Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - Comments of the Commission on the conclusions and recommendations of the Mid-term Evaluation of the “Intelligent Energy - Europe” programme (2003-2006) {SEC(2006) 858}
Date: 2006-07-04
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU programme, competitiveness, energy policy, environmental protection, job creation, renewable energy, security of supply, sustainable development

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 4.7.2006 
COM(2006) 357 final 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL, THE 
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 

Comments of the Commission on the conclusions and recommendations of the Mid-term 
Evaluation of the “Intelligent Energy – Europe” programme (2003-2006) 

{SEC(2006) 858} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL, THE 
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 

Comments of the Commission on the conclusions and recommendations of the Mid-term 
Evaluation of the “Intelligent Energy – Europe” programme (2003-2006) 

(Text with EEA relevance) 

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

The  “Intelligent  Energy  –  Europe”  programme  (IEE)  was  established  in  June  2003  by 
Decision No 1230/2003/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council1. It is in force until 
31st  December  2006.  With  an  indicative  budget  of  €250  million,  this  programme  aims  at 
making  a  balanced  contribution  to  the  achievement  of  the  general  objectives  of  security  of 
energy supply, the Lisbon objectives of growth, sustainable job creation and competitiveness, 
and environmental protection. 

With the present document, the Commission communicates to the European Parliament, the 
Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of Regions, the conclusions 
of  the  Mid-term  Evaluation  of  this  Community  programme  and  its  comments  on  it,  as 
foreseen by the programme Decision, Article 9(2).  

The mid-term evaluation was conducted by an independent panel of experts, hereafter referred 
to  as  the  “Evaluators”,  based  on  a  variety  of  inputs,  including  previous  assessments  of  the 
programme  and  its  predecessors,  analysis  of  the  programme  data,  survey  of  applicants  and 
beneficiaries,  stakeholders’  consultation  and  examination  of  relevant  market  reports  to 
determine its strategic rationale.  

The  report  comprises  an  assessment  of  the  relevance,  efficiency,  effectiveness,  added  value 
and  sustainability  of  the  programme,  taking  into  account  time  and  money  constraints,  and 
recommends action as appropriate so as to help the Commission to improve the programme 
management,  and  to  guide  it  in  the  renewal  and  extension  of  similar  activities.  It  also 
compares  its  own  results  and  findings  with  those  of  past  programmes’  evaluations  like  the 
mid-term  evaluation  of  the  “Energy  Framework  Programme,  1998-2002”  (EFP).  The 
Evaluators officially submitted its final report to the Commission on 24 March 2006. 

1 

OJ L 176 of 15.7.2003, p. 29. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
2. 

POSITION OF THE COMMISSION REGARDING THE WORK OF THE EVALUATORS AND 
EXISTING CONSTRAINTS 

The  Commission  considers  that  the  Evaluators  produced  a  balanced  and  comprehensive 
report, combining recognition and criticism, and is pleased with its overall quality.  

The Commission would like to stress that most of the conclusions reached by the Evaluators 
match,  to  large  extent,  its  own  findings  and  have  already  led  or  shall  lead  to  improved 
measures  to  make,  e.g.  the  programme  more  efficient  and  of  easier  access.  However, 
measures whose implementation would entail changes to the existing legal framework can be 
considered only in connection with the preparation of the successor programme(s). 

The  evaluation  covers  the  programme  activities  carried  out  during  the  period  August  2003-
November 2005. By forces of circumstances, the  Evaluators have had at their disposal  only 
the  evaluation  results  of  two  calls  and  the  early  implementation  of  the  first  call  contracts. 
Moreover,  many  of  the  recommended  measures  for  the  remaining  period  of  the  programme 
will  relate  only  to  the  last  call  for  proposals  still  to  be  published,  since  the  third  call  was 
issued on 7th October 2005 and closed on 31st January 2006 for most of the types of action.  

This  evaluation  excluded  any  consideration  of  the  role  and  performance  of  the  programme 
committee. In addition, being a programme-level exercise, the Evaluators have not made any 
comment at individual project level. 

3. 

COMMISSION’S 
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE EVALUATORS’ REPORT 

POSITION  CONCERNING  THE  MAIN  CONCLUSIONS  AND 

3.1. 

General conclusions and recommendations  

Five main conclusions and general recommendations emerge from the overall report: 

- 

- 

- 

The  IEE  represents,  in  most  aspects,  a  considerable  improvement  in  relation  to  the 
previous  EFP  and  the  Commission  has  been  successful  in  embedding  into  the 
programme  many  of  the  recommendations  and  the  relevant  advice  from  previous 
independent evaluations. 

The need for the programme has increased since its start, which is informed by the 
strength of fit of the programme aims with the aims of the Lisbon Strategy and the 
increased  profile  of  energy  supply  security  and  global  warming.  It  is  attracting 
worthwhile  projects  and  of  high-quality,  and  is  generally  well-run.  Therefore,  the 
Evaluators recommend its continuation. 

One important aspect of the programme is the added-value it brings with the strength 
of the synergy between renewables, energy efficiency and transport. In addition, it is 
reasonable  to  assume  that  the  projects’  funded  will  inspire  Member  State  policy 
changes and interventions. This aspect should be covered in the ex-post evaluation of 
the programme. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
- 

- 

The  programme  does  not  duplicate  the  work  of  other  funding  streams:  it 
complements  the  work  of  other  Community  programmes  like  the  Framework 
Programme of RTD (FP6), and, given its unique trans-national nature, it adds value 
to national, regional and local programmes and initiatives, helps benchmarking and 
to avoid duplication of efforts. 

The  overall  budget  is  adequate.  However,  there  is  relatively  low  confidence  in  the 
ability  of  the  programme  to  significantly  influence  and  contribute  to  achieve  the 
general  energy  objectives.  Accordingly,  consultees  generally  agree  that  there  is  a 
good  case  for  enlarging  the  programme  intervention  and  include  support  to  market 
uptake  projects  of  technologies  and  best  practices  and  for  increasing  the  budget 
accordingly.  

Commission response 

The Commission welcomes the first of the main conclusions of the Evaluators. In preparing 
its  proposal  for  the  multiannual  energy  programme  2003-20062,  the  Commission  had  taken 
due account of the recommendations of the previous evaluations and is convinced that, when 
comparing to the EFP and its six specific programmes, the IEE unified structure has resulted 
in a greater overall coherence and impact of the supported projects and has made it easier to 
introduce coherent management procedures as well as to improve the programme flexibility in 
the  response  to  changing  needs  and  priorities.  The  enhanced  synergy  between  the  areas  is 
certainly a key element of the programme added-value. 

The  Commission  fully  endorses  the  view  of  the  Evaluators  that  the  rationale  for  the 
programme  is  strong  and  increasing,  seeing  the  importance  of  improvements  in  energy 
efficiency  and  enhanced  use  of  renewable  energy  to  combating  climate  change  and  to  the 
security  of  energy  supply,  a  key  objective  identified  by  the  Commission  in  its  recently 
adopted  Green  Paper  on  “A  European  Strategy  for  Sustainable,  Competitive  and  Secure 
Energy”3 and by the EU Heads of State and Government4. The Commission further welcomes 
the Evaluators’ appreciation of the way the programme has been running and the high quality 
of the supported projects. 

The co-funded projects deliver added value at EU level since they may be used to prototype 
and  benchmark  solutions  that  can  later  on  be  diffused  at  much  larger  scale  by  other 
Community  programmes,  as  well  as  enabling  upstream  EU  research  activities  to  better 
respond  to  policy  needs.  Overall,  the  Commission  expects  the  existing  co-ordination  with 
other  relevant  EC  programmes  to  leverage  a  much  broader  financial  basis  for  sustainable 
energy related activities and maximise the overall impact of the Community funding. 

The Commission has also paid a great attention to actions complementary to and co-ordinated 
with those carried out by the Member States and other major stakeholders in the energy field. 
The main contribution in this context is made by the members of the programme Committee 
with whom the Commission discusses matters related to programme priorities and execution. 
The  programme  European  dimension  is  indeed  a  guarantee  of  added-value,  with  respect  to 
national,  regional  and  local  efforts.  In  this  respect,  the  Commission  will  consider  the 

2 
3 
4 

COM(2002) 162 final of 9.4.2002 and COM(2002) 162 final/2 of 24.4.2002. 
COM(2006) 105 final of 8.3.2006. 
European Council Conclusions of 23-24 March 2006. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Evaluators’ suggestion of assessing in the ex-post programme evaluation the extent to which 
the projects’ funded are inspiring Member States’ policy changes and interventions.  

Also  based  on  a  recommendation  of  the  EFP  evaluation,  the  cost-effectiveness  of 
externalising programme management was examined and, on that basis, the Intelligent Energy 
Executive Agency (IEEA) has been set up by the Commission on 23rd December 2003. The 
Agency started operating at the end of 2004 and has full autonomy since January 2006. 

Finally, the Commission takes note of the reported low confidence on the programme’s ability 
to  significantly  influence  and  contribute  to  achieve  the  general  energy  objectives,  and  fully 
endorses  the  Evaluators’  conclusion  that  the  programme  intervention  should  be  enlarged  to 
include  new  instruments  for  an  effective  market  uptake  of  best  technologies  and  practices, 
supported by  an  enlarged budget.  However, this recommendation can only be considered in 
connection with the preparations for the successor programme.  

3.2. 

Specific recommendations on the programme administration 

The  Evaluators  highlight  a  number  of  areas  in  which  improvements  can  be  made  at  the 
programme execution level: 

Compared to its predecessor, the programme is attracting fewer proposals although the budget 
has comparatively increased. There is some success in attracting new entrants and new types 
of  market  actors  into  the  programme  and  all  eligible  countries  (except  Lichtenstein)  are 
actively participating in the programme. However, the pool of applicants could still be much 
larger, and would ideally have a higher number of applicants from the new  Member  States. 
The Evaluators advise to hold more targeted and themed information days so as to attract new 
applicants and, in particular more applicants from the new Member States.  

The  Evaluators  also  consider  that  an  extra-effort  should  be  made  to  improve  further  the 
quality  of  submitted  proposals  and  reduce  the  evaluation  workload,  and  recommend 
continuing the development of better guidance to applicants.  

The  Evaluators  invite  the  Commission  to  reflect,  also  based  on  its  previous  experiences,  on 
the  effectiveness  of  having  a  two-stage  application  process,  either  for  the  final  call  of  the 
programme or in the successor programme.  

With regard to the programme support for events, the Evaluators suggest that, should these be 
continued in any follow on programme, the possibility of adopting a 'lighter touch' appraisal 
process for them should be considered .  

There  is  a  confirmed  general  satisfaction  by  applicants  concerning  the  level  of  information 
provided  on  the  programme,  calls,  application  rules  and  guidelines  and  on  ongoing  funded 
projects.  The  provision  of  such  information  has  definitely  evolved  and  improved  over 
successive calls for proposals. However, many applicants still do not fully understand what is 
required  in  terms  of  indicators.  In  order  to  improve  the  uptake  and  usefulness  of  project 
indicators  of  success,  the  Evaluators  recommend  to  continue  improving  the  guidance  to 
applicants, through additional and simple examples of the output - outcome - impact chain, as 
well as to continue the work initiated by the IEEA to improve the application forms and the 
guides. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
Despite  major  progress  achieved,  notably  at  the  level  of  application  forms,  the  collective 
dissemination  of  results  could  still  be  improved,  and  the  Evaluators  refer  to  the  need  for 
improving  the  profile  and  ease  of  use  of  the  IntellEbase  resource  and  similar  tools,  and 
extending the practice of group meetings between co-ordinators of related projects during the 
negotiation stage. 

With  the  exception  of  COOPENER  projects,  the  50%  funding  is  adequate  and  sufficient. 
Concerns remain over staging and potential delays to payments in awarded contracts. 

With regard to the COOPENER element of the programme, the Evaluators consider that there 
should  continue  to  be  a  close  integration  with  the  EU  Energy  Initiative  for  Sustainable 
Development  and  Poverty  Eradication  (EUEI)  institutional  process,  and  to  strengthen  links 
with the EC delegations in the ACP countries. 

Early  indications  are  that  the  Commission,  through  DG  TREN  and  the  IEEA,  has  made, 
during  the  2  first  years  of  the  programme,  a  positive  contribution  to  the  efficiency  of  the 
programme. Though noting that it is too early to formally comment on the effectiveness of the 
Agency, or on the appropriateness of its staffing levels, the Evaluators recommend that this 
should be the subject of a formal evaluation at a later date. 

Commission response 

The  Commission  appreciates  the  constructive  remarks  and  suggestions  made  by  the 
Evaluators and it is committed to examining them in depth and ensuring an appropriate follow 
up of these. Comments are presented hereafter on the specific proposals. 

The  Commission  agrees  that  the  pool  of  applicants  could  be  larger,  in  particular  from  new 
Member  States,  although  the  latter  often  struggle  to  find  co-funding  to  participate  in  IEE 
projects. Info days are an important tool and the IEEA increased the number of them during 
the 2005 Call, covering in particular all new Member States, often with presentations in the 
national  languages.  However,  they  are  relatively  costly  because  they  reach  only  a  limited 
number of potential applicants. Best practice guidelines have been developed by the IEEA to 
help Member States to organise Info days as effectively as possible. In future, the Info days 
will be complemented by a strategically selected series of presentations at major events and 
conferences, in order to reach greater numbers of potential applicants. 

New  Guides  for  Proposers  have  been  prepared  for  the  2005  Call  for  all  Types  of  IEE 
proposals. In these new guides, further explanations are given on success indicators, together 
with  concrete  examples  in  the  field  of  energy  efficiency  and  renewable  energy  sources. 
Further  improvements  will  be  made,  taking  into  account  feedback  from  proposers  and  the 
external experts who participated in the evaluation of the calls applications. In addition, extra 
efforts have been devoted to answer questions from applicants in a more efficient way.  

Regarding the application and evaluation process a review of the current procedure along with 
an  investigation  of  further  possibilities,  such  as  a  2-step  application  as  well  as  a  “lighter 
touch”  evaluation  process  for  small  grants  to  support  events,  will  be  carried  out.  The 
Commission  recognises  that  a  two-step  application  procedure  may,  in  general,  reduce  the 
overall costs for participants, provided that the first step is simple. However, based on the past 
experiences, notably in the frame of the RTD Framework Programmes, two-step procedures 
can  lead  to  longer  delays  in  processing  the  proposals  and  also  to  a  significant  additional 
workload,  and  can  be  only  cost-effective  in  the  case  of  very  complex  and  large  projects 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
involving  hardware  investment.  For  these  reasons,  the  Commission  does  not  find  it 
appropriate  to  introduce  it  in  the  frame  of  the  current  programme,  but  does  not  exclude  to 
reflect on an eventual implementation in the successor programme. 

The Commission agrees that the dissemination of projects results is of the utmost importance. 
The  IEE  web  site  is  subject  to  continuous  improvement  and  project  fact  sheets  have  been 
created for all IEE projects. The website monitoring shows continuously increasing interest in 
the placed information: the project fact sheets were so far visited more than 41.000 times, the 
compilation of projects related to the building sector approximately 27.000 times. As part of 
the  dissemination  activities,  the  IEEA  issues  a  quarterly  newsletter,  which  meanwhile  is 
downloaded more than 10.000 times per issue. External support will  be purchased later this 
year  (via  a  Tender)  to  develop  a  more  comprehensive  database  for  the  IEE  projects.  The 
experience  with  thematic  meetings  with  co-ordinators,  both  at  the  negotiation  and  the 
implementation phase, has proved to be very successful and will be extended to all thematic 
areas. 

Despite  the  satisfaction  by  the  interviewed  co-ordinators  with  a  maximum  level  of  50% 
funding, the Commission experiences also negative impacts. It should be highlighted that co-
ordinators often agree within their consortium to receive a higher funding share than their co-
partners in order to compensate for their additional management efforts. This is possible, as 
the overall 50% limit to the IEE funding applies to the whole of the project, not to each of the 
partners involved. As pointed out above, the Commission on the one hand sees problems with 
this funding maxima regarding applicants from new Member States as well as regarding some 
thematic areas. On the other hand, for thematic areas rather close to the market a lower level 
of  funding  might  be  possible.  Generally  the  limited  co-funding  available  from  public  or 
private sources in the Member States is also seen as one of the reasons for the lower number 
of  applications.  For  the  follow-up  programme  a  more  differentiated  approach  will  be 
investigated. 

For  historical  reasons,  there  is  still  a  residue  of  concern  among  contractors  about  potential 
payment  delays,  and  time  is  needed  for  the  IEEA  to  build  a  track  record  of  making  timely 
payments.  Nevertheless,  the  IEEA  is  fully  committed  to  delivering  a  good  payment  record, 
and  there  is  already  evidence  of  its  improved  performance.  The  contractual  simplifications 
made  recently  by  the  IEEA,  notably  in  terms  of  bank  guarantees,  should  ease  and  shorten 
financial processes. 

With regard to COOPENER, the Commission draws attention to the fact that it is an integral 
part  of  the  EU  Energy  Initiative  decided  at  the  2001  World  Summit  on  Sustainable 
Development.  The  Commission  recognises  that  links  could  be  strengthened  with  the  EC 
Delegations in the beneficiary countries of COOPENER projects. In the current programme, 
there is no possibility to apply an increased funding rate for COOPENER projects, since this 
is set in the programme legal basis. 

The  Commission  shares  the  Evaluators’  views  on  the  performance  of  the  executive  agency, 
based on the regular reporting it receives  from  the agency. The agency performance and its 
impact  on  programme  implementation  will  be  assessed  in  2006,  in  the  frame  of  the  cost-
benefit analysis for the externalisation of the successor programme.  

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
3.3. 

Specific recommendations on the successor programme 

The Evaluators consider that there is very strong evidence of the need for the programme and 
recommend  its  extension  beyond  2006  with  a  larger  scope  and  budget  in  order  to  achieve 
mass  replication  of  best  practice  and  attract  new  applicants  and  key  actors.  There  are 
interesting opportunities to exploit synergies with the other Competitiveness and Innovation 
Framework Programme (CIP) sub-programmes, as well as good prospects for enlarging and 
diversifying the ranges of applicants and target groups and to simplify delivery mechanisms. 
However, it is important that it retains its identity and independence in order to build on its 
historical profile.  

The addition of funding for the “market replication projects”, as proposed by the Commission, 
will  in  the  opinion  of  the  Evaluators  require  very  close  co-ordination  between  CIP  and  the 
future FP7 in order to avoid overlapping. 

Based  on  early  indications  that  the  IEEA  is  improving  the  programme  efficiency,  the 
Evaluators  recommend  that  it  should  be  retained,  and  expanded,  to  run  the  successor  IEE 
programme  as  part  of  the  CIP  and,  possibly  the  whole  of  the  CIP,  provided  that  a  formal 
evaluation of the performance of the IEEA duly demonstrates and justifies this. 

Commission response 

The  Commission  notes  that  the  conclusions  and  recommendations  formulated  by  the 
Evaluators with regard to the successor programme are well in line with its own thinking and 
with  the  proposal  it  has  put  forward  last  year  for  the  new  CIP  (2007-2013)5.  Accordingly, 
whilst  conforming  to  coherent  and  overarching  objectives,  and  to  a  general  structure  and 
budget, the successor IEE programme retains its budgetary certainty, specific committee and 
management autonomy within the new CIP. This is also a guarantee that the specific nature of 
the IEE will be safeguarded.  

Moreover, the Commission recalls that the FP7 will continue to support fundamental research 
and  technological  development  and  demonstration  projects,  including  the  development  of 
renewable energy and energy efficient technologies. CIP excludes research and technological 
development  activities  carried  out  in  accordance  with  Article  166  of  the  Treaty.  It  shall  be 
complementary  to  the  FP7  by  dealing  with  innovation,  which  includes non-technological  as 
well as technological innovation that has moved beyond the final demonstration phase and is 
ready  for  market  replication.  The  Commission  undertakes  to  strengthen  co-ordination  with 
FP7 when preparing the annual work programmes for the successor IEE programme, in order 
to maximise synergies between the two complementary instruments. 

The Commission may use a new and/or existing Executive Agency, notably the IEEA, for the 
implementation of all or part of the CIP, on the basis of the results of a cost-benefit analysis, 
as laid down in Council Regulation 58/2003/EC of 19.12.2002. A decision can only be taken 
upon adoption, by the European Parliament and the Council, of the Framework Programme. 

5 

COM(2005) 121 final of 6.4.2005. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
3.4. 

Specific recommendations on the external component of the future programme 
(COOPENER)  

In the context of the new architecture for external relations’ programmes in the period 2007-
2013), moving the COOPENER part of the IEE programme into an international development 
and  economic  cooperation  instrument  will,  in  the  opinion  of  the  Evaluators,  deal  with  the 
problems  of  co-financing  and  target  country  sub-contractor  status.  However,  the  Evaluators 
recommend that COOPENER retains its specificity, autonomy and visibility within this new 
thematic programme, and stress that the management needs to retain energy expertise as well 
as international aid expertise, though the latter is the most important. 

Commission response 

The  Commission’s  proposal  of  25th  January  20066  for  the  thematic  programme  on 
“Environment  and  Sustainable  Management  of  Natural  Resources,  including  Energy,  2007-
2013”,  has  a  strand  on  “Support  for  sustainable  energy  options  in  partner  countries  and 
regions”. This strand builds on the former COOPENER actions, and depending on the budget 
that  will  be  made  available,  should  have  a  larger  scope  than  today’s  programme  so  as  to 
provide  institutional  support  related  to  improving  access  to  sustainable  energy  services  in 
developing  countries  as  well  as  support  for  actions  in  partner  countries  with  the  aim  to 
improve security of global energy supply and protect the global environment.  

The Commission expects the integration of COOPENER into this main thematic programme 
to lead to a higher profile and visibility for the funded actions, and an increased integration 
and synergy with the other relevant EC external relations actions. It may also help to address 
current  problems  related  to  the  limitation  of  50%  co-funding  as  well  as  to  the  contracting 
status of third countries’ organisations.  

The  Commission  notes  the  Evaluators  concern  over  the  necessity  to  ensure  an  adequate 
energy expertise for the programme execution and will take due account of this remark when 
deciding on the management structures for the thematic programme.  

6 

COM(2006) 20 final. 

EN 

9 

   EN