with other stakeholders – including from the third countries' customs laboratories - and information-sharing initiatives. As European Customs Laboratories need to work together, Customs 2020 plays a strong coordinating role. Customs 2020 was also crucial in supporting customs administrations in preparation for the formal adoption of the UCC. The programme's actions facilitated the implementation, disseminated relevant information to various target audiences and led to identification, design and launch of the highly popular UCC eLearning programme. Also, the implementation of the EU Competency Framework for customs (EU Customs CFW), which kicked-off in 2014, aimed to support more uniformity and increased efficiency of customs. The EU Customs CFW was set up as non-IT means of harmonising and raising customs performance standards. It sets out a consensus view of knowledge, skills and behaviour required in customs service in the EU. As all behavioural changes need time to materialise, also this framework should be considered as a long-term assignment. Some of the initial results, such as implementation of the framework and awareness building in the public sector, were already achieved. Other, such as better alignment with needs and adjustment to national contexts of the Member States (e.g. identification of competency gaps and training needs, reduction of risks related to pending retirement waves or improved operational and human resources processes) will take longer. Finally, with regard to strengthening of competitiveness of European businesses, the latter benefit from the Customs 2020 programme either directly while using mostly the programme's IT databases (see evaluation question EQ 3) or indirectly through well functioning customs administrations across the EU. The Customs Union Performance Measurement project run under the programme established and maintains a system for measuring and assessing how customs activities and operations support the Customs Union. While still under development, the system is expected to represent an important management tool to enhance strategic decision making for the further development and for raising awareness and showing the results of customs work to main stakeholder groups. The lodgement of customs declarations using simplified procedures is a major instrument of trade facilitation. There have been a series of actions organised under the programme aiming at common understanding and application of simplified procedures and facilitation of exchanges between administrations thanks to the creation of new connections and networks. The dialogue, which takes places between customs and business community in those joint actions, contributes to aligning the programme between Member States, while factoring in the practical implications for businesses. In the longer-term, having a system of simplified procedures in place is expected to contribute to the competitiveness of European businesses in the global marketplace, and to improve compliance and risk management, which are key objectives of the Union Customs Code. Finally, as described already earlier on, the programme also supports the smooth functioning of the AEO concept. EQ 5: To what extent have the design and management of the programme been conducive to achieving the desired results? ►Customs 2020 strikes a good balance between a centralised management and a consultative and transparent annual programming process As it was discussed under the relevance question EQ 1, each year, through the Annual Work Programmes (AWP), the Commission sets the key priority areas for the given year, in which process the national customs administrations are involved. This approach is well appreciated by the Commission, particularly for components developed at the EU but implemented at the national level, while customs administrations see it as an opportunity to heave their specific needs addressed, which in turns creates a feeling of ownership. Applications for joint actions are done by the participating countries or the Commission. The median time for processing joint action applications is 13 days for working visits and 39 days for other types of joint actions. That is regarded as broadly efficient and allowing the funding decision and payments, based on pre-financing instalments, to be delivered on time. ►the majority of recommendations from previous evaluation have been acted on and used to make notable improvements to the programme The Commission broadly accepted the recommendations done by previous evaluation by setting up an Action Plan outlining the extent to and ways in which they would be implemented . In 2016, the Commission reported on progress in implementing the Action Plan according to which a large majority of recommendations were achieved with the remaining actions − mainly IT related, which naturally demand more time − still under implementation.

Appreciated changes were introduced to the management of the joint actions, structuring of the AWP projects and monitoring of the performance of the programme. In order to bring in more coherence and practical connections between related activities, the Commission restructured the AWP by reducing the number of projects and providing expected actions and results in each case in order to create a more systematic mechanism to monitor and communicate outcomes. Additionally, to support the latter, the Commission drafted a communication strategy, which included the use of new communication tools and channels, as well as a joint effort between the EU and national programme teams to raise awareness. Following up on recommendations to streamline the platforms for sharing documents and facilitating communication, the Commission produced strategy plans to improve Programme Information and Collaboration Space (PICS) and Activity Reporting Tool (ART), implementation of which is ongoing. There have also been recommendations addressing technical issues of specific IT systems, enhancing the integration of EU and national components, and promoting efficiency gains. While most of the recommendations were followed up, there remain a few, which are still underway but appear to be more resource intensive and systemic in nature, involving large-scale changes relating to integration, harmonisation and development of IT systems. ►the development and implementation of the Performance Measurement Framework facilitated monitoring of the Customs 2020's performance To address long-standing problems of a lack of monitoring data raised in all previous evaluations, DG TAXUD developed and implemented the Performance Measurement Framework (PMF). It was arguably the biggest single improvement to the programme, installing a more evidence-based mind-set to programme management. In addition to facilitating performance management and ongoing improvement, the PMF increases transparency by making the achievements of the programme more visible and accessible. The PMF is ambitious. For the Customs programme, there are 67 output and results indicators and 18 impact indicators. Progress is reported on annually through the Annual Progress Reports. Data used to inform the framework comes from proposal forms, action follow-up forms, event assessment forms, programme polls and other evaluations. The progress reports present data at activity level, for the indicators at output and result levels. They are vastly more comprehensive than any monitoring under the previous iterations of the programme. Raw data confirms that at activity level the data is available, factually correct and very useful. However, at output and result levels the PMF relies mainly on self-reported data from stakeholders, especially regarding the joint actions, which has its drawbacks. Firstly, the questionnaire forms put together to inform the PMF need to be universal, covering a myriad of joint actions. This proved difficult, since asking standardised questions about outputs and results of actions that are highly diverse in terms of timeframe, objectives, scope and other issues, necessarily simplifies reality and renders the data less meaningful. Secondly, the questionnaires are answered by action managers and participants, and relate mainly to subjective issues on the level of agreement with certain statements, such as whether given actions helped increase understanding, provided good networking opportunities, or were considered useful. Finally, the frequency and length of the feedback and reporting exercises are turning stakeholders off, leading to superficial completion. This ultimately diminishes returns for the time and resources needed to collect data, analyse it and report on it. The impact indicators seem to be equally problematic. As explained in the data limitation section, the causal chains between activities and high-level objectives of the Customs 2020 programme are long. The longer they are, the more influenced they get by other factors. Combined with practical difficulties to obtain the data, a majority of the indicators appear individually unsuitable for the following main reasons: they are either really result-level indicators relating to perceptions rather than observable changes and already captured in other parts of the PMF, are not easily obtainable, or are only remotely relevant, particularly when coming from sources external to programme. Only for a handful of indicators the programme management can perform relevant analyses but these with uncertain timeframes and at irregular intervals. That results in a situation whereby little of the output or results data appears to feed into continuous improvement or decision-making. ►taking part in joint actions is proportionate to incurred costs but some administrative burdens are present The national administrations are overwhelmingly of the opinion that taking part in an existing joint action is proportionate to the costs incurred in participating. However, as it was stated in the previous section, there are some concerns with the new process of applying to a joint action and related reporting obligations (particularly for the working visits), which seem due to the perceived administrative paperwork, short deadlines for nomination of representatives and logistics behind their participation in joint actions and diminishing resources in general. Indeed, almost for a third of the national administrations, administrative resources could impose a barrier to participation but overall they do not contest the need to coordinate and justify relevance of actions, which warrants the Commission’s approach. Organisation of the expert teams can serve as an example of administrative burdens although due to the young age of that type of activity, it cannot represent all other types and it should not be considered as a permanent state (i.e. there at teething problems with the expert teams, which should be solved overtime). The Activity Reporting Tool (ART) currently does not support financial reporting of expert teams. This resulted in time-consuming collection and manual calculation of financial data such daily allowances or travel costs in different currencies. Moreover, programme participants and coordinators felt that the entry into force of the UCC has had an impact on the programme’s resources. Despite work to ensure a smooth transition, the work required to support the implementation of the UCC has required additional human resources, in particular to support the development and implementation of the new European IT systems. ►communication, information flow and coordination are essential for smooth implementation of the programme Communication around the Customs 2020 programme falls under the responsibility of the Commission Programme Management Team. This team creates the main communication tools and runs some of the communication channels ensuring and coordinating information flow between all the coordinating bodies behind the programme. At national level, communication is tasked to national programme coordinators and delegates of the Customs 2020 Committee. Effective communication, dissemination of harmonised messages and availability of information-sharing channels are important as their recipients – DG TAXUD policy units or programme coordinators – are seen as multipliers of the programme at various levels. An example of efforts to strengthen it are the programme’s activity schemes, which have been developed to support the transparency, management and coordination of the activities carried out. They provide a visual overview of activities, with clear steering and reporting links to other fora. They are meant to provide both a snapshot of the overall EU customs activity at a given point in time, and on a regular basis through bi-annual updates. In terms of IT platforms and databases that support the programme in terms of information sharing and communication, the views of the users were in general positive, with specific ideas for improvements mentioned. Most national administrations consulted felt very strongly that the ART is a user-friendly platform and an efficient system for monitoring participants’ expenses and providing general feedback on the joint actions. In terms of sharing information easily and quickly, the Programme Information and Collaboration Space (PICS), is the main of the global information and communication tools, aiming at improving the collaboration between Member States and DG TAXUD thanks to features that complement and enhance the collaboration organised in the framework of programme activities (which mainly takes place through meetings, calls or e-mails). However, it is also useful to enhance internal collaboration and for sharing relevant expertise, experience and coordination between programme management team, national programme coordinators and other stakeholders involved in the management of programme activities. Despite general appreciation of the PICS's improvements overtime, there still seem to be room to improve further the user-friendliness of that tool as well as its broader use. User-friendliness aspects as well as security of exchanges were also raised in the context of the Communication and Information Resource Centre (CIRCABC) platform , a document management system to exchange information between the Commission and national administrations, even though there too continued to be an overall positive perception of the tool. ►synergies between Customs 2020 and Fiscalis 2020 programmes are present but can be better exploited Fiscalis 2020 is the ‘twin’ spending programme in the field of taxation. It is important to discuss it under efficiency question due to its alignment, at least at the central programme management level, with the Customs 2020 programme. The other EU programmes, which coexist with Customs 2020 are analysed in-depth under the coherence question later on. While the policy areas for the two programmes are different, they have a similar focus on enabling cooperation and exchange between administrations. These similarities offer many opportunities for synergies with the Customs programme in terms of both administrative arrangements and joint works, including cross-fertilisation and joint funding of shared components such as IT systems and similar approaches for human capacity building and training. The synergies are strongest at the programme management level, which is provided by the same team of Commission staff. Both programmes are fully aligned, based on identical procurement rules and grant models, common management guides and supported by Programme Coordination Group.

In terms of the IT systems, the two programmes share the backbone for trans-European IT systems, notably the Common Communication Network/Common Systems Interface (CCN/CSI network). The joint platform facilitates coordination of approaches and processes, which ensure coherence and creates economies of scale by reducing duplication of efforts. Often taken for granted, that synergy is important from the point of view of technical arrangements at the programme management level as well as from the users’ perspective. When it comes to the more content-related, synergies are more difficult to be established. The notable exception related to excise duties, which are anyway related and the administrative responsibility for them at the national level falls either on customs or tax administrations. Customs 2020 provides explicit support to this cooperation in terms of identification of fields that are of common interest and where it is particularly important to cooperate for the proper implementation of the legislation. As an example, the project group on Coordination of Excise and Customs Procedures was a cross-programme action that brought together stakeholders from both authorities. It was originally set up (still under the Customs 2013 programme) because of the lack of interoperability between IT systems supporting customs (Export Control System - ECS) and excise (Excise Movement and Control System – EMCS) procedures. Their synchronisation was necessary to avoid legal uncertainties, inconsistencies and loopholes, which ultimately increased risk of fraud. It was perceived as a valuable way to build relationships and increase understanding between taxation and customs colleagues regarding common problems, both within and between national administrations. Still, some stakeholders still felt that more coordination and cross-fertilisation was needed and possible, for example in developing common IT systems or working closer on excise-related fraud. It was also felt that in the past there was more flexibility to use funds across programmes, allowing for more shared actions, which will no longer be possible in the future. This could reinforce working in silos and undermine some of the synergies described above if a practical solution is not found. There are also opportunities for shared approaches to human capacity building and training. The Training Support Group for the Customs and Fiscalis programmes supports the development and implementation of the EU Common Training Programmes, using strategies from both sides. EQ 6. To what extent have the programme's resources produced best possible results at the lowest results at the lowest possible costs ? Analysis of the programme’s resources set against what it achieved helps to determine whether the costs of the Customs 2020 programme are proportionate to the benefits it has brought to the customs administrations and the Customs Union. Conceptually, this would mainly involve holding up the benefits identified through the effectiveness questions in light of various costs and other possible ways of spending equivalent time and money. Not many of the benefits were quantifiable, let alone possible to monetised. ►the benefits of joint actions justify the costs The budgetary breakdown of the programme’s activities for the years 2014-2017 was presented under the section on implementation and state of play. To quickly recall the totals and rations, IT systems accounted for 84.6% of the budget (EUR 224 247 00), joint actions – 7.9% (EUR 22 933 000), studies – 3.7% (EUR 10 575 000), training – 2.6% (EUR 7 507 000) and expert teams – 1.2% (EUR 3 460 000). Between 2014-2017 project groups as a type of joint action hosted the highest number of participants (17 290 in total for 140 project groups keeping in mind that some project groups include more than one action). Working visits in turn saw the largest number of events (413) but a substantially lower number of participants (1 142). There were also 68 workshops (1 962 participants), 18 seminars (947 participants), 9 capacity building actions (206 participants), 8 monitoring actions (72 participants) and 5 communication activities (203 participants) supported by the programme. Most of the expenses are participation-driven as they include transport, accommodation and daily allowance costs. Much smaller part of costs covers organisation of events, with small variations depending on the type of event. Consequently, the absolute costs are necessarily proportionate to participation levels and vary slightly between different types of actions. As project groups attract the highest participation, their share in the total budget for joint actions is high at nearly 75% of all spending (EUR 14 664 828 for years 2014-2017). However, thanks to economies of scale, it appears to be also one of the most cost-efficient methods with an average cost per participant in the range of EUR 868. Project groups are perceived as needed and useful, providing opportunity to exchange ideas, new technological trends, business solutions and IT approaches and align understanding of legislation and practices. It is arguably the main mechanism for achieving broader and inclusive continuous collaboration. Many project groups are quasi-permanent and serve standing cooperation platforms creating professional bonds and acting as catalysts. Workshops come second in line when it comes to participation and budget share (around 10%; EUR 2 078 447 for years 2014-2017) and have a similar cost structure to seminars (nearly 6%; EUR 1 140 092 for years 2014-2017). Both of them, in particular the seminars, involve higher organisation costs covering such aspects as hiring of the venue, interpretations or refreshments. As they tend to group participants in the same venue, the accommodation costs are slightly higher. Moreover, as many as 167 participants attend some of the biggest seminars. Average cost per participants comes at EUR 1 204 for seminars and EUR 1 084 per workshop. In many ways they bring similar benefits as the project groups. Customs officials appreciated them best for providing a quick and efficient platform for exploring difficult topics. Although the questionnaire with national authorities showed that seminars and workshops were perceived to lack clear conclusions, qualitative interviews showed that seminars can have unexpected positive outcomes going beyond the main objectives of sharing best practices and encouraging shifts in national policies. In terms of average cost per participants, working visits sit between workshops and seminars with the cost of EUR 1 116. The relatively higher costs are driven by higher accommodation and daily allowances, with travel costs in line with other actions, which are most likely explained by the fact that working visits tend to last longer. They are highly valuable for the customs officials as they provide practical experiences through on-the-ground observation that might not be possible otherwise. They constitute 6.6% of the joint actions spending (EUR 1 286 931). At the same time, due to their intimate nature, they encourage further bilateral cooperation. This activity type is amongst the most highly rated for its usefulness and would have been even more appreciated if not for the associated administrative burden they are assisted with (see evaluation question on efficiency EQ 5). The least popular joint actions show also a less standard cost breakdown. In the reference period, monitoring actions came as the most expensive, averaging EUR 1 436 per participant (although they only constituted 0.5% of the joint actions budget with EUR 103 368). That costs structure is not permanent or typical for monitoring visits as the ones reflected here were with and to third countries, including significantly higher travel costs. That however, is not the rule. On the other end of the spectrum are the communication activities, which came as most cost-effective at an average of EUR 816 per participant (0.8%; EUR 165 706). Capacity building actions stand at EUR 1 058 (1%; EUR 195 417). All three of them are less common, with fewer actions organised. They have a more cross-cutting nature rather than relating to specific topics, and, with the exception of monitoring actions, have been introduced only in the current programming period. Still, as demonstrated under effectiveness questions EQ 2 and EQ 4 as well as in Annex 4, also these are appreciated for their potential within the remit of their specific role. The average cost per participant for all types of joint actions (except expert teams, which are budgeted separately) is around EUR 921, which is broadly at the same level of the equivalent cost for Customs 2013. There were no significant fluctuations in the per capita costs of joint actions either. Moreover, when compared with similar programmes, it turns out to be in line as well. For example, joint actions funded by the Hercule III programme were delivered at an average cost of EUR 799 per participant. ►benefits of the customs IT systems outweigh any costs The lion share of the Customs programme budget supports the development, operation and maintenance of the customs European IT systems. The annual committed expenses for Customs IT systems are presented in detail in Annex 5. 17.9% of the total budget has been allocated to maintaining the Common Communication Network/Common Systems Interface (CCN/CSI), the essential network that provides the platform for all trans-European IT systems. 40.0% goes towards supporting operational costs of customs systems, 8.7% for quality control and 33.4% for upgrading and developing new customs systems. Setting up appropriate IT systems directly targets most of the programme’s operational objectives (see: Figure 1 ). It is synonymous with the objective to implement, improve, operate and support Customs IT systems, and is a requirement for the objective of effective implementation of the UCC, best practice sharing and improved co-operation between customs authorities and outside organisations. Concrete benefits brought by the IT systems are difficult to quantify due to their broadness. Nevertheless, given that there is no other funding mechanism for trans-European systems and the importance of modernising customs through towards a paperless environment for customs and trade, it is clear that virtually any expense towards this goal is justified and necessary. Against the perceived high utility of the IT systems, their use in day-to-day customs operations and level of intertwinement with national customs systems (see evaluation questions EQ 2, EQ 3 for economic operators, and EQ 4), their support to the functioning of the Customs Union is invaluable. Moreover, the EU customs IT systems operate in a symbiotic fashion. They are interconnected and interoperable, linking not only national systems with central systems but also the central systems between themselves. The most prominent and almost self-evident example is the CCN/CSI network underpinning several heterogeneous systems with multiple types of hardware, software and communications equipment allowing administrations to enjoy a coherent, robust and secure method to work together. Another one would be the Customer Reference System CRS, which functions as a communication layer between systems gathering and systems using information. Examples gathered through the evaluation included the EORI database for Economic Operator Identification and Registration, which identifies and tracks all EU’s Authorised Economic Operators (AEO), and without which the AEO programme would not function as there is no other programme to provide such trans-European network for this purpose (there is over 6 million valid EORI records as for end of 2017). The Common Services/Reference Data (CS/RD2) system stores, maintains, validates and distribute common and unique reference data for all IT projects. For any IT systems, despite the high costs of their development and the upcoming substantial needs to fully support implementation of the UCC, the evaluation emphasised, after customs administrations, the long-term benefits outweighing the costs, namely the harmonisation of customs procedures, uniform implementation of the customs law, sharing of information and generating economies of scale, particularly through the centralised systems. It also recognised that many IT-related joint actions have specific goals to support national administrations with lower IT capacity, for exam