Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - Final Evaluation of the eEurope 2005 Action Plan and of the multiannual programme (2003-2006) for the monitoring of eEurope 2005 Action Plan, dissemination of good practices and the improvement of network and information security (Modinis)
Date: 2009-08-21
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU action, EU programme, Internet, Treaty of Lisbon, electronic government, electronic mail, information society, information technology

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 21.8.2009 
COM(2009) 432 final 

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

Final Evaluation of the eEurope 2005 Action Plan and of the multiannual programme 
(2003-2006) for the monitoring of eEurope 2005 Action Plan, dissemination of good 
practices and the improvement of network and information security (MODINIS)  

EN 

1 

   EN 

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

Final Evaluation of the eEurope 2005 Action Plan and of the multiannual programme 
(2003-2006) for the monitoring of eEurope 2005 Action Plan, dissemination of good 
practices and the improvement of network and information security (MODINIS)  

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

2. 

2.1. 

2.2. 

2.3. 

3. 

3.1. 

3.2. 

4. 

Introduction .................................................................................................................. 3 

Background .................................................................................................................. 3 

eEurope 2005 Action Plan ........................................................................................... 3 

MODINIS..................................................................................................................... 3 

i2010............................................................................................................................. 4 

evaluation results.......................................................................................................... 4 

eEurope 2005 Action Plan ........................................................................................... 4 

MODINIS..................................................................................................................... 5 

Conclusions .................................................................................................................. 7 

Annex 1 ...................................................................................................................................... 8 

1. 

2. 

3. 

Relevance ..................................................................................................................... 8 

Efficiency and coherence of eEurope .......................................................................... 8 

Impact and effectiveness .............................................................................................. 9 

Annex 2 .................................................................................................................................... 11 

Efficiency of MODINIS........................................................................................................... 11 

Effectiveness, impact and relevance of MODINIS .................................................................. 11 

Recommendations .................................................................................................................... 12 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

This Communication provides the final evaluation of the eEurope 2005 Action Plan and of the 
Modinis programme. Article 7.4 of the Modinis Decision (Decision Number 2256/2003/EC) 
states  that  at  the  end  of  the  programme,  "the  Commission  shall  submit  to  the  European 
Parliament,  to  the  Council  and  to  the  European  Economic  and  Social  Committee  an 
evaluation  report  on  the  results  obtained  in  implementing  the  actions  referred  to  in  the 
programme". 

Given the synergy between Modinis and eEurope, it was decided to carry out both evaluations 
simultaneously and to report jointly on their findings.  

2. 

BACKGROUND 

2.1. 

eEurope 2005 Action Plan 

The  eEurope  Action  Plan  (2000-2002)  was  endorsed  at  the  Feira  European  Council  (June 
2000)  as  the  information  society  part  of  the  Lisbon  strategy  of  economic,  social  and 
environmental  renewal.  It  defines  a  number  of  targets,  which  were  monitored  regularly 
through benchmarking indicators.  

However,  by  the  end  of  2002  there  was  little  evidence  to  show  that  the  success  in  getting 
Europe  online  had  translated  into  new  jobs  and  services.  Because  of  this,  the  Barcelona 
European  Council  (March  2002)  called  on  the  Commission  to  draw  up  an  eEurope  Action 
Plan focussing on “the widespread availability and use of broadband networks throughout the 
Union  by  2005  and  the  development  of  Internet  protocol  IPv6  and  the  security  of  networks 
and information, eGovernment, eLearning, eHealth and eBusiness”1. The subsequent eEurope 
2005 Action Plan was endorsed by the European Council of Seville (June 2002).  

2.2.  MODINIS 

Modinis  was  adopted  by  Council  and  Parliament  in  November  2003,  as  a  "multi-annual 
programme  for  the  monitoring  of  the  eEurope  2005  Action  Plan,  dissemination  of  good 
practices and improvement of network and information security". It followed up "PROMISE", 
a  programme  which  in  its  final  stage  provided  funding  to  the  eEurope  2002  Action  Plan. 
Modinis  covered  a  three-year  period  (2003-2005).  It  was  then  extended  to  2006  in  order  to 
ensure  continuity  before  the  entry  into  effect  of  the  ICT  Policy  Support  Programme  (ICT-
PSP), part of the Competitiveness and Innovation Programme (CIP) adopted in 2006. 

Modinis has the following objectives: 

–  Monitoring the progress of eEurope, 

–  analysis  of  eEurope  good  practices  and  dissemination  of  Best  Practices  and  Information 

Services, 

–  analysis of economic and societal consequences of the Information Society, and 

–  preparation of the European Network and Information Security Agency (ENISA). 

These objectives are to be achieved through: 

–  Benchmarking,  

1 

Barcelona European Council, Presidency Conclusions, paragraph 
40(http://ue.eu.int/en/Info/eurocouncil/index.htm) 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
–  studies,  

–  conferences, and workshops, 

–  support to strategic analysis and discussion, mainly through the eEurope Advisory Group. 

Modinis  was  implemented  through  annual  work  programmes,  which  were  approved  by  the 
Modinis Management Committee. 

The first work programme, for 2004, had a budget of EUR 12.8 million (including EUR 5.1 
million carried over from 2003). The budget was EUR 7.72 million for each of the 2005 and 
2006 work programmes. The total budget for Modinis was EUR 28.2 million.  

The extension of Modinis in 2006 provided support to the first year of the i2010 initiative. 

2.3. 

i2010  

In June 2005, the Commission adopted the initiative ‘i2010: A European information society 
for growth and employment’. The successor to eEurope, i2010 is a comprehensive strategy for 
deploying all EU policy instruments to encourage the development of the digital economy. It 
builds  on  ICT  policies,  regulation,  and  research  and  innovation  to  contribute  to  the  Lisbon 
goals.  The  key  priorities  of  this  policy  are:  a)  promoting  a  supportive  and  competitive 
environment  for  electronic  communications  and  media  services;  b)  reinforcing  research  and 
innovation in ICT and c) ensuring that an inclusive Information society brings benefits to all.  

Much  progress  has  been  made  in  the  past  three  years:  a  new  regulatory  framework  for 
audiovisual media services is in place; the reform of the regulation of e-communications has 
been launched2; regulation to create a single market for mobile phone use across borders is in 
operation; initiatives to boost online content in Europe have been adopted3; major new R&D 
and  innovation  funding  initiatives  are  up  and  running;  ground-breaking  public  private 
partnerships  (Joint  Technology  Initiatives)  have  been  launched;  flagship  initiatives  on 
intelligent  cars,  European  Digital  Libraries  and  ICTs  for  sustainability  are  on  track  as  are 
initiatives on eInclusion, eGovernment and eHealth4.  

3. 

EVALUATION RESULTS 

The  evaluations  of  the  eEurope  Action  Plan  policy  framework  and  its  associated  funding 
programme,  Modinis,  were  conducted  from  January  2006  to  July  2007  and  supported  by 
evaluators contracted for this task5.  

eEurope 2005 Action Plan 

3.1. 
The Commission welcomes the results of the independent evaluation6 and its overall positive 
findings in terms of the relevance, efficiency and impact of the eEurope 2005 Action Plan.  

In  terms  of  relevance,  the  question  was  whether  the  approach  of  providing  an  overarching 
policy framework strategy in a mature and complex policy area was valid and feasible.  

The  evaluators  found  the  framework  approach  of  the  strategy  to  be  useful  and  relevant. 
Indeed,  they  found  that  eEurope  was  vital  in  setting  up  and  maintaining  a  dialogue  across 
countries with very different cultural and institutional set-ups, levels of performance as well 
as Information Society (IS) agendas and priorities.  

2 
3 
4 
5 
6 

http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/ecomm/tomorrow/index_en.htm. 
COM(2007) 836, http://ec.europa.eu/avpolicy/other_actions/content_online/index_en.htm. 
COM(2007) 694, http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/einclusion/index_en.htm. 
Rambøll Management and Technopolis 
See Annex 1 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The evaluation identified five types of impact. eEurope can thus be seen as: 

–  a platform to exert influence 

–  a major initiator and driver of national IS-policy 

–  a reference point for national IS-policy 

–  a push factor for certain areas of IS 

–  an incentive to better coordinate national IS-policy 

These  types  of  impact  were  found  in  different combinations  in various  Member States. The 
evaluators found that the eEurope 2005 Action Plan was an important factor helping to keep 
ICT on the political agenda at a time where interest in the subject was waning. eGovernment 
and eHealth are two examples where, thanks to eEurope, Member States are working towards 
precise goals underpinned by high-level support.  

The  eEurope  Advisory  Group  is  seen  as  having  played  an  important  role  for  exchanging 
experience and enhancing mutual learning on a European level. It helped Member States get a 
broader overview of the challenges posed by the IS and of the solutions adopted by others.  

The evaluators consider, however, that the stakeholders group of the eEurope Advisory group 
("second section") did not fulfil its advisory role in a satisfactory manner. Principally this was 
a  standing  group  which  was  unable  to  provide  the  range  of  expertise  needed  for  the  wide 
ranging agenda of eEurope.  

However i it also produced important reports on the digital divide and eInclusion which paved 
the way for major policy initiatives under i2010 such as the Communication on "Bridging the 
Broadband Gap"7 and the eInclusion Initiative8.  

To  overcome  the  shortcomings  identified  by  the  evaluators,  but  to  retain  the  benefits  of 
pooling of expertise the second section was replaced by an ad hoc mechanism for stakeholder 
consultations 

3.2.  MODINIS 
The Commission welcomes the positive assessment9 of Modinis as an enabler of the eEurope 
2005  Action  Plan  and  the  consistency  between  the  policy  initiative  and  the  spending 
programme. The evaluators consider Modinis successful in providing European value added 
to  Member  States'  activities,  in  particular  through  the  benchmarking  activities,  but  also 
through conferences and the preparation for ENISA.  

However,  they  found  a  lack  of  clarity  in  the  relation  between  the  Modinis  Management 
Committee  and  the  eEurope  Advisory  Group,  in  particular  regarding  the  distribution  of 
responsibilities  and  coordination  between  both  bodies.  The  Commission  welcomes  the  fact 
that the evaluators found that this has been resolved during the extension of Modinis and the 
establishment of the i2010 High Level Group.  

The late adoption of Modinis and the fact that the first work programme had to absorb funds 
carried over from 2003 created some difficulties in budget execution and the delay of some 
actions. However, as is recognised by the evaluators, execution of the budget was very close 
to 100% in 2005 and 2006. 

7 
8 
9 

COM (2006) 129 
COM (2007) 694 
See Annex 2 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The  Commission  acknowledges  the  evaluations  findings  that  studies  financed  by  Modinis 
were not sufficiently disseminated and had little visible impact. However, at the time of the 
evaluation many of the studies had not been finalised. Completed studies are widely available, 
well publicised and have provided important input to policy development: surveys of ICT use 
in schools, ICT use by General Practitioners and eGovernment have been presented at high-
level conferences. Together with other studies on broadband coverage and access costs, they 
provide the analytical material for the i2010 Annual reports. Another example is the study on 
Interactive  Content  on-line10,  which  fed  the  Commission's  Communication  on  Content  on-
line11. 

Finally,  the  Commission  welcomes  and  takes  note  of  the  recommendations  provided  by  the 
evaluators  on  the  Modinis  programme  (see  Annex  2  for  details).  It  considers  that  the 
recommendations  are  being  implemented  in  the  delivery  of  the  ICT-PSP.  The  activities 
covered  by  Modinis  are  now  part  of  the  "Horizontal  Actions"  of  the  ICT-PSP.  The 
recommendations address the following issues: 

a) Relations with the Management Committee 

b) Timely adoption of work programmes 

c) Development of benchmarking indicators 

d) Emphasis on dissemination of best practice 

The recommendations have been addressed in the following way: 

a)  The  role  of  the  Management  Committee  of  the  ICT-PSP  is  to  express  an  opinion  on  the 
draft annual work programme, in accordance with Article 47 of the Decision establishing the 
CIP.  At  the  same  time,  significant  effort  has  been  made  to  increase  and  improve 
communication  with  the  Committee.  The  i2010  HLG  discusses  policy  orientations  and 
priorities.  

b) The adoption of the first work programme of the ICT-PSP was delayed due partly to the 
late adoption of the CIP Decision (November 2006). Moreover, the ICT-PSP introduced new 
instruments and objectives and Member State representatives in the Management Committee 
felt the need for additional discussion before delivering an opinion on the work programme. 
This delay also affected the adoption of the 2008 work programme. From 2009 onwards it is 
expected that the Work Programmes will be operational close to the start of each year. 

c)  The  i2010  Benchmarking  framework  adopted  in  2006  has  guided  all  the  work  for 
benchmarking  in  continuous  cooperation  with  Member  States,  mainly  through  the  Eurostat 
working group. The link with the Lisbon process is ensured by linking the i2010 indicators to 
the Integrated Guidelines relevant to ICT. Also, the indicators are regularly validated by the 
Member States through the publication of the Country Profiles in the i2010 Annual Report.  

d)  The  exchange  of  good  practice  has  been  reinforced,  both  via  web  based  searchable 
databases (www.epractice.eu) and the development of thematic networks funded by the ICT-
PSP.  It  has  also  been  extended  to  new  areas  such  as  eInclusion  and  digital  divide 
(http://www.broadband-europe.eu) 

10 
11 

http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/eeurope/i2010/docs/studies/interactive_content_ec2006.pdf 
Com (2007) 836 final 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0836:FIN:EN:PDF 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
4. 

CONCLUSIONS 

The Commission considers that this is a positive report confirming both the effectiveness and 
the utility of the eEurope 2005 Action Plan and its main funding programme Modinis. Some 
weaknesses  have  been  identified  but  these  have  not  had  a  major  effect  on  the  overall 
programme implementation. They have been addressed in the follow-up initiative, i2010 and 
one of its main funding instruments (ICT-PSP).  

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
Annex 1 

Final Evaluation of the eEurope 2005 Action Plan 
Excerpts from the evaluation report12  

There were three components to this evaluation of eEurope: 

–  The relevance of eEurope; 

–  The efficiency and coherence of eEurope;  

–  The potential impact from the eEurope Action Plan and its delivery mechanisms. 

1. 

RELEVANCE 

In  terms  of  content,  the  relevance  of  eEurope  is  defined  in  different  ways  by  the  various 
stakeholder  groups  involved  (e.g.  policymakers,  businesses,  academic  institutions  etc.).  For 
example,  the  fact  that  the  priorities  of  eEurope  are  seen  as  relevant  by  policy  makers  in  a 
particular Member State may not reflect the priorities of businesses in that country. 

In  terms  of  the  policy  approach,  the  key  evaluation  question  is  whether  the  framework-
approach of providing an overarching strategy in a policy area which is becoming more and 
more mature as well as complex is still valid and feasible. 

The results of the evaluation indicate that: 

The  eEurope  2005  Action  Plan  was  vital  in  setting  up  and  maintaining  a  dialogue  across 
countries with very different cultural and institutional set-ups, levels of performance as well 
as IS agendas and priorities.  

The  Member  States  seem  to  be  unified  in  their  view  of  the  relevance  of  eEurope  as  an 
overarching  policy  framework,  or  at  least  as  a  common  approach  within  Europe.  Here  the 
Member States see the need for a unifying and coordinating forum for example for the issues 
of standards and regulation and other questions related to interoperability. The relevance for 
eEurope on a Member State level however can be said to vary even though the relevance for 
EU as such is high. This is due to the different stages of ICT development and different policy 
needs, where for some Member States the targets of eEurope do not match the general level of 
Information Society development 

2. 

EFFICIENCY AND COHERENCE OF EEUROPE 

The  efficiency  of  eEurope  has  been  assessed  by  looking  at  the  function  of  the  eEurope 
Advisory Group and the related subgroups.  

The  eEurope  Advisory  Group  has  played  an  important  role  for  exchanging  experience  and 
enhancing  mutual  learning  on  the  European  level.  The  meetings  of  the  Advisory  Group 
helped Member States representatives to  get a broader overview of  the challenges posed by 
the Information Society and of the solutions adopted by other countries.  

However,  the  role  of  the  Advisory  Group  in  creating  impulses  in  terms  of  developing 
Information  Society  policy  actions  and  in  coordinating  these  policies  seems  to  have  been 
limited  so  far,  due  to  variable  engagement  by  Member  States  as  well  as  the  lack  of 

12 

For the full report see: 
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/information_society/evaluation/data/pdf/studies/s2005_01/eEurope2005_fi
nal_report.pdf 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
interactivity in the group. The Advisory Group did not seem to function as intended – acting 
as a litmus test for IS strategies proposed by the Commission. This seems mainly due to the 
insufficient  decision  making  level  of  the  Member  States’  participants,  not  being  able  to 
represent their countries viewpoints.  

The usefulness of the Second Section of the eEurope Advisory Group is highly questionable. 
Its  mandate  was  unclear  from  the  beginning,  and  its  work  had  limited  influence  on  the 
workings of eEurope. 

The  Second  Section  of  the  EAG  was  constituted  of  various  experts  and  stakeholders  from 
different policy fields as well as industry sectors. For the participants of the group this seems 
to  have  been  an  enriching  meeting  forum  where  opinions  could  be  exchanged  and  new 
networks established. However, being so broad in its constitution and without a clear mandate 
–  the  discussions  did  not  seem  to  reach  the  necessary  detail  and  expertise  to  be  of  real 
influence.  

The bulk of the work is conducted in the subgroups. Both the eHealth and the eGovernment 
subgroups worked well, ensuring discussion and consensus on these important matters.  

Nevertheless, the proliferation of subgroups and the lack of coordination between them led to 
loss  of  transparency  as  well  as  duplication  of  efforts.  In  addition,  the  coordination  between 
eEurope workings groups as well as working groups in other DGs is insufficient. 

3. 

IMPACT AND EFFECTIVENESS 

The focus for the impact evaluation has been on the contribution of eEurope to Information 
Society  policy  and  strategy  in  the  Member  States,  i.e.  the  first  level  of  impact.  However, 
wherever  possible  the  evaluation  has  tried  to  identify  second  level  impacts  on  operational 
policy programmes and measures.  

eEurope  has  led  to  direct  action  in  the  Member  States  in  some  cases,  be  it  in  the  area  of 
operational policy programmes or the improvement of internal coordination.  

The  eEurope  2005  Action  Plan  has  led  to  different  types  of  impact  in  the  Member  States 
based on drivers and characteristics for the countries. The evaluation identified five types of 
impact: 

–  eEurope as a platform to exert influence 

–  eEurope as a major initiator and driver of national IS-policy 

–  eEurope as a reference point for national IS-policy 

–  eEurope as a push factor for certain area of IS 

–  eEurope as an incentive to better coordinate national IS-policy 

The  different  types  of  impact  can  be  found  in  combinations  in  various  Member  States  and 
indicate that eEurope as a public intervention has been successful in influencing the Member 
States within the policy field of Information Society in many different ways. The evaluation 
has  also  showed  that  the  impact  of  eEurope  goes  two-way  –  where  eEurope,  defined  as  the 
consolidated European policy, is sometimes directly influenced by Member States utilising its 
delivery mechanisms.  

eEurope  2005  Action  Plan  was  an  important  factor  helping  to  keep  ICT  on  the  political 
agenda in a time where interest in the subject was waning, partly due to the (re)emergence of 
topics which were deemed more important.  

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
There  is  in  many  cases  a  constant  struggle  in  maintaining  high  level  political  support  for  a 
policy area which does not naturally get on the top of the short-term national political agenda. 
Here  the  evaluation  indicates  that  through  its  delivery  mechanisms  such  as  the  Advisory 
Group, Ministerial Conferences and benchmarking activities, eEurope has played a vital role 
in keeping high level support for ICT-initiatives. This can also be related back to the different 
types of impact, where the high level support is one of the major enabling factors for many of 
the 
level  support,  combined  with  developing  and 
disseminating best practice could therefore be seen as an effective set of tools for enabling the 
targeted results from policy interventions such as eEurope or i2010.  

types.  Stimulating  high 

impact 

eEurope  has  contributed  to  a  move  towards  common  policy  goals  in  the  area  of  the 
Information Society as embodied in the Action Plans in eGovernment and eHealth which both 
go beyond general declaration of interests in defining a more precise set of goals. 

While the results of the evaluation indicate that eEurope has stimulated high level support and 
therefore  also  policy  measures  in  ICT  on  a  national  level,  the  overview  of  alignment  of  the 
Member  States’  IS-policy  targets  to  that  of  the  eEurope  Action  Plan  also  indicates  that  an 
emphasis has been put on developing eGovernment and eHealth policies. The contribution of 
the  benchmarking  exercise  in  relation  to  eGovernment  should  be  highlighted  –  where  the 
discussions on indicators and the ranking list has at least continuously brought up the policy 
area on the political agenda in the Member States.  

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
Annex 2 

Final Evaluation of Modinis 
Excerpts from the Evaluation Report13 

EFFICIENCY OF MODINIS 

When  evaluating  the  efficiency  of  MODINIS  the  evaluation  has  focused  on  programme 
management, budget utilisation, the role of the MODINIS management committee, as well as 
the overall coherence of the work programmes to the eEurope 2005 Action Plan. 

The  evaluation  finds  that  the  role  of  the  management  committee  has  been  limited  to  the 
function  laid  out  in  the  management  procedure.  However,  the  relationship  between  the 
management committee and the EAG (eEurope Advisory Group) has been characterised by an 
unclear  distribution  of  responsibilities  and  lack  of  coordination.  Specifically,  there  was  a 
tension between the formal legal status of the management committee on the one hand and the 
seniority of the members of the eEurope Advisory Group on the other hand. 

The  evaluation  has  found  that  the  role  of  the  MODINIS  management  committee  has  been 
better defined under the umbrella of the i2010. The clearer separation between the High Level 
Group,  financed  by  the  administrative  budget  of  the  Commission,  and  the  MODINIS 
activities, has decreased the previous confusion on how the different meeting forums should 
interact – shifting the responsibility of coordination to the Member States. 

When it comes to utilisation of budget means, the late adoption of the work programme has 
largely affected the use of the funding for the MODINIS during 2004. The budget spending 
and commitment of the budget have improved during 2005 and 2006.The underlying structure 
for adopting work programmes and budgets within the Commission does at present not allow 
activities for the whole budget year, due to continuous delays in the formal adoption process, 
where the first quarter is spent on formally accepting the draft budget and programme. This 
situation compromises the efficiency, in which the budget is spent, and risks the timing and 
relevance of the activities in the work programmes. 

There  has  also  been  little  focus  on  communication  and  information  sharing  activities  in  the 
work programmes, combined with a low budget utilisation for these activities.  

Despite this, it is the evaluators’ view that the work programmes of MODINIS are coherent 
and consistent with the targets of MODINIS as a financial support programme to facilitate the 
eEurope 2005 action plan. 

EFFECTIVENESS, IMPACT AND RELEVANCE OF MODINIS 

Overall,  it  can  be  concluded  that  the  impact  of  MODINIS  varies  between  action  lines  and 
work packages. The most obvious impact is to be found with benchmarking, which was taken 
seriously  by  Member  States  and  led  to  substantial  improvements  in  performance  in  some 
cases. Benchmarking is also the area where MODINIS involvement is most visible, in that the 
programme not only provided the financing for benchmarking exercises, but also provided an 
input into the development and adaptation of indicators for i2010. 

13 

For the full report see: 
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/information_society/evaluation/data/pdf/studies/s2005_01/modinis_final_report.
pdf 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
Regarding  the  other  three  action  lines,  most  activities  financed  under  MODINIS  have  been 
useful  and  generated  follow-up  activities,  as  is  the  case  with  the  conferences  or  with  the 
preparation of a European Network and Security Agency. The conferences have turned out to 
be  important  cornerstones  in  the  focal  areas  of  eEurope  and  have  set  impulses  for  further 
policy  development  and  provided  an  input  into  the  development  of  concrete  roadmaps  and 
action plans. The only delivery mechanism that was considered of limited importance was the 
studies financed under MODINIS. They were not well disseminated and seemed to have little 
impact  in  the  exchange  of  information  and  competence  build-up  of  Member  States.  The 
impact that MODINIS had can be viewed as assuring that activities in line with the eEurope 
targets received financing, and thus were implemented.  

MODINIS has no doubt been relevant as an implementation mechanism for eEurope in that it 
enabled  the  roll-out  of  pan-European  activities  which  could  not  have  been  implemented  or 
financed  by  Member  States  themselves.  It  has  thus  had  an  important  effect  in  providing 
European value added to activities carried out by Member States. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

It  is  recommended  to  limit  the  role  of  the  management  committee  in  future  similar 
programmes  to  adopting  the  work  programmes  and  allocation  of  budget.  It  is,  however, 
necessary for the Commission to improve the process of communication with the committee 
and to ensure that its role is defined properly.  

It  is  necessary  for  the  Commission  to  find  ways  of  adopting  the  work  programmes  in  time, 
and  to  match  the  budget  year  with  the  work  programme  in  order  to  facilitate  an  effective 
budget spending. 

The  benchmarking  indicators  need  to  be  continuously  redefined  and  adapted  to  new 
developments  and  the  entrance  of  possible  new  Member  States  into  the  Union.  Efforts  to 
define  new  indicators  should  be  maintained  and  continued.  Coherence  and  cooperation 
between the various working groups responsible for indicator definition needs to be ensured 
to avoid duplication of effort and maximise the quality of indicators for i2010. 

The  exchange  of  good  practice  should  be  strengthened  under  i2010,  as  new  Member  States 
and  new  themes  require  a  joint  effort  in  enhancing  learning  and  coherence  across  the 
European Union.  

The  dissemination  of  good  practice  via  conferences  and  studies  seem  today  as  being 
insufficient.  The  evaluation  suggests  that  more  efforts  and  resources  be  allocated  to  the 
dissemination of best practises, for example via searchable web based databases.  

EN 

12 

   EN