COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER The added value of the EU budget
Date: 2011-06-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU growth strategy, added value, drawing up of the EU budget

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 29.6.2011 
SEC(2011) 867 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 

The added value of the EU budget 

Accompanying the document 

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

A budget for Europe 2020 

{COM(2011) 500 final} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
  
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

Belonging to the EU is of inestimable value to the Member States of the Union and 
their citizens. This unique construction has brought peace and stability and helped to 
reunite  a  continent  divided  by  the  second  World  War.  Over  fifty  years  of  working 
together Europeans have created a Single Market, a common currency and an area of 
internal mobility unhindered by border controls. Belonging to the EU helps Member 
States solve problems that go beyond national borders, whether in the area of climate 
change or dealing with illegal migration. Working together in a European regulatory 
framework EU members can exploit the economies of scale of an internal market of 
500  million people and ensure fair play between  all Member  States, big and small, 
old and new, rich and poor. 

Much  of  what  the  EU  does  for  its  members  is  done  through  political  processes  of 
coming  together  to  share  ideas  and  good  practices,  through  legislation  and  through 
international  agreements  and  programmes.  Most  of 
the  EU's  policies  are 
implemented  by  its  Member  States,  using  their  own  budgets  and  civil  servants  to 
bring  commonly  agreed  policies  to  life  on  the  ground  in  their  territories.  However, 
there are some things that can only be done by having an EU budget – to finance the 
actions that Member States cannot fund on their own or which they can fund more 
economically by pooling their resources through the EU budget. 

The  EU  budget  is  small  (1.01% of  EU  gross  national  income1)  because  it  does  not 
need to mirror national budgets. The EU budget does not fund direct health care for 
citizens,  it  does  not  pay  for  the  running  of  schools  or  the  work  of  the  police  as 
national  budgets  do.  It  is  an  investment  budget  –  94.3%  is  spent  in  the  Member 
States.  It  is  an  expression  of  the  added  value  of  funding  some  actions  through  the 
EU.  

This Commission staff working paper accompanies the Commission's proposals for 
the  next  Multiannual  Financial  Framework  (MFF).  It  explains  the  added  value  of 
having an EU budget and presents many examples of how this works in practice in 
our Member States. This staff working document is not about the overall value of EU 
membership – that cannot be reduced to a simple calculation of financial benefit and 
many  of  the  benefits  of  the  EU  cannot  be  quantified  or  are  so  huge  as  to  make 
quantification meaningless. This staff working document has a very modest purpose: 
it is presented as part of a budget proposal and it focuses on the added value of that 
budget for Member States and EU citizens. 

1.1.  What is EU added value? 

On  a  general  level,  European  added  value  is  the  value  resulting  from  an  EU 
intervention which is additional to the value that would have been otherwise created 
by Member State action alone. 

Even under a budgetary angle, the concept of European added value has been used in 
many  different  contexts,  such  as  in  academic  reflections  on  the  EU  budget,  for 

1 

2011 budget, PA payment appropriations. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
defining  goals  and/or  criteria  for  project  selection  in  specific  EU  programmes,  in 
provisions  of  the  Financial  Regulations  and  in  evaluation  of  existing  programmes. 
Most  recently  the  Commission's  Communication  on  the  EU  Budget  Review2 
contained a section on EU added value (see section 1.2). 

The  sources  and  nature  of  this  additional  value  vary  from  intervention  to 
intervention. It is, in particular, useful to distinguish the European added value of an 
EU policy measure in general (like an EU regulation to foster the single market) and 
that of an EU spending programme per se. In both cases, European added value may 
be  the  results  of  different  factors:  coordination  gains,  legal  certainty,  greater 
effectiveness,  complementarities  etc.  In  both  cases,  measurement  is  a  challenge 
although  in  the  case  of  EU  expenditures,  it  should  usually  be  easier  to  monetise 
European  added  value  compared  to  those  cases  where  value  may  be  added  due  to 
more intangible contributions to the attainment of common European objectives. 

In  all  cases,  however,  the  final  judgement  on  whether  expected  added  value  would 
justify an EU programme is ultimately the result of a political process. This point has 
been stressed on several occasions by the European Institutions.  

In a letter of 26 November 2010 to the President of the European Parliament and the 
President in office of the Council, the Commission indicated that it considers that  

"European added value is a key test to justify spending at EU level even if the added 
value of a political project cannot be reduced to a balance sheet". 

The same perspective was already voiced by the two arms of the budgetary authority 
during  the  negotiations  accompanying  the  adoption  of  the  current  financial 
perspective 2007-2013.  

The  European  Parliament  expressed  its  concern  about  a  strictly  economic 
interpretation of the European added value:3  

"the concept of European added value must not be limited to advanced cooperation 
between Members States but should also contain a visionary' aspect". 

Similarly,  while  recognising  the  importance  of  the  concept,  the  Council  also 
introduced an important caveat: 

"whereas  examination  of  the  European  added  value  of  proposed  expenditure  is 
accepted as an essential part of the evaluation exercise, it was pointed out that this 
concept  could  not  be  based  on  entirely  objective  criteria;  it  is  also  generally 
recognised  that  the  concept  of  added  value  should  serve  not  to  call  into  question 
Union policies which are based on fundamental agreed principles laid down in the 
Treaty but simply to evaluate the best means of achieving a given objective"4. 

2 
3 

4 

COM(2010)700 final  
European Parliament resolution on building our common future: policy challenges and budgetary means 
of the enlarged Union 2007-2013 – OJ, C104 of 30 April 2004, p. 991. 
Council progress report on financial perspectives 2007-2013 : Doc. 16105/04 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Hence,  while  the  assessment  of  the  European  added  value  is  ultimately  always  the 
result of a political process, what has changed over time is the nature and the extent 
of  the  information  available  to  support  this  process.  The  following  section  looks  at 
the way this process is being managed in the Commission with a particular focus on 
spending programmes. 

1.2. 

European added value and the Budgetary Process 

In its October 2010 Communication on the budget review, the Commission stressed 
the fact that the EU budget should be grounded in a series of core principles through 
which, European citizens should be able to have a better view of what the EU budget 
is for, and how the key choices have been made.  

Whilst the added value of a political project cannot be reduced to a balance sheet, it 
is nevertheless a key test to justify spending at the EU level: whether spending at EU 
level means a better deal for citizens than spending at national level. The European 
dimension  can  maximise  the  efficiency  of  Member  States'  finances  and  help  to 
reduce total expenditure, by pooling common services and resources to benefit from 
economies of scale. As a consequence, the EU budget should be used to finance EU 
public goods, actions that Member States and regions cannot finance themselves, or 
where it can secure better results. 

The  Commission  has  already  tested  the  added  value  of  proposed  expenditure  in  all 
policy areas when making its proposals for the EU budget for the period 2007-2013.  

To perform this test, the Commission used the following criteria: 

•  Effectiveness:  where  EU  action  is  the  only  way  to  get  results  to  create  missing 

links, avoid fragmentation, and realise the potential of a border-free Europe. 

•  Efficiency: where the EU offers better value for money, because externalities can 
be  addressed,  resources  or  expertise  can  be  pooled,  an  action  can  be  better 
coordinated. 

•  Synergy:  where  EU  action  is  necessary  to  complement,  stimulate,  and  leverage 

action to reduce disparities, raise standards, and create synergies5. 

At that time it was already clear that Union’s common objectives could only be met 
through  a  partnership  between  the  national  and  European  levels.  National  public 
spending  obviously  brings  huge  benefits  to  citizens,  increasing  the  vitality  and 
durability  of  national  economies 
through  public  services,  education  and 
infrastructure;  offering  internal  and  external  security;  and  responding  to  society’s 
needs  across  a  wide  range  of  policies.  But  there  were  limits  to  the  effectiveness  of 
national action. There are gaps which only the EU could fill.  

EU  action  can  also  be  justified  on  value  for  money  grounds.  In  many  cases,  as 
illustrated in this paper, one euro spent at EU level can deliver more than one euro at 
national  level.  Uncoordinated  spending  at  national  level  cannot  reach  common 

5 

COM(2004)487 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
objectives.  In  many  cases,  pooling  resources  and  expertise  is  an  efficient  way  to 
make  savings,  and  at  the  same  time  to  reach  the  critical  mass  required  to  deliver 
certain key objectives.  

The EU budget should focus on EU added value, meaning the delivery of objectives 
that can be achieved better through spending at EU level rather than at the level of 
the  individual  Member  States.  The  design  of  both  the  multiannual  financial 
framework  and  the  sectoral  instruments  and  programmes  should  be  such  that  the 
contribution of the expenditure at EU level is made obvious.  

EU  added  value  should  be  prominent  in  areas  of  spending  linked  to  the  EU  core 
competences (for example, agriculture, where more than 70% of total spending is at 
the EU level), or closing missing links (for example, key cross border infrastructures 
in energy, transport and ICT) or because the issues at stake are of such a magnitude 
that  individual  actions  by  the  Member  States  would  not  reach  the  objectives  (for 
example, large-scale research infrastructures or the combatting the consequences of 
climate change).  

Pooling  resources  at  EU  level  should  also  generate  economies  of  scale  and  better 
results than the same amounts separately spent at national levels (for example, in the 
areas of research or eduction mobility). 

2. 

EUROPEAN  ADDED  VALUE  IN  THE  CONTEXT  OF  THE  EUROPEAN  ECONOMIC 
RECOVERY PLAN 

The  Commission  launched  the  European  Economic  Recovery  Plan  (EERP)  in 
November 2008. The objective of the EERP was to drive a coordinated EU response 
to  the  economic  crisis.  The  EERP  combined  coordinated  national  action  with  EU 
policy measures specifically applied in 2009 and 2010 in a mutually reinforcing way 
and  it  was  based  on  two  mutually  reinforcing  main  elements:  firstly,  short-term 
measures  to  boost  demand,  to  save  jobs  and  help  restore  confidence;  secondly, 
"smart investment" to  yield  higher growth and  sustainable prosperity in the longer-
term.  

The Commission co-ordinated and monitored the implementation of the EERP while 
Member States followed a differentiated approach, as they needed different kinds of 
fiscal  stimulus  depending  on  their  economic  situation.  The  EERP  included  timely, 
temporary  and  targeted  actions  to  help  households  and  industry,  to  support 
employment  and  stimulate  growth.  It  put  forward  concrete  steps  to  promote  e.g. 
entrepreneurship  and  research  and  innovation.  The  EERP  aimed  to  boost  efforts  to 
tackle climate change while creating much-needed jobs at the same time, through for 
example strategic investment in energy efficient buildings and technologies.  

In figures, the EERP included a fiscal stimulus of around 1.5% of EU GDP or € 200 
billion, within both national budgets (around €170 billion, 1.2% of GDP) and EU and 
European  Investment  Bank  budgets  (around  €30   billion,  0.3%  of  GDP).  As  part  of 
the EU's contribution to this stimulus, the EERP proposed accelerating payments of 
up  to  €6.3  billion  under  the  structural  and  social  funds.  The  EERP  also  supported 
projects  in  the  field  of  energy  and  broadband  internet  in  rural  areas  as  well  as 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
activities related to 'new challenges' identified in the Common Agricultural Policy's 
Health Check.  

The share of the EU budget devoted to the EERP amounted to €5 billion. In addition 
to  the  EU  budget  actions,  the  European  Investment  Bank  increased  its  yearly 
interventions in the EU by some €15 bill ion in 2009 with a similar figure in 2010.  

East West electricity interconnector (Ireland / UK)  

Under  the  EERP  the  Commission  proposed  grant  funding  of  €110  million  for  the 
East  West  electricity  interconnector  between  Ireland  and  the  UK.  The  funding 
provided  from  the  EU  budget  enabled  the  company  to  get  a  €300  m  loan  from  the 
EIB and to get attractive loan terms from the banking sector for the remainder of the 
financing (€200 million). This is an excellent  example of the added value of the EU 
budget because: 

• 

• 

• 

The EU funding gave the project the EU seal of approval and underscored the 
political  significance  of  the  project  as  part  of  connecting  the  EU's  energy 
islands. This political and financial backing enabled the operator to attract the 
remaining loan finance needed to ensure that the project goes ahead.  

Ireland  has  the  capacity  to  generate  considerable  amounts  of  electricity  from 
renewable  wind  energy.  The  surplus  can  be  exported  to  the  UK  via  the 
interconnector but the project would not have happened without the stimulus of 
EU  funding.  This  will  be  the  first  ever  electricity  interconnector  between 
Ireland and mainland UK. 

The project is on target for completion in 2012, helping to link Ireland to the 
wider EU electricity grid well ahead of the EU's 2014 target for connecting all 
energy islands together. 

Estlink-2 electricity interconnection between Finland and Estonia 

Under the EEPR, the Commission granted funding of €100 million in March 2010 to 
support  the  construction  of  the  Estlink-2  electricity  cable  with  a  capacity  of  650 
megawatts between Estonia and Finland, which should become operational by 2014.  

The  Estlink-2  connection  is  the  largest  ever  investment  in  the  Estonian  electricity 
network, with a total estimated cost of €320 million. The project is being built jointly 
by the Estonian electricity transmission system operator, and its Finnish counterpart. 
Following  the  Commission's  decision  and  thanks  to  its  endorsement  as  an  EU 
priority  project,  the  Estonian  company  and  the  European  Investment  Bank  agreed 
reached  an  agreement  in  November  2010  on  a  €75  million  loan  to  provide  further 
part-financing of the project. In the same month, the operators signed an agreement 
on the construction of EstLink-2.  

Without  EU  financial  support,  the  project  would  not  have  been  implemented  by 
2017-2020. Furthermore, the EIB loan for the project would have been much lower. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
 
The  project  will  contribute  significantly  to  the  further  integration  of  the  Baltic  and 
Nordic energy markets by tripling transmission capacity between the two countries. 
It  will  also  contribute  to  the  wider  objectives  of  EU  energy  policy,  for  example 
through the increased security of supply in the Baltic region and reduced congestion 
on transmission between Estonia and Finland. Estlink-2 will give market participants 
the  opportunity  to  act  on  a  larger  regional  market  and  will  improve  the 
interconnection capacity between the Baltic States with the rest of the EU, increasing 
the security of supply of countries which are still considered as an energy island. 

The  EERP  also  played  an  important  role  in  supporting  the  development  of  state  of 
the art technologies. 

Offshore wind energy projects 

turbines,  modular  based  grid 

The  EERP  funded  six  offshore  wind  projects which are forerunners in the offshore 
wind  sector.  The  technologies  that  will  be  demonstrated  and  deployed  on  a  large-
scale  –  innovative  foundation  structures  (gravity,  jackets,  tripods,  tri-piles),  multi-
MW  offshore 
technology  –  are 
indispensable  in  order  to  achieve  the  ambitious  EU  goals  of  offshore  wind 
penetration in 2020 and beyond. The EEPR grants will secure the installation of the 
first large size (400 MW) offshore wind farms and are expected to result directly in 
additional carbon-free electricity production capacity of about 1500 MW. They play 
a crucial role in helping EU Member States achieve the binding targets for renewable 
electricity  in  2020.  The  grants  will  pave  the  way  for  the  first  steps  towards  a 
European  offshore  grid,  enhancing  the  flow  of  electricity  in  the  internal  energy 
market. On average the EU grants for Offshore Wind Energy projects (€565 million) 
have a leveraging ratio of 1 to 6 (total investment cost estimated at €3.5 billion).  

integration 

3. 

EUROPEAN ADDED VALUE IN THE AREA OF RESEARCH  

3.1. 

The notion of EU added value in research  

In  the  economic  literature,  there  is  strong  support  for  the  idea  that  European 
collaborative programmes contribute to reducing the uncertainties, the risks and the 
costs deriving from undertaking advanced technological projects. It is accepted that 
the  creation  of the  Framework  Programmes accelerated the international dimension 
of  collaborative  research6  in  the  EU.  The  multi-annual  Framework  Programmes 
(FPs)  have  become  the  medium-term  planning  instrument  for  Research  and 
Technological  Development  (RTD)  across  the  EU  based  on  the  rationale  that 
international  research  programmes  are  deemed  to  ‘add  value’  which  cannot  be 
obtained through national programmes7. 

6 
7 

Kuhlmann and Edler, 2003 
Fahrenkrog, 2002; Georghiou 2001; Georghiou et al., 2002; PREST et al., 2002 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
"EU funded research is found to have high added value by encouraging researchers 
to  cooperate  across  national  boundaries  and  to  share  complementary  skills  and 
knowledge,  to  promotes  competition  in  research,  leading  to  higher  quality  and 
excellence and to make possible projects that, because of their complexity and scale, 
go beyond what is possible at national level."8  

Research  on  the  scale  of  the  EU  can  offer  better  value  for  money  than  nationally-
funded research, and has a powerful leverage effect on private funding, stimulating 
large technological initiatives and the development of European poles of excellence 
in  highly  competitive  fields  such  as  information  and  communication  technology, 
biotechnology  and  aeronautics.  As  the  complexity  of  research  and  the  capital 
investments  required  increases,  no  Member  State  acting  in  isolation  can  create  the 
minimal,  critical  mass.  The  economies  of  scale  offered  at  EU  level  become  a 
necessity and the benefits of linking specialists across borders helps to ensure robust 
and complementary approaches to innovation.  

3.2. 

The economic impact of EU research 

EU research generates high European added value, which in turn produces excellent 
value  for  money  for  the  European  taxpayer.  Different  studies  and  external 
evaluations show that EU funding produces the following economic impacts: 

– 

€1  of  Framework  Programme  (FP)  funding  leads  to  an  increase  in  industry 
added value of between €7 and €14. 

–  Member States evaluations demonstrate the high impact of the FP: e.g. the EU 

Framework Programme's annual contribution to UK industrial output exceeds € 
3.4 billion (£3 billion). 

– 

– 

– 

The long-term macro-economic impact of the Seventh Framework Programme 
amounts  to  900,000  jobs,  of  which  300,000  in  the  field  of  research;  an  extra 
0.96 percent of GDP; an extra 1.57 percent of exports; and a reduction by 0.88 
percent of imports. 

EU funded collaborative research reduces risk and enables the achievement of 
pan-European standards. Standards and technologies developed by EU-funded 
researchers are found today in over 600 million 3G mobile phones, generating 
more than € 250 billion of revenues every year to EU companies in products 
and services. 

EU funded collaborative research facilitates the growth of innovative SMEs. In 
2006,  two  small  research-based  companies  from  Sweden  and  Belgium, 
BioInvent  and  Thrombogenics  and  their  academic  and  clinical  partners 
received  a  €1.9  million  grant  to  develop  an  innovative  form  of  treatment  for 
cancer. In 2009, the companies secured a €50 million investment from global 
pharmaceutical giant Roche, with the possibility of increasing this amount to € 
450 million in the future. 

8 

G. Cipriani: Rethinking the EU budget. CEPS, 2007 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
– 

– 

EU funding leverages private investment. In the case of the EU's RSFF (Risk 
Sharing Finance Facility), the volume of loans is 12 times the EU contribution, 
and  the  additional  leveraged  investment  in  research,  development  and 
innovation is 30 times the EU contribution. 

As a result of targeted research from the Commission's Joint Research Center 
costing about € 1 million, the cost of test s for BSE were reduced and the direct 
EC  subsidy  per  test  could  be  scaled  back  from  €20  to  €7  resulting  in 
cumulative savings for the Community budget of about €250 million over the 
period 2002-2006. 

3.3. 

Different aspects of EU added value 

European added value of EU research activities can take different forms: 

3.3.1.  Critical mass 

The  critical  mass  made  possible  by  actions  at  EU  level  promotes  cooperation 
amongst different types of organisations such as universities, research centres, small 
and  medium  enterprises  (SMEs),  large  companies,  foundations,  etc.  With  its 
increased  focus  on  translating  basic  discoveries  into  prototype  applications, 
European  research  has  successfully  promoted  cooperation  amongst  scientific 
disciplines, bringing together researchers, engineers, clinicians and industrialists.  

The NANOCMOS project 

European  engineers  receiving  EU  collaborative  research  support  were  able  to 
develop the first chip in the world to go below the 45 nanometer limit in 2004. The 
momentum  generated  by  this  project  and  subsequent  ones  has  put  EU  industry  in 
pole position in this field opening the door to a wide range of innovations in products 
and  services  ranging  from  communications  to  embedded  electronics  where  Europe 
has  a  world  leading  share  (40%  of  total  market  worth  more  than  €  100  billion  per 
year). 

3.3.2.  Bringing barriers down 

Another  effect  of  European  collaborative  research  has  been  the  overcoming  of 
barriers  between  countries,  by  means  of  multinational  consortia  as  well  as 
coordination of national funding programmes.  

Fight against alpha-mannosidosis 

There  are  at  least  6000  to  7000  rare  diseases,  which  taken  together  affect  some  43 
million  European  citizens.  Research  at  national  level  is  often  hampered  by  a  thin 
distribution of patients, few specialised research groups, and a lack of standardisation 
of available data and material collections.  

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
Alpha-mannosidosis  is  a  dangerous  genetically  inherited  disease  caused  by  an 
enzyme  deficiency,  affecting  500,000  people  in  the  EU  for  which  no  treatment  is 
currently available. Only through EU funded collaborative research can the necessary 
critical  mass  of  patients,  expertise,  and  facilities  be  brought  together.  In  terms  of 
treatment,  EU  funding  promotes  the  development  of  so  called  "Orphan  drugs" 
because market incentives alone are insufficient to promote their development. 

Since  2001,  the  EU  has  invested  close  to  €  10  million  through  three  consecutive 
research  projects  (FP5-FP6-FP7)  to  study  this  disease  with  the  ultimate  goal  of 
making  a  therapy  available  for  all  alpha-mannosidosis  patients.  As  a  result,  the 
biotechnologically  derived  human  enzyme  product  rhLAMAN  (LamazymTM),  has 
officially been designated in both Europe and the US as a potential "orphan drug" to 
treat alpha-mannosidosis. 

The REDICT and AMI4EUROPE projects 

REDICT  is  a  project  coordinated  by  the  City  of  Amsterdam,  bringing  together  6 
regions and 17 partners which share a strong R&D experience in the field of ICT and 
new  media.  The  project  has  mapped  and  analysed  the  critical  issues  of  the  sector, 
providing  a  survey  of  mechanisms  with  which  the  different  regions  stimulate 
innovation,  in  particular  for  SMEs.  A  Joint  Action  Plan  was  set  up  among  the 
regions, implementing new business support measures packages. It has stimulated a 
sustainable partnership between European metropolitan areas in this field. 

AMI4EUROPE  is  a  project  involvings  22  partner  institutions  from  6  different 
countries  coordinated  by  Asociación  Madrid  Network  (Spain).  It  coordinates  and 
integrates  Research-Driven  Clusters  in  the  field  of  health  in  order  to  meet  the 
opportunities  that  Advanced  Medical  Imaging  brings  to  the  European  society. 
cross-disciplinary  NanoMedicine,  Pharmacological 
Integrating 
breakthroughs,  Biotechnologies  for  healthcare  and  ICT  combined  with  standard 
Medical Imaging, significant improvements of diagnostics and treatment for various 
diseases will be possible.  

using 

and 

Joint Programming Initiatives (JPIs) 

A first pilot initiative to advance research in neurodegenerative diseases, in particular 
Alzheimer’s, was launched in 2009 with, to date, 23 countries participating. In 2010, 
several other health-related JPIs were developed, on Healthy Diet for a Healthy Life, 
Healthy  Ageing,  and  Anti-Microbial  Resistance.  The  Commission  assisted  in  their 
identification and preparation and supports their implementation. Better coordination 
of the research efforts in the EU will lead to more efficiency for Europe in tackling 
societal challenges related to these issues.  

3.3.3.  Dialogue between researchers and industry 

With the Seventh Framework Programme European research addresses broad societal 
issues such as the Innovative Medicine Initiative, which helps the EU health industry 
to  accelerate  the  development  of  new  drugs  and  treatments.  Such  transnational  and 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
 
 
cross-sectorial  partnerships  between  the public  and  private  sectors  make  it  possible 
for  the  EU  and  the  industry  to  implement  a  common  agenda  and  speak  with  one 
voice, preventing fragmentation and duplication of efforts.  

Safety technology for planes, cars and trains 

Groundbreaking safety technology in airplanes and cars has been developed by EU 
researchers.  The  Airbus  A380,  for  instance,  has  already  flown  more  than  5  million 
passengers across the world  using EU-funded  ICT  technology that has developed a 
new control system for cabin pressure. 

This is one of the successes of more than twenty years of EU-funded research which 
has  led  to  the  development  and  commercialisation  of  Time  Triggered  Architecture 
(TTA).  This  is  an  innovative  technology  applied  to  the  design  of  safety-critical 
systems  that  activate  and  control  safety  solutions  such  as  railway  signalling,  real-
time adjustment of speed and route in trains and aircraft, or keep the pressure in the 
cabin of airplanes constant.  

These systems need to guarantee their functioning with extreme precision and speed 
even  in  the  presence  of  faulty  software  or  damaged  hardware  components.  In  that 
sense, it can be said that TTA has revolutionised safety technology.  

Time-Triggered Architecture has the potential to become the world-wide standard for 
many  embedded  computer  applications.  Safety  systems  for  embedded  computer 
control  systems  in  aeroplanes,  cars  and  trains  are  the  first  applications  of  this 
technology.  Prototypes  for  renewable  energy  generation  and  medical  systems  have 
been built successfully. Other applications are anticipated for industrial control and 
automation.  

3.3.4.  Worldwide excellence 

Alongside cooperation, EU funding also helps to promote more intense competition 
in research leading to higher quality and excellence. The European Research Council 
(ERC)9 is a good example in that regard.  

ERC - the European Research Council 

Under  the  Seventh  Framework  Programme,  the  European  Commission  created  the 
European  Research  Council,  and  established  an  Executive  Agency  to  manage 
Europe's first large-scale competition for funding frontier research open to individual 
researchers.  The  long-term  funding  provided  by  the  ERC  schemes  provides  the 
conditions under which researchers can carry out high risk/high gain projects in areas 
of their own choosing at the frontiers of knowledge. By the end of 2013 more than 
4,000 Principal Investigators will have received grant support. 

The  ERC's  international  peer  review  process  has  become  a  "gold  standard",  and 
several countries have introduced reforms to their own national systems based on the 
ERC model and even provide funding to their national runners-up in the ERC calls 

9 

http://erc.europa.eu/ 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
                                                 
for proposals. The prestige of hosting ERC Principal Investigators is also leading to 
research 
intensified  competition  between  Europe's  universities  and  other 
organisations  to  offer  the  most  attractive  conditions  to  top  researchers.  In  this  way 
the  ERC  provides  a  powerful  dynamic  for  driving  up  the  quality  of  the  overall 
European  research  system  and  raising  its  status,  visibility  and  attractiveness,  well 
beyond the individual researchers it funds.  

There is evidence that the ERC is already helping to retain in the EU and attract to 
the EU leading European researchers who might otherwise have pursued their careers 
in  the  US  in  certain  fields.  For  example,  two-thirds  of  the  ERC's  grantees  in 
neurosciences  have  had  post-doctoral  experience  in  the  US;  and,  half  of  the  ERC's 
grantees in economics completed their PhD in the US. In 2010, a young ERC grant-
holder,  Professor  Novoselov,  received  the  Nobel  Prize  for  Physics  for  his  work  on 
graphene.  

3.3.5.  Powerful infrastructures 

Research  infrastructures  are  another  case  for  which  co-ordination  and  pooling 
resources across Member States - and sharing access – is paramount.  

GEANT 

GEANT  is  the  pan-European  data  network  dedicated  to  the  research  and  education 
community.  Together  with  Europe's  national  research  networks,  GÉANT  operates 
50.000  kilometres  of  optical  fibre  and  connects  40  million  users  in  over  8,000 
institutions across 40 countries. Current distributed computing infrastructures enable 
over 13.000 researchers, representing over 200 different scientific user communities 
(Virtual Organisations), to have shared access to unprecedented computing and data 
resources and to build collaborations across disciplines and geographical boundaries.  

3.3.6.  Leverage funding 

European  added  value  is  also  generated  through  reducing  research  risk  as  well  as 
leveraging  private  investment,  and  the  Risk  Sharing  Finance  Facility  (RSFF)  is  a 
particularly compelling case.  

RSFF - Risk-Sharing Finance Facility 

The project, launched in mid-2007, was co-developed by the European Commission 
and the European Investment Bank (EIB). The EU supports the EIB in its activities 
by providing partial risk coverage from the Seventh Frameowk Programme for loans 
which meet the programme's strategic objectives. The RSFF portfolio over the period 
2007-2009  covered  137  projects:  46  signed  operations,  16  approved  operations 
awaiting  signature  and  75  other  projects  under  appraisal/cancelled.  The  62  signed 
and/or approved projects make up a total of € 6.3 bn in 20 countries (18 EU Member 
States and 2 Associated Countries). 

An  example  of  such  support  is  the  project  Alphasat,  a  joint  undertaking  between 
Inmarsat PLC, a private company, and the European Space Agency (ESA): this will 
be the first satellite to use a new European high-power telecommunications platform. 
It  will  accommodate  four  technological  demonstration  payloads  (TDPs)  developed 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
by  several  European  universities,  industry  and  space  organisations.  This  research 
infrastructure will support a new generation of mobile technologies and enable robust 
communications across Europe, Asia, Africa and the Middle East.  

As  of  2010  its  leverage  effect  in  terms  of  comparison  between  EU  investment  and 
total  investment  by  beneficiaries  reached  a  ratio  of  1  to  30  (€0.5  million  vs.  €15 
billion leveraged). 

4. 

EUROPEAN ADDED VALUE IN COHESION POLICY  

4.1. 

Overall effects of cohesion policy 

Cohesion policy has both redistributive and allocative effects: 

– 

– 

– 

– 

It transfers resources to the poorest regions (81.5% of total means available for 
cohesion policy are allocated to convergence regions)10.  

It supports new actions in favour of growth, jobs and sustainable development 
across  Europe,  both  inside  and  outside  the  convergence  regions11.  There  is 
therefore a clear contribution to EU priorities. 

It  produces  spillover  effects  from  convergence  regions  to  the  rest  of  Europe, 
via increased trade flows. 

It  induces  –  through  its  delivery  system  –  institutional  and  administrative 
change,  promoting  long-term  planning,  mobilising  a  wide  range  of  partners, 
diffusing  a  culture  of  evaluation  and  monitoring  of  public  policies,  and 
reinforcing control and audit capacities.  

Analysis of the performance of cohesion policy in 2007-2013 shows that the policy 
has  an  even  stronger  added  value  in  many  Member  States  in  the  current  economic 
crisis12. The policy provides resources to maintain public investment in the context of 
pressures on domestic budgets.  

In some cases (e.g. Poland), cohesion policy has helped to protect against economic 
upheaval through maintaining domestic demand and high levels of investment, while 
in Latvia and Bulgaria the policy represents the only anti-cyclical measure in place. 
France has used EU cohesion funding to accelerate implementation in such areas as 
sustainable development, digital infrastructure and energy efficiency for housing. 

Cohesion  policy  is  also  instrumental  in  the  establishment  of  a  dialogue  among  the 
their 
partners  (EU/Member 
implementation, which otherwise would most likely not take place.  

tate/region/local)  on  development  strategies  and 

10 

11 

12 

As a result, for each euro the EU invests in the more developed regions more than 9 euro are invested in 
the less developed ones. 
The  2007-2013  programmes  were  designed  to  support  the  delivery  of  the  Lisbon  and  Gothenburg 
priorities in all regions of the EU, supported by a process of setting targets for the share of resources to 
be "earmarked" for these priorities. 
Applica  sprl  &  Ismeri  Europe,  Expert  Evaluation  Network  delivering  Policy  Analysis  on  the 
Performance of Cohesion Policy 2007-2013, Country Reports (forthcoming) 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
                                                 
As outlined in the report from Professor Monti on the single market13, all EU regions 
will  continue  to  experience  a  mix  of  opportunities  and  adjustment  needs  with  the 
expansion of the single market. Cohesion policy has stimulated trade flows, upgraded 
infrastructure  and  enhanced  mobility  of  goods  and  services,  has  influenced  the 
choice  of  location  for  economic  activities,  and  has  ensured  that  environmental 
standards enjoyed by European citizens are applied, contributing thus to reduce the 
development gaps between economies. 

Trade  between  the  EU12  countries  and  the  rest  of  the  Union  has  experienced  a 
dynamic development over the course of the last decade. Part of this growth reflects 
the gains which other countries have drawn from the structural support allocated to 
poorer regions.  

According to the macro economic model designed to estimate the combined effect of 
levying  taxes  to  raise  the  necessary  revenue  as  well  as  of  the  expenditure14,  the 
Structural  and  Cohesion  Funds  are  estimated  to  have  increased  economic  growth 
across  the  EU27  as  a  whole.  The  GDP  of  EU27  is  predicted  to  increase  by  about 
0.2% at the end of the current programming period.  

Cohesion spending benefits several Member States 

In  2009,  Poland,  the  biggest  recipient  of  cohesion  policy  funding  in  the  current 
programming  period,  undertook  a  study15  of  the  benefits  for  EU15  countries  as  a 
result  of  cohesion  policy  in  Poland.  Based  on  a  survey  of  contracts  won  by 
enterprises  from  the  EU15  countries,  the  study  shows  that  around  8%  of  the  total 
contract  volume  in  Poland  went  to  EU15  companies,  enterprises  from  Germany 
being the by far most important group. These companies were typically successful in 
larger Polish projects. 

4.2. 

Contributing to growth in convergence regions 

The  results  of  two  macro  economic  models  (Hermin  and  Quest)16  find  that  the 
Structural  and  Cohesion  Funds  have  had  a  substantial  effect  on  economic 
growth in convergence regions. This is the case in Greece, Portugal, Spain and, to a 
lesser extent, Ireland, as well as in Southern Italy and Eastern Germany and in all of 
the EU10 countries.  

– 

In  the  EU10  countries  taken  together,  the  models  estimate  that  GDP  in  2009 
was almost 5% higher than it would have been without Structural and Cohesion 
Fund  support,  despite  the  short  2004-2006  programming  period  in  these 
Member States. 

13 

14 
15 

16 

Mario  Monti,  "A  New  Strategy  for  the  Single  Market",  Report  to  the  President  of  the  European 
Commission, 9 May 2010 
Quest – see footnote 16. 
Instytut  Badan  Strukturnalnych,  Assessment  of  the  benefits  drawn  by  EU15  countries  as  a  result  of 
Cohesion Policy Implementation in Poland (2009) 
Bradley  &  Untiedt,  Analysis  of  Cohesion  Policy  2000-2006  using  the  Cohesion  System  of  Hermin 
Models (November 2009); and Varga and in't Veld, A model based analysis of the impact of Cohesion 
Policy  Expenditure  2000-2006  using  the  QUEST  III  endogenous  R&D  model  (October  2009);  both 
documents forming Work Package 3 of the ex post evaluation of 2000-2006.  

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
                                                 
– 

– 

A recent academic study of the dynamics of regional GDP growth in the EU15 
between 1995 and 200617 found a sharp discontinuity between those regions in 
receipt  of  Objective  1  funding  at  the  beginning  of  the  period  and  the  other 
regions.  Comparing  regions  near  the  eligibility  cut-off,  per  capita  GDP  of 
Objective  1  regions  grew  an  average  of  0.8-0.9  percentage  points  more  than 
similar regions on the other side of the cut-off. This implies an extra 10-12% 
on GDP over the two programming periods. 

In  Eastern  Germany,  an  innovative  study  compared  enterprises  assisted  to 
similar  non-assisted  enterprises.  An  average  grant  of  €8,000  per  employee 
generated around €11-12,000 of additional i nvestment, demonstrating the clear 
leverage effect18. 

Closing  of  the  gap  has  been  achieved  also  by  improving  connections  between  the 
more less and more developed parts of the Union via the upgrading of the motorway 
and railway systems, notably the transport networks: 

– 

– 

– 

– 

In  2007-13,  cohesion  policy  is  investing  €75  billion  in  improving  transport 
systems in convergence regions. 

In  the  2000-2006  period,  60%  of  the  existing  and  new  motorway  network  in 
the  EU12  was  co-financed  by  the  funds,  but  needs  remain  significant,  as 
illustrated by the fact that the density of the network in the EU10 was at just 
34% of the EU25 average in 2006, up from 31% in 2000. 

The rail network has been improved significantly as a result of investments co-
financed  by  cohesion  policy.  The  funds  contributed  to  the  construction  and 
upgrade of 7,260 km of rail in 2000-2006. For high speed rail, by 2006, 56% of 
all  network  increase  was  co-financed  by  the  funds,  while  in  some  cases,  like 
Spain, all the total increase in network was supported. 

Reduced journey times have been important, for example, between Rome and 
Naples  (from  114  minutes  to  65  minutes),  as  well  as  between  Madrid  and 
Andalucia (Madrid-Malaga from 240 minutes to 160 minutes). 

In  short,  cohesion  policy  has  strengthened  the  overall  level  of  investment,  growth 
and economic, social and territorial convergence to an extent which would not have 
occurred without EU transfers. This has had the effect of strengthening the long term 
growth  potential  of  the  Union,  since  convergence  regions  are  using  the  factors  of 
production more efficiently.  

17 

18 

Busillo, Muccigrosso, Pellegrini, Tarola, Terribile: "Measuring the Effects of European Regional Policy 
on Economic Growth: a Regression Discontinuity Approach" (2010) 
Gefra  &  IAB,  Work  Package  6c:  Enterprise  Support  –  an  exploratory  study  using  counterfactual 
methods on available data in Germany (July 2010)  

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
                                                 
4.3. 

Supporting smart, green and inclusive growth across Europe 

4.3.1. 

Smart Growth 

Some €80 billion is being i nvested in support for enterprise and innovation in 2007-
2013, the largest field of expenditure in most regions. This includes direct financial 
aid  to  investment  and  R&D,  but  also,  increasingly,  non-financial  assistance,  in  the 
form  of  networking  and  innovation  systems,  business  advice  and  incubators,  all  of 
which have been proved to increase the  knowledge  content of support.  Evaluations 
for the 2000-2006 period recorded: 

– 

– 

– 

At least 1 million jobs estimated created in supported projects19. 

An  estimated  230,000  enterprises  (mainly  SMEs)  received  direct  financial 
support - mainly grants but also loans or venture capital. 

An estimated 1.7 million enterprises ( mainly SMEs) received advice, expertise 
and support for networking 

Lahti Clean-tech cluster (Finland) 

The EU's intervention in this project had a catalyst effect: it encouraged innovation 
and development of environmental technologies by bringing together small and large 
enterprises,  educational  organisations  and  regional  authorities.  The  cluster  provides 
services  which  make  it  easier  for  its  200  participating  businesses  to  network  and 
branch out into the international market. 

The Lahti Science and Business Park which coordinates the cluster has become the 
leading environmental technology centre in Finland. Between 2005 and 2007, some 
20  clean-tech  companies  and  organisations  were  relocated  to  the  region.  The  EU 
budget  contributed  €1.5  million  to  this  project.  The  business  development  and 
relocation  services  of  the  park  have  attracted  investment  worth  more  than  €30 
million and some 170 new jobs to the region. 

Competence Centre for Cancer Research (CCCR), Estonia 

The  aim  of  the  CCCR,  established  in  2005,  was  to  establish  a  strong  long-term 
private-public partnership in top-level cancer research, based on the common vision 
of SME entrepreneurs and scientists. It supports, in particular, the access of Estonian 
biotechnology SMEs to hospitals and global markets. New jobs have been provided 
for top-level scientific staff - CCCR staff increased from 30 in 2005 to 71 in 2010.  

The EU intervention helped develop new expertise that was not previously available 
in Estonia: new start-ups in biotechnology and in certain  high-tech services  needed 
for  the  CCCR  projects  with  more  graduate  students  specialised  in  applied  cancer 

19 

This happened in the context of an increase in employment in the EU27 of 13.8 million over the period 
2000-2007.  However,  it  should  be  noted  that  the  1  million  figure  represents  jobs  reported  created  in 
supported firms and does not take account of displacement or substitution effects. In addition, not all 
Member States or regions reported against this indicator. 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
research. CCCR now has a funding agreement until 2015 and its activities are on a 
sustainable  path.  It  has  been  successful  in  several  projects  supported  by  other  EU 
funding sources. Moreover, the financial resources secured by the commercialisation 
of the results are reinvested by the partners in new R&D projects. 

The EU budget contributed €1.16 million to this project.  

Nanoscience and nanotechnology centre, Ljubljana (Slovenia)  

Innovation  pushes  ahead  in  Slovenia  as  researchers  come  together  from  the  public 
and private sector to form a centre of excellence in nano-science and nanotechnology 
(CE NS&NT). Six research institutes and 26 businesses came together for six major 
research  projects.  The  projects  are  coordinated  by  the  research  institutes  and  the 
businesses  involved  as  potential  end-users  provide  funding.  In  some  cases,  the 
businesses also participate in the research. 

The six projects cover: nanoelectronics and equipment for nanotechnology; synthesis 
of  nano-particles  and  nano-composites;  nano-materials  in  electrochemical  systems; 
nano-structured  surfaces  and  layers;  synthesis  of  1D  inorganic  nanostructures  and 
bio-nano-structures; characterisation on nano-metric scale. 

The  ability  to  share  the  modern  testing  equipment  has  increased  the  motivation  of 
industry  partners,  who  previously  viewed  cooperation  as  a  burden  rather  than  a 
benefit.  The  project  is  also  raising  the  skills  among  industry  researchers  and 
providing grounds for participation in research for postgraduate students and young 
researchers. 

The  contribution  from  the  European  Regional  Development  Fund  (ERDF)  to  this 
project was €829.000. 

4.3.2.  Green Growth 

Even  before  combating  climate  change  was  embraced  as  a  central  objective  of  the 
EU, cohesion policy started to put in place measures to improve energy efficiency of 
enterprises  (example:  Czech  Republic)  or  set  up  renewable  energy  production 
facilities  (example:  the  Azores,  Portugal).  Future  interventions  to  tackle  climate 
change  can  benefit  from  the  experience  accumulated  during  the  implementation  of 
these  investments,  even  if  they  do  not  receive  financial  assistance  from  cohesion 
policy. 

– 

– 

Half  of  the  Member  States  have  included  indicators  for  the  reduction  of 
greenhouse  gas  emissions  in  their  cohesion  policy  programmes  for  the  2007-
2013 period. Austria, Germany, France and Italy have reported a reduction of 
over 27,000 kilotonne equivalents. 

Close  to  20  million  people  now  have  access  to  improved  water  supply  as  a 
result  of  cohesion  policy  assistance  in  2000-2006.  Out  of  the  estimated  40 
million people whose wastewater has begun to receive appropriate treatment in 
this  period,  23.5  million  people  are  connected  to  investments  financed  by 
cohesion  policy.  There  are  numerous  examples  not  only  for  improved  water 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
 
infrastructure  like  the  drinking  water  and  sewage  in  the  Torysa  river  basin  in 
Eastern  Slovakia  or  the  Dublin  wastewater  treatment  plant,  but  also 
establishing  specialised  systems  for  animal  waste  in  Hungary  or  closing 
hundreds of illegal waste disposal sites all over Europe. 

New approach to renewables in Güssing (Austria) 

Güssing (a small town in the southeast of Austria) is a model for the forward-looking 
renewable energy policy at local level that is driving the economic development of 
the  whole  region.  Using  wood  from  local  forests  in  its  biomass  heating  plant,  the 
town produces more electricity than it consumes and is able to provide power for the 
entire region. Over 50 companies have been created in the renewable energy sector 
alone and since 1995 Güssing has reduced its carbon dioxide emissions by 100%.  

The availability of cheap heat (30% cheaper) has led to over 1 000 new jobs being 
created  in  and  around  the  town,  including  100  in  a  new  office  building  on  an 
industrial estate which houses the European Centre for Renewable Energy. In order 
to facilitate the dissemination of experience in the field of renewable energy sources, 
a network including regional, national, and international partners has been founded. 

The EU budget contributed €461.000 to this project. 

4.3.3. 

Inclusive growth 

The European Social Fund (ESF) supports the development of human resources and 
facilitates  a  better  response  to  local  labour  market  needs  and,  together  with  the 
ERDF, employment possibilities.  

– 

– 

One  third  of  the  unemployed  in  the  EU  participated  in  ESF  supported 
programmes each year. 

The  ESF  supports  gender  equality,  by  helping  women  into  employment, 
promoting their lifelong learning, supporting their participation in science and 
technology as well as assisting them to start up businesses. In 2000-2006, €4.5 
billion  ESF,  went  on  measures  to  promote  gender  equality  and  gender 
mainstreaming.  The  largest  expenditure  on  gender-related  measures  was  in 
Germany, accounting for 25% of the total across the EU. 

4.4. 

Cooperation across the EU 

Cohesion  policy  promotes  exchanges  and  joint  programmes  between  countries  and 
regions. Cohesion policy fosters territorial cooperation in its three dimensions (cross-
border,  transnational,  and  interregional).  Addressing  common  problems  together 
allows for a more efficient use of public resources and circulation of ideas and good 
practices.  

The  added  value  of  European  territorial  cooperation  lies  in  the  fact  that  if  offers 
possibilities for joint action which are needed to address challenges that increasingly 
cut  across  national/regional  boundaries.  Territorial  cooperation  can  also  provide 
important  contributions  to  achieving  the  Europe  2020  strategy  by  addressing 
challenges that increasingly cut across national boundaries. In addition, co-operation 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
programmes  play  an  important  role  in  bringing  Europe  closer  to  the  citizen,  given 
that  they  allows  for  regional  and  local  actors  across  Europe  to  engage  in  joint 
projects and thus in a "European experience".  

FLAPP - turning back the tide in flood-threatened regions 

Strength  in  numbers  and  multiple  disciplines  reflect  the  approach  taken  in  the 
FLAPP project where the combined efforts of 15 countries resulted in practical ways 
to deal with flood danger. FLAPP (FLood Awareness & Prevention Policy in border 
areas) enabled partnerships to be formed that otherwise would not have taken place. 
FLAPP introduced measures including flood forecasting and river basin management 
to protect people, nature and economic development in at-risk border areas. 

Residents  in  the  areas  covered  by  FLAPP  are  no  strangers  to  flooding,  hence  the 
positive  input  from  37  partners  who  brought  their  water  management  experience 
from  12  river  basin  areas.  From  Ireland  to  Greece,  and  from  Estonia  to  Spain, 
experiences are being shared and put to practical use.  

The EU budget contributed €1.1 million to this project.  

Ships set sail for greener cargo transportation 

Shifting cargo from road to sea to reduce energy consumption, carbon emissions and 
pollution  is  at  the  heart  of  the  Northern  Maritime  Corridor  (NMC)  project.  This 
transnational  project  which  covers  20  regions  in  9  countries  (including  Russia) 
bordering the North Sea and Europe’s northern periphery has led to improved short 
sea shipping services and greater accessibility to the regions concerned. In terms of 
innovation,  the  NMC  project  developed  models  and  concrete  ICT  tools  for  the 
intermodal  transport  industry.  In  particular  NMC  brought  in  the  use  of  radio-
frequency identification for tracking cargo.  

The  innovative  character  of  the  project  was  also  pursued  in  other  ways.  Many 
regions set up maritime clusters with as many as 10-20 partners. The NMC project 
had  an  important  impact  on  the  expansion  of  maritime  services  in  the  North  Sea 
regions. The most significant achievement was the European Commission’s approval 
to extend the motorways of the sea layout towards the Barents region.  

The EU budget contributed € 2.6 million to this project. 

Regional Early Warning System (EWS) on water scarcity in the Alps 

'Alp-Water-Scarce'  (Water  Management  Strategies  against  Water  Scarcity  in  the 
Alps)  is  a  three  year  project  funded  by  the  "Alpine  Space  programme"  under  the 
European  Territorial  Cooperation  2007-2013.  The  project  started  in  October  2008, 
involves  17  partners  from  five  countries  in  the  Alps  and  is  coordinated  by  the 
Mountain  Institute,  University  of  Savoy,  France.  It  deals  with  developing  water 
management  strategies  and  especially  the  deployment  of  an  early  warning  system 
(based  on  mobile  phone  supported  hydro-climatological  monitoring,  hydrological 
models and GIS) to predict water scarcity at the seasonal and multiannual level in the 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
 
 
Eastern  Alps  (Regions  of  Veneto  and  Styria).  Several  universities,  federal  research 
local  governments,  regional  agencies,  alpine 
institutes,  regional  provinces, 
economical  societies,  geological  surveys  as  well  as  chambers  of  agriculture  and 
forestry participate in the project. 

Øresund 
(Sweden/Denmark) 

Science  Region:  Cross-Border  Triple  Helix  Collaboration 

The Øresund Science Region (ÖSR) is a cross-border initiative that brings together 
regional  authorities,  businesses  and  universities.  This  ‘triple-helix’  model  is  a 
focused  approach  to  cooperation  between  universities  and  the  surrounding  society. 
The  ÖSR  uses  and  develops  the  Region’s  unique  strengths:  a  highly  educated 
population  and  market-leading  technology,  12  universities,  6  science  parks,  2000 
companies  and  some  12,000  researchers.  These  strengths  are  reflected  by  the 
region’s large number of researchers and high-technology companies. A €1.9 million 
investment  from  the  ERDF  was  matched  with  a  similar  amount  of  Swedish  and 
Danish co-financing, both public and private.  

ÖSR  is  a  regional  development  project  with  innovation  and  research  platforms  and 
projects  as  tools  to  create  linkages  between  authorities,  industry  and  universities 
across the Swedish-Danish border, in identified core competencies: Medicon Valley 
Academy (health / pharma); Øresund IT Academy; Øresund Environment Academy; 
Øresund Food Network; Øresund Logistics; Diginet Øresund (digital entertainment); 
Nano Øresund. 

The existence of cross-border support from the EU was one of the main catalysts for 
taking the project forward – without EU support the challenge of accessing different 
national funding would have been too complex. The project also demonstrates how 
the  EU  can  encourage  and  assist  developed  border  regions  in  increasingly 
sophisticated  co-operation,  in  fields  directly  linked  to  the  Europe  2020  Strategy.  It 
has  galvanised  the  public,  private  and  education  sectors  to  work  together  for  the 
common  good  of  the  wider  region,  through  this  individual  project,  and  by  placing 
this project at the heart of a longer, multi-annual programme approach. 

4.5. 

Social Cohesion 

Investing  in  people  is  not  only  a  core  EU  policy  but  also  makes  economic  sense. 
According to OECD data, the average private and public rate of return on education 
and training is between 8% and 11.5%, well above most other public investments. 

Financial  support  at  EU  level  through  the  European  Social  Fund  spurs  national 
reforms towards common employment objectives.  

Job-brokering service in Hungary 

In  Hungary,  the  European  Social  Fund  has  helped  the  employment  services  to 
enhance short-term matching between the needs of the labour market and the skills 
available.  The  new  job-brokering  system  provides  better  knowledge  of  instant  and 
short-term  variations  on  the  local  labour  market.  A  number  of  measures  have  been 
introduced, including the provision of regional and local labour market information 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
 
to  employers  and  employees  and  the  development  of  an  internet  based-system  that 
helps employers give quick, practise oriented feedback to the PES about the labour 
market  demand’.  This  service  provides  quicker  answers  to  stakeholders,  leading  to 
better  adapted  training  for  unemployed  people  and  other  jobseekers,  considerably 
increasing their prospects on the labour market. 

EU spending in employment, education and social inclusion has helped its capacity 
to  leverage  additional  public  and  private  funding,  which  would  otherwise  not  have 
been  channelled  to  these  areas.  By  concentrating  on  the  modernisation  of  labour 
market and education institutions in a systematic way, EU programmes allow every 
euro spent to support on the employability of a higher number of people.  

• 

• 

Over  the  period  2000-200820,  the  ESF  supported  approximately  76  million 
people and 1.7 million organisations. ESF participants have been recruited into 
one  in  four  of  all  new  jobs  created  and  the  ESF  was  directly  responsible  for 
half the progress made on the EU-level life-long learning benchmarks. 

Each year over the 2007-13 programming period, projects funded by the ESF 
are estimated to help 1.7 million people into employment (two-thirds of people 
supported  by  the  ESF  are  unemployed  or  inactive;  10%  are  long-term 
unemployed; more than half are women and about a quarter are under 25. 

Under  the  2007-2013  programming  period,  young  people  are  supported  in  all 
Member States and in 91% of the ESF Operational Programmes, accounting for 68% 
of  the  budget.  Between  2007  and  2009,  5.8  million  young  people  have  benefitted 
from the ESF through training or mentoring.  

ESF support in West Wales 

In rural West Wales (UK), the ESF supported a € 4.5 million project to assist young 
people most at risk of dropping out of school. Teachers and youth leaders co-operate 
to offer guidance and emotional intelligence support to 11-13 year olds. The project 
has helped over 7 000 young people. 

The  benefits  of  building  the  human  capital  of  future  generations  of  workers  are 
usually felt in the long run and are often are difficult to estimate. The stability of the 
EU  programming  periods  offers  all  actors  a  stable  environment  to  undertake  the 
necessary  long-term  strategic  planning  required  in  employment  policy,  often 
compensating for the fact that domestic funding tends to be more vulnerable to short-
term shifts.  

Social Integration of people through the ESF (Spain) 

In Spain's Castilla y León's region, the ESF co-financed the "Access" programme to 
improve  the  social  integration  of  Roma  people.  In  2010,  208  women  and  220  men 
were  helped  to  find  employment.  The  programme  works  in  several  Roma 

20 

The data presented in this section comes from the ESF ex-post evaluation as well as 2009 data from MS 
provided in annual implementation reports. 

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
                                                 
communities in the region and targets those who are furthest from the labour market. 
Participants receive tailored training and job-search assistance. 

5. 

ADDED VALUE THROUGH SOLIDARITY ACROSS THE EU 

Different  EU  policies  are  an  expression  of  solidarity  across  Europe,  helping  to 
remedy consequences of the economic crisis or of natural or man-made disasters.  

5.1. 

Solidarity through cohesion policy 

The MG Rover case (United Kingdom) 

The  package  of  support  offered  by  the  Better  West  Midlands  project  in  England 
delivers a bespoke service tailored to the needs of both employers and individuals. It 
includes  individual  advice  and  support  and  access  to  skills  and  training  provision. 
This  project  builds  on  previous  successful  programmes  which  were  developed  as  a 
response  to  the  closure  of  MG  Rover.  Funding  from  the  European  Social  Fund 
helped to provide an extended range of support and training to workers under threat 
or  notice  of  redundancy,  prior  to  their  current  employment  ending.  The  aim  is  to 
maximise  their  capability  to  move  directly  into  new  employment.  The  project  will 
help  about  14  500  people  from  companies  across  the  West  Midlands  in 
manufacturing and other sectors. 

Cohesion policy can help develop prevention measures, building synergies between 
different EU policies. 

Flood management along the Tisza river, Hungary 

The Tisza river basin in eastern Hungary is a flood-prone area that has had several 
major  disasters  in  the  past.  Flood  reservoirs  have  been  created  on  some  of  the 
original  flood  plains  of  the  river  which  were  curtailed  by  dikes  over  the  centuries. 
The ERDF and Cohesion Fund is investing €290  million of a total of  €400 million 
for  the  construction  of  six  reservoirs  and  the  relocation  of  several  dikes.  These 
investments started in 2000-06 and will continue over 2007-13.  

A fully  integrated approach  was developed, involving the Ministries of Agriculture 
and Environment, the research and scientific community as well as local authorities 
and the general public, enhancing the governance approach.  

The first reservoir was completed in 2008. In addition to helping to adapt to climate 
change, natural flood reservoirs have several co-benefits and are the typical win-win 
investments  on  ecosystem  services  such  as  an  efficient  solution  to  significantly 
reduce  flooding  risks  (buffer  role  of  nature);  providing  storage  water  for  irrigation, 
thus  offering  a  solution  to  ease  droughts;  restoring  space  to  river  and  nature  thus 
protecting  biodiversity  (creation  of  wetlands);  addressing  problem  of  decreasing 
groundwater level (regular flooding of the reservoirs); offering new potential for eco-
friendly agriculture, nature tourism and leisure activities. 

This  is  a  good  example  of  the  added  value  of  the  EU  assistance  as  the  use  of  EU 
funding  resulted  in  an  integrated  and  cross-cutting  approach,  building  synergies 

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
between  cohesion  policy  and  CAP.  The  use  of  cohesion  policy  funding  ensured  a 
reinforced  governance  by  involving  local  communities,  civil  society  and  socio-
economic  partners.  Finally,  funding  from  cohesion  policy  also  benefits  the 
neighbouring countries (mitigation of flood risk). 

5.2. 

Solidarity through the EU civil protection mechanism 

The EU civil protection activity is focused on adding value to Member States efforts 
by providing effective systems for preventing and protecting against man or natural 
disasters.  In  supporting  and  supplementing  national  policies  in  the  field  of  civil 
protection  the  EU  contributes  to  make  them  more  effective  through  the  pooling  of 
experience,  assets  and  mutual  assistance  which  helps  to  reduce  the  loss  of  human 
life,  injuries,  material  damage  and  economic  and  environmental  damage,  When 
disaster  strikes  within  the  EU  or  in  third  countries,  the  authorities  of  the  affected 
Member  States  can  benefit  from  immediate and  tangible assistance through the EU 
Civil Protection Mechanism. 

Response to floods in Poland 

In  May  2010  Poland  experienced  the  worst  flooding  in  250  years.  Over  2,000  km2 
were flooded, which corresponds to 0.8% of Poland's territory. Participating States to 
the EU Civil Protection Mechanism had been pre-alerted on 17 May. Two days later, 
Poland  issued  a  formal  request  for  assistance  which  triggered  a  very  generous 
response  by  several  countries  via  the  Mechanism.  The  MIC  coordinated  teams  and 
pumps sent by CZ, DE, DK, FR and NL and also mobilized the EU co-financed High 
Capacity Pumping module of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania in the framework of the 
Preparatory  Action  on  an  EU  Rapid  Response  Capability.  A  Liaison  Officer  was 
dispatched to Poland who followed the Balt Flood Combat module and contributed 
to  the  preparation  of  flood  forecast  maps.  Overall,  this  joint  effort  greatly  helped 
Poland to deal with the floods and get back to normalcy as quickly as possible. 

Combatting forest fires in Portugal 

In  July  2010,  the  Portuguese  authorities  requested  assistance  through  the  European 
Civil Protection Mechanism following a critical and aggravated forest fire situation 
which  included  350  forest  fires  and  all  national  available  means  were  in  incessant 
use.  Portugal  requested  heavy  aerial  means  for  forest  fire  combat  operations 
consisting  of  two  water  bomber  planes.  The  request  immediately  triggered  several 
offers of assistance by Italy, Greece and France. Spain had already assisted Portugal 
in fighting fires in the Viseu and Braga region. The Italian, Greek and French offer 
consisted  of  two  water  bomber  planes  each.  Portugal  accepted  the  Italian  offer  and 
these  planes  were  in  action  by  the  afternoon  of  the  request  and  based  at  the  Ovar 
airbase in the North of Portugal. 

EN 

23 

   EN 

 
 
5.3. 

Solidarity through the European Globalisation adjustment Fund 

The  European  Globalisation  adjustment  Fund  (EGF)  was  established  in  2006  21  to 
support  workers  made  redundant  as  a  result  of  major  structural  changes  in  world 
trade patterns due to globalisation. 

The  EGF  has  a  budget  of  up  to  €500  million,   and  supports  active  labour  market 
policy  measures  to  help  redundant  workers  find  new  employment.  The  EGF 
intervenes in case of mass redundancies (more than 500 workers) or in small labour 
markets.  

The  EGF  was  revised  in  200922  to  extend  its  scope  to  support  to  workers  made 
redundant  as  a  consequence  of  the  global  financial  and  economic  crisis  and  to 
increase the EGF co-funding rate from 50 to 65 %.  

Between  1  January  2007  and  31  December  2010,  Member  States  submitted  71 
applications  for  EGF  support,  covering  more  than  72  000  workers  in  some  6  000 
enterprises,  both  large  and  small,  operating  in  various  economic  sectors.  The  total 
amount of EGF support requested amounted to €337 million. Without it, support to 
workers  would  have  been  less  extensive  or  less  efficient,  particularly  in  (small) 
regions with high numbers of redundancies. The EGF has also been useful in terms 
of  helping  workers  to  upgrade  their  qualification  level.  Of  all  workers  targeted  for 
assistance  so  far,  46.3  %  had  low  levels  of  qualification,  42.3  %  medium  levels  of 
qualification and 11.4 % higher qualification levels.  

EGF supports more than 3000 workers in Germany 

In June 2007 Germany applied for EGF support following 3 303 job losses when the 
Taiwanese mobile phone manufacturer BenQ withdrew all financial support from its 
two  German  based  subsidiaries,  causing  their  insolvency.  These  subsidiaries  were 
located in Munich, (Bavaria), Kamp-Lintfort and Bocholt (North Rhine Westphalia). 
2 528 of the dismissed workers decided to enter into a transfer company to benefit 
from active labour market policy measures. The EGF made it possible to extend the 
period  from  12  to  17  months  and  to  increase  the  quality  of  the  support  measures. 
Ultimately, 
1 879 (or 74 %) of the EGF beneficiaries were reintegrated into the labour market. 

5.4. 

Solidarity through the European Union Solidarity Fund 

The  EU  Solidarity  Fund  (EUSF)  enables  the  EU  to  give  financial  assistance  to 
Member  States  and  countries  negotiating  their  accession  to  the  EU  in  the  event  of 
major  natural  disasters.  The  EUSF  is  financed  with  appropriations  over  and  above 
the normal EU budget, to be approved by the European Parliament and the Council 
on  a  case  by  case  basis.  The  maximum  annual  amount  that  can  be  mobilised  is 
€1 billion.  

Since  its  creation  in  2002,  the  EUSF  has  been  used  to  provide  support  for  those 
suffering  from  45  disasters  covering  a  range  of  different  catastrophic  events 

21 
22 

OJ L 48, 22.2.2008, p. 82 
OJ L 167, 29.6.2009, p. 26 

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
                                                 
including floods, forest fires, earthquakes, storms and drought. 23 different European 
countries  have  received  more  than  €2.4  billion.  Assistance  from  the  EUSF  may  be 
used  to  supplement  national  public  expenditure  for  essential  emergency  operations 
such  as  the  restoration  of  essential  infrastructures  and  securing  protective 
infrastructures,  for  rescue  services,  provisional  housing,  cleaning  up  and  the 
protection of cultural heritage. 

Support from the EU Solidarity Fund for the L'Aquila earthquake 

In April 2009, an 5.8 magnitude earthquake devastated the Italian region of Abruzzo 
claiming  the  lives  of  300  people  and  causing  severe  destruction  of  basic 
infrastructure,  private  homes,  public  buildings,  businesses  and 
the  region's 
impressive  cultural  heritage.  With  total  direct  damages  exceeding  €10  billion  the 
disaster  qualified  as  a  “major  natural  disaster”.  Following  an  Italian  request  for 
support,  the Commission proposed granting assistance amounting to €493.8 million. 
The amount was approved by the EP and the Council and subsequently used for first 
emergency operations, two housing projects creating accommodation for over 20 000 
people, and a project for the creation of temporary schools. The L'Aquila earthquake 
was the biggest disaster since the creation of the Solidarity Fund. 

6. 

EUROPEAN ADDED VALUE IN THE COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY 

6.1. 

The notion of EU added value in the CAP 

The CAP is a fully common policy of the EU. It provides European added value by 
supplying European citizens with safe and high quality food in a competitive market, 
maintains the wide variety of landscapes throughout Europe through sustainable land 
management and helps rural areas to remain viable and attractive.  

The CAP helps the EU to respond effectively to transnational goals and cross-border 
challenges  such  as  mitigating  climate  change,  enhancing  biodiversity  and 
contributing to economic and social cohesion, the development of the Single Market 
and the EU trade policy, through a common set of rules, principles and objectives; 

The CAP also ensures a more efficient use of the budgetary resources of the Member 
States  vis-à-vis  the  coexistence  of  national  policies.  In  the  absence  of  a  single 
common  policy,  27  different  national  policies  would  be  more  costly  and  certainly 
less  effective,  inducing  different  levels  of  intervention  and  trigger  a  major  risk  of 
distortion of competition; 

6.2. 

Synergies with other EU policies 

6.2.1.  Ensuring a positive contribution to the environment 

Through  its  design  and  implementation  as  a  common  policy  the  CAP  helps  EU 
farmers to respect environmental legislation and requirements because its decoupled 
direct payments are subject to compliance with environmental laws ( non-respect for 
these  laws  is  followed  by  a  reduction  in  support  payments  to  farmers)  and  through 
more  targeted  rural  development  measures  (like  agri-environment  schemes).  By 
ensuring  the  development  of  a  sustainable  agriculture  across  the  EU  territory  and 

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
encouraging  farmers  to  adopt  agricultural  practices  that  preserve  the  environment, 
safeguard  the  countryside  and  mitigate  the  impact  of  climate  change,  these 
instruments have allowed considerable achievements in the field of environment and 
climate change. 

Climate change mitigation and provision of environmental public goods  

introduction  of  decoupled  direct 

the 
income  support  combined  with 
The 
targeted  agri-environmental  measures  have 
implementation  of  specific  and 
contributed  significantly  to  climate  change  mitigation  across  the  EU  through  the 
reduction in the EU beef herd while ensuring the provision of environmental public 
goods through the support to environmentally-friendly agricultural practices. 

Today,  while  agriculture  and  forests  cover  47%  and  37%  of  the  EU  territory 
respectively,  approximately  one  third  of  agricultural  land  has  high  nature  value 
where valuable habitats have developed in interaction with farming practices. Policy 
indicators reflecting the path of CAP reform show that agricultural and forestry areas 
under  successful  land  management  would  contribute  over  the  2007-2013  period  57 
million  hectares  to  biodiversity,  38  million  hectares  to  water  quality,  26  million 
hectares to climate change and 37 million hectares to soil quality. The protection of 
permanent  grassland  which  is  important  for  carbon  sequestration  has  allowed  the 
stabilisation  of  this  type  of  land  use  in  spite  of  the  decline  in  beef  production 
triggered by the introduction of decoupling. 

Further achievements have taken place such as the substantial decline in the use of 
fertilizers  since  the  late  1980s,  estimated  to  reach  -28%  for  nitrogen,  -67%  for 
phosphorus and -61% for potassium by 2017 compared to 1988 levels. In a similar 
way  the  reduction  in  greenhouse  gas  (GHG)  emissions  from  the  agricultural  sector 
have outperformed other economic sectors and reached 20% between 1990 and 2005 
for non-CO2 (more than twice the rate of the EU commitment required by the Kyoto 
Protocol).  The  agricultural  sector  now  accounts  for  around  9%  of  total  EU  GHG 
emissions. 

6.2.2.  Ensuring the well functioning of the EU market 

A Community approach allows the application of common rules in the single market 
and  therefore  provides  fair  conditions  and  a  level  playing  field  for  all  the  Member 
States. In this respect, the CAP, which definition and implementation stems from the 
Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the  European  Union  (see  notably  Article  38),  has 
proved its value in ensuring the functioning of the single market in the field of the 
agro-food  sector  while  applying  agreed  European  common  standards  such  as  food 
safety and animal welfare within a context of increasing competitive pressure. 

A  common  policy  and  the  reforms  it  has  undergone  have  led  to  increased 
competitiveness and sustainability of European agriculture. 

Market measures in the management of the dairy crisis 

The global dairy crisis, which generated a sharp drop in  dairy commodity prices in 
2008  and  early  2009,  affected  very  significantly  farmers'  income  across  the  whole 
EU.  The  efficient  and  targeted  use  of CAP  market  measures  (EUR  371  million  for 

EN 

26 

   EN 

 
the  2009  budget  year),  prevented  EU  commodity  prices  from  falling  below  the 
reference price levels, thus shielding the EU dairy sector from the more pronounced 
price drop on the world market. 

The timely and flexible implementation of the common market measures - including 
the  extension  of  the  intervention  buying  in  period  for  butter  and  skimmed  milk 
powder as well as advanced and extended period for granting private storage aid for 
butter - proved to be an effective tool to stabilise EU dairy markets and contributed 
to reducing the impact of the dairy crisis on farmers` revenue. Overall, seventeen23 
Member  States  were  involved  in  the  various  storage  schemes  that  reduced  supply 
pressure on EU markets, contributing to the stabilisation of commodity prices. In the 
absence  of  a  common  policy  toolkit,  the  diverging  response  of  different  national 
polices  would  have  aggravated  the  situation,  causing  disproportionate  market 
disturbances  and  distortions  across  Member  States  and  potentially  on  the  world 
market. 

6.2.3.  Ensuring trade compatibility  

The CAP helps the EU to pursue a consistent trade policy vis-à-vis our global trading 
partners, most notably by enhancing its bargaining power. 

The common set of rules for CAP support, in particular through the granting of non-
trade  distorting  decoupled  direct  payments  which  represents  the  bulk  of  public 
support, enables the EU to strengthen and consolidate its position in its negotiations 
with  its  trading  partners.  The  progress  that  has  been  made  at  international  level 
through  the  conclusion  of  trade  agreements  could  have  been  jeopardised  if,  in  the 
absence  of  a  common  EU  policy,  diverging  national  policies  had  prevented 
compliance and compatibility with the required rules and criteria (e.g. Member States 
might have opted for the continuation of a considerable amount of coupled support at 
national level).  

6.2.4.  Ensuring cohesion and solidarity 

The  combination  of  the  CAP  instruments  (both  EU-wide  support  instruments  and 
targeted  rural  development  policy  measures)  provides  a  significant  contribution  to 
cohesion  and  solidarity  between  Member  States  and  regions.  This  was  particularly 
evident during the EU enlargement phase and is still valid today. 

The instruments of the  CAP  in general, and rural development policy in particular, 
offer a wide range of types of support designed to help unlock the potential vitality of 
the  farm  sector  and  rural  areas  across  the  EU:  economically,  environmentally  and 
socially. 

For example, support is available for training, for investments in farm modernisation 
–  including  for  semi-subsistence  farms  in  the  new  Member  States  –  product 
tourism,  business 
development,  preservation  of 
development,  village  renewal,  cultural  heritage  and  the  provision  of  essential 
services. These types of support work in combination to enable rural areas to develop 

landscapes  and  ecosystems, 

23 

Belgium, Czech republic, Denmark, Germany, Estonia, Ireland, Spain, France, Lithuania, Luxemburg, 
Netherlands, Austria Poland, Finland, Sweden, United Kingdom. 

EN 

27 

   EN 

 
                                                 
in a balanced fashion – a need which is especially clear in various regions which are 
lagging behind. 

The added value of the CAP comes partly from the fact that it provides one common 
legal reference and policy framework. This places  a  vast  reserve  of experience and 
tested  policy  approaches  at  the  disposal  of  all  Member  States  and  regions.  It  also 
helps  to  ensure  that,  to  a  large  extent,  Member  States  follow  common  aims  with 
regard to farming and rural areas, instead of implementing separate national policies 
which could compete with and partially nullify each other.  

The  added  value  of  the  CAP  in  this  context  also  lies  in  financial  solidarity.  A 
common  policy  has  provided  the  funding  necessary  to  implement  valuable  policy 
measures across the EU. If Member States were thrown back on their own financial 
resources,  many  of  them  would  not  be  in  a  position  to  help  their  farm  sectors  and 
rural  economies  along  the  path  of  sustainable  development.  This  problem  would 
have  been  especially  acute  after  EU  enlargement,  and  there  would  have  been  a 
significant danger of over-rapid and poorly managed restructuring (e.g. with a rural 
exodus and serious damage to the environment).  

6.3. 

Bringing the barriers down 

Some of the challenges which face rural areas are intrinsically cross-border in nature, 
especially environmental challenges. As has already been mentioned, the CAP helps 
to address these challenges at the most efficient level – which is the level of the EU. 

This  support  comes  especially  through  the  "Leader  approach",  which  focuses  on 
innovative solutions designed by a wide range of people who perceive that they have 
a common interest. 

Transnational Cooperation in the Wine Sector: promoting local wine products and 
businesses (Luxembourg, France, Germany)  

High  quality  wine  has  been  produced  in  the  Moselle  valley  for  some  2  000  years. 
The  valley  covers  3  countries  and  local  producers  all  face  similar  problems: 
unpredictable climate, difficult terrain and a challenging market for wines. Realising 
their mutual interests are based on strengthening competitiveness in their local wine 
sectors,  producers  from  Leader  territories  supported  under  the  rural  development 
policy (local action groups) located on the Luxembourg, German and French banks 
of the River Moselle decided to set-up a TNC (transnational cooperation) project to 
work on the topic. 

Core objectives are: 1) Initiate and sustain transnational collaboration between local 
vintners  and  wine-growers;  2)  Increase  the  value-added  of  local  products  through 
cross-border actions (evaluation, processing, presentation and marketing) in support 
of Moselle wine from this unique landscape; 3) Maintain a European wine cultural 
landscape, and; 4) Create a cross-border identity for vintners and wine producers in 
this famous European valley.  

Early  business  development  outcomes  from  the  Leader  initiative  identified 
opportunities for making use of the Moselle wines’ distinctive international identity. 
Results  are  helping  the  Terroir  Moselle  partners  to  promote  their  products  as  “the 
most European of all wines” – so called because of their tri-country characteristics. 

EN 

28 

   EN 

 
This  unique  selling  point  is  now  being  used  as  an  advertising  tool  and  special 
attention is given to markets outside the Moselle region. 

The EU budget contributes €137500 to this  project out of a total cost of €250000. 

6.4. 

Critical mass  

The  creation  of  quality  labels  such  as  geographical  indications  and  the  EU  organic 
farming  logo  has  helped  generate  a  critical  mass  of  quality  and  safe  products  all 
across  the  EU.  The  harmonised  legal  framework  and  incentives  have  motivated 
farmers  to  develop  a  common  type  of  market,  which  shares  similar  characteristics 
and standards demanded by EU consumers. The role of the CAP in supporting local 
farmers  to  create  quality  and  environmentally  friendly  products  (e.g.  organic 
products) and develop a market for them was crucial, and now many other farmers 
have been encouraged to follow this kind type of production. 

7. 

EUROPEAN ADDED VALUE IN EDUCATION 

Different strengths and different traditions give Europe an opportunity to harvest real 
gains  from  pooled  experience  in  education  and  training.  But  this  potential  is  best 
unlocked through mobility and mobility can only be effectively handled at EU level. 
It  cannot  be  delivered  unless  there  is  an  EU-wide  network  capable  of  turning  the 
strong demand for student mobility into reality. 

The added value of Union level support comes from the transnational character of 
the activities in the field of education and training that are additional to national or 
regional support structures.  

• 

• 

Offering individuals the opportunity to experience other countries and cultures 
not  only  improves  their  employability  but  also  promotes  a  more  European-
minded, flexible and mobile workforce that improves Europe's competitiveness 
and innovation potential.  

Increasing the mobility capacity of workers across fragmented labour markets 
has an impact on the structural employment rates in an area of free movement 
of capital.  

Only  EU  programmes  can  guarantee  that  all  Member  States  can  benefit  from 
mobility  and  exchanges  of  good  practices  in  this  field.  In  addition,  the  European 
action ensures optimal dissemination of results.  

The Erasmus Programme 

Erasmus  devotes  €500  million  annually  to  part-funding  the  transnational  learning 
mobility  of  university  students  and  staff.  Since  1987,  with  very  low  administrative 
costs, the programme has provided grants to more than 2  million  students; today it 
supports over 200 000 Erasmus students every year, and the 3 million mark should 
be achieved by 2013. Erasmus also support over 40 000 members of university staff 
every  year.  The  programme  enhances  the  skills,  adaptability  and  employability  of 
students,  strengthening  the  openness  and  efficiency  of  labour  markets;  it  enhances 

EN 

29 

   EN 

 
professional  development  for  staff  members,  improving  the  effectiveness  of 
European higher education. 

Beyond  promoting  personal  development,  Erasmus  represents  strong  European 
added  value:  it  has  triggered  systemic  changes  in  European  higher  education 
institutions. The programme has led universities to strengthen and systematise their 
management of international cooperation, which in turn has led to the creation of the 
European  Higher  Education  Area  (EHEA)  via  the  Bologna  Process.  With  47 
participating  countries,  the  EHEA  now  stretches  far  beyond  Europe's  borders, 
enhances  the  convergence  of  degree  structures  (Bachelor-Master-Doctorate),  and 
facilitates the mutual recognition of studies carried out abroad (ECTS credit transfer 
system).  Erasmus  also  contributes  directly  to  the  consolidation  of  mobility 
infrastructure  for  the  1.5  million  young  Europeans  who  study  outside  their  home 
country, who represent over half the number of foreign students worldwide whereas 
the EU represents less than 10% of the world population. 

E-Twinning  

This  is  an  excellent  example  of  strong  EU  added  value  and  impact  combined  with 
cost-effectiveness. With a small annual budget of around €10 million, eTwinning has 
successfully  brought  together  33  participating  countries  and  created  an  active  and 
constantly growing community of over 130 000 teachers. With eTwinning, teachers 
from across the EU and beyond communicate, share resources, experience and good 
practice,  and  set  up  projects  with  their  pupils  in  a  safe  internet  environment.  More 
than  5000  eTwinning  projects,  involving  over  12  500  schools  and  around  225  000 
pupils are currently running. 

Rather  than  directly  financing  individual  projects,  eTwinning  provides  a  virtual 
infrastructure for transnational networking, training and support, which has two key 
impacts.  Firstly,  costs  are  kept  to  a  minimum  (€76  per  teacher,  €44  per  pupil),  as 
eTwinning  is  a  catalyst  for  developing  European  cooperation  projects  which  are 
funded nationally. These projects often receive media attention and recognition and 
are  thus  highly  visible;  value-for-money  increases  yearly,  as  an  increase  in  the 
number  of  projects  and  activities  does  not  require  an  increase  in  the  EU  budget 
contribution. Secondly, with its very large participation, eTwinning provides strong 
EU added value by contributing to objectives shared by all Member States, including 
ICT  uptake  and  pedagogical  innovation.  The  eTwinning  platform  also  ensures 
systemic  impact  as  it  facilitates  institutional  modernisation  and  transnational 
partnerships  between  education  providers.  The  scope  of  the  eTwinning  platform 
could be extended beyond the schools sector in the next generation of EU education 
programmes. 

The Baculit project (reading literacy) 

The  level  of  reading  literacy  skills  among  school  students  across  the  EU  is  not 
improving, and in some cases is even declining. At a very small cost of €300 000, the 
Baculit  pilot  project  of  the  Comenius  Programme  brings  together  partners  from  8 
Member States to promote reading literacy.  

EN 

30 

   EN 

 
 
 
The project has significant potential to foster transnational cooperation and impact, at 
a  very  low  cost:  every  year,  on  a  very  conservative  estimate,  the  project's  teachers 
training  module  will  reach  an  average  of  700  subject  teachers  in  each  participant 
country; more importantly: since teachers are multipliers, at a cost of only €1.5 per 
student, the Baculit project will change the way in which 70 000 pupils in the eight 
countries get support to meet the reading challenges of secondary education. Beyond 
this, the project will have strong EU added value, by leading to the establishment, for 
the  first  time  ever,  of  an  overall  curriculum  and  a  minimal  standard  for  in-service 
training in reading skills for teachers. 

8. 

EUROPEAN ADDED VALUE IN CULTURE AND MEDIA 

8.1. 

Notion of EU added value in culture and media 

Cultural  cooperation  at  EU  level  seeks  to  ensure  that  culture  makes  its  full 
contribution to both a competitive economy and an inclusive society. As provided in 
the Treaties, action by the EU shall be aimed at encouraging the cooperation between 
its  Member  States  so  that  it  contributes  to  the  flowering  of  their  cultures  while 
respecting their national and regional diversity, and at the same time bringing their 
common  cultural  heritage  to  the  fore.  The  action  by  the  Union  is  therefore 
complementary to, supporting of and supplementing action by the Member States. At 
the  international  level,  the  Union  plays  the  role  of  partner  in  the  preservation  and 
promotion  of  cultural  diversity  as  well  as  in  the  development  of  dialogue  between 
peoples and cultures. 

The essential added value of the Culture Programme is its contribution to a greater 
awareness of the existence of a common European heritage, to intercultural dialogue, 
to awareness of the diversity and richness of European cultures, the promotion of the 
transnational mobility of artists/cultural professional and of their works. In line with 
the Europe 2020 strategy, creative industries supported by EU action (e.g. European 
Capitals of Culture, translation of fiction, EU Prizes, etc) contribute to innovation, to 
jobs creation and to local and regional development.  

The  main  community  instrument  in  this  domain  is  the  MEDIA  2007  programme 
(2007-2013),  the  objectives  of  which  are  to  strengthen  the  competitiveness  of  the 
European  audiovisual  industry,  to  encourage  the  transnational  circulation  of 
European audiovisual  works  and to reduce imbalances between  European countries 
to preserve and enhance cultural diversity. The audiovisual sector is rapidly growing 
under  the  influence  of  new  technologies,  new  players  and  an  increasing  number  of 
participating  countries.  The  programme  supports  training  for  professionals,  the 
development  and  the  cross-border  circulation  of  European  audiovisual  works  (e.g. 
300 new films representing 50% of European films displayed on screen every year) 
in  highly  fragmented  national  markets  that  suffer  from  the  lack  of  financing  and 
capitalisation.  

Support to films 

"The King's Speech": the film received four Oscars at the 83rd Academy Awards 
ceremony  in  Hollywood.  It  scooped  the  big  prizes  for  Best  Picture,  Best  Director 
(Tom  Hooper),  Best  Actor  (Colin  Firth)  and  best  original  screenplay  (David 

EN 

31 

   EN 

 
Seidler).The project received €562 000 in distribution support from the EU MEDIA 
fund for cinema. Tom Hooper made 'The King's Speech' on a shoe-string budget by 
Hollywood standards, for less than €11 m illion. The funding the film received from 
MEDIA aims to encourage distribution outside the country where it was made – in 
this case, outside the UK. 

"In a Better World": this is the third Danish film to win the best foreign language 
category  after  'Babette's  Feast'  (1987)  and  'Pelle  the  Conqueror'  (1988),  received 
€540  000  from  MEDIA  for  distribution  suppor t.  Two  other  EU-backed  films  were 
also nominated for Oscars – 'Dogtooth' (Yorgos Lanthimos, Greece, best foreign film 
category)  was  awarded  €21  000,  and  'The  I llusionist'  (director:  Sylvain  Chomet, 
UK/France, best animation category) received €126,000 

The  new  Media  Mundus  programme  supports  cooperation  between  professionals 
from the EU and from third countries. It will provide consumers with a larger choice 
by bringing more culturally diverse products to European and international markets 
and will create new business opportunities.  

As from 2011 the new MEDIA Production Guarantee Fund is operational. This is 
an instrument aimed at supporting and facilitating the access of the professionals of 
European audiovisual companies to bank credits. 

8.2. 

The economic impact of EU action in this field 

The added value of action at EU level measured throughout the leverage effect of the 
MEDIA  2007  programme  is  very  significant.  Despite  a  limited  annual  budget  of 
€100  million  i.e.  around  0,1%  of  the  size  of  the  market,  MEDIA  has  achieved 
significant results by targeting its actions on specific areas.  

One  can  estimate  that  one  euro  from  the  Media  Programme  invested  in  the 
distribution of a project triggers the generation of €6 from  private financing sources. 
Without  the  EU  intervention,  neither  the  decreasing  market  share  of  the  European 
cinema (30% worldwide) nor the still modest distribution of non-national European 
films (9% EU-wide) would resist global competition and both would be considerably 
lower. 

– 

– 

For  example  through  the  network  Europa  Cinema,  MEDIA  supports  the 
programming  of  European  films  in  European  cinemas.  The  network  includes 
1813  screens  across  the  32  countries  members  of  the  MEDIA  Programme, 
representing  20%  of  first-run  screens  available  in  Europe.  Their  quality 
programming has attracted 59 million admissions (against 30 million in 2000) 
representing  5.6%  of  total  admissions  in  Europe  (2,8%  in  2000)  and  11%  of 
admissions to European films. 

The  proportion  of  non-national  European  films  programmed  in  the  network 
reaches 36%), against an average of 7-8% in Europe. European films account 
for  57%  of  admissions  to  Europa  Cinema  screenings,  against  a  European 
average  of  21.1%  .  On  the  basis  of  that  difference,  it  can  be  estimated  that 
without  MEDIA  support,  admissions  to  European  films  would  decrease  from 
33  million  to  16  million,  representing  a  €  100  million  loss  for  the  European 
film industry as a whole.  

EN 

32 

   EN 

 
The  multiplier  effect  of  the  MEDIA  support  in  the  cinema  theatres  sector  can  be 
estimated at € 13 revenue generated for each euro invested. 

9. 

EUROPEAN ADDED VALUE IN ENVIRONEMENT AND CLIMATE ACTION 

Most environmental problems have a cross-border or transnational nature and cannot 
be solved by Member States acting alone without international cooperation. Member 
States  need  to  join  forces  and  create  partnerships  with  stakeholders  to  tackle  these 
problems which, if not solved, may later come at a great cost for the EU as whole. 
The LIFE programme attracts partnerships that otherwise would be difficult to set up 
ensuring  a  more  effective  intervention  than  Member  States  individual  action  by  an 
increased pooling of resources and expertise.  

Some EU environmental problems are better addressed at regional or local level, also 
because some EU environmental assets are much more localised while other issues, 
such  as  climate  changes,  are  global  by  nature.  Local  solutions  can  be  replicated  in 
other  areas  or  transferred  to  sectors  facing  similar  problems.  LIFE  provides  the 
platform  for  development  and  exchange  of  best  practices  and  knowledge-sharing 
allowing  Member  States  and  stakeholders  to  learn  from  each  other  and  address  the 
environmental problem more efficiently.  

Environmental assets are unevenly distributed across the EU but benefit the whole of 
the  EU.  The  EU  level  the  legal  obligation  to  preserve  them  calls  for  a  consistent 
application of the principle of responsibility sharing and solidarity. 

LIFE  helps  Member  States  and  stakeholders  to  accelerate  and  improve  the 
implementation  of  EU  legislation  by  finding  more  cost-effective  ways  to  address 
environmental  problems  and  by  creating  synergies  across  EU  funds  and  national 
funds  while  levering  in  additional  national  and  private  sector  funds  to  ensure  the 
continuation of activities financed under  LIFE or expanding their results. LIFE has 
created  partnerships  between  different  Member  States'  authorities  and  specialists  in 
communication  to  develop  campaigns  that  raise  awareness  among  authorities, 
citizens  and  the  private  sector  on  the  need  to  adopt  more  sustainable  practices. 
Without  LIFE,  the  geographical  impact  of  such  campaigns  would  have  been  much 
more limited. 

The PERBIOF project 

Wastewater treatment plants face recurrent problems such as sludge production and 
toxicity of treated effluents in the tannery sector. The PERBIOF project developed at 
demonstration scale an innovative technology for treating municipal and/or industrial 
wastewater. The high compactness of the plant in comparison with traditional plants 
meant the footprint is only 25% of that of a standard plant and sludge production is 
about  one  thirtieth  of  the  amount  produced  by  a  traditional  plant.  Although 
investment costs are 10% higher than for a standard plant, operating costs are one-
third of those of a standard plant.  

With a contribution of €625.000 over 3 years fr om the LIFE programme, this project 
is due to generate €72 million per year in cost savings by the tannery industry. The 
project yields a Net Present Value (NPV) over 10 years, discounted at 4%, of €655 

EN 

33 

   EN 

 
million. This is equivalent to over €1,000 in benefits generated for every €1 spent in 
the LIFE programme.  

EN 

34 

   EN 

 
Changing behaviours 

European day 'In town, without my car?' (subsequently becoming the European 
Mobility Week): In 2002, the campaign succeeded in establishing a truly European 
initiative with 320 cities from 21 countries taking part in European Mobility Week. 
A  second  event  held  in  September  2003  consisted  of  a  week-long  series  of 
awareness-raising  events  focusing  on  various  aspects  of  sustainable  mobility. 
Mobility Week succesfully continues taking place in Europe and is now spreading to 
the rest of the world via grassroots networks. 

The European Week of Waste Reduction. The LIFE project EWWR aims to reduce 
the amount of waste generated in the EU by mobilising all relevant actors in a EU-
wide awareness-raising campaign and changing behaviours of different stakeholders 
in  their  waste  generation.  Five  Member  States  have  joined  together  to  develop  a 
common  strategy  as  well  as  tools  to  carry  out  awareness-raising  activities  on 
recycling around the EU over one week every year. In 2009, 2,672 initiatives were 
carried  out,  in  2010  there  were  4,346  in  24  countries  reflecting  the  success  of  the 
event. In 2011 expectations are even higher. 

10. 

EUROPEAN ADDED VALUE IN HEALTH AND CONSUMERS 

10.1.  Health 

The value of investing in preparedness, prevention and coordination of measures on 
health  threats  and  communicable  diseases  at  EU  level  was  clearly  demonstrated  in 
the  H1N1  outbreak  in  2009.  Strengthening  the  capacity  to  manage  serious  cross 
border health threats, as well as the joint procurement of pandemic vaccines is also 
an area where significant EU added value can be obtained. The EU can also deliver 
significant  benefits  on  cross-border  issues  such  as  cross  border  healthcare,  health 
inequalities  and  from  developing  strategies  to  counter  growing  anti  microbial 
resistance,  development  of  cost-effective  health  technologies  and  innovative 
healthcare,  and  the  promotion  of  healthy  ageing  through  an  European  Innovation 
Partnership. 

Actions under the Public Health programme complement and add value to Member 
States'  actions  in  the  area  of  health  promotion  and  prevention  of  illness  (including 
work  e.g.  on  nutrition  and  smoking;  reduction  of  inequalities  in  health  care), 
protection of citizens against health threats, in particular pandemic preparedness, the 
safety  of  medical  products,  blood,  tissues,  cells  and  organs)  and  co-operation 
between health systems.  

Rare  diseases  are  diseases  with  a  particularly  low  prevalence  affecting  not  more 
than 5 out of 10 000 persons in the European Union. This means that between 5.000 
and  8.000  different  rare  diseases  affect  or  will  affect  an  estimated  6-8%  of  the  EU 
population  which  translates  into  29-36  million  people  in  the  European  Union.  The 
specificities  of  rare  diseases  -  limited  number  of  patients  and  scarcity  of  relevant 
knowledge and expertise - single them out as a unique domain of very high European 
added-value.  

EN 

35 

   EN 

 
The ORPHANET data base 

The  Orphanet  database,  funded  by  the  European  Commission  (€6  million)  allows 
access  to  information  about  5.868  rare  diseases.  Any  patient  or  health  professional 
can receive information about all the clinics, hospitals and specialists able to treat the 
disease throughout Europe as well as information on available orphan drugs, ongoing 
clinical trials, best practices sheets, patient's associations, registers, etc. This type of 
effort is impossible to do at national level and permits  sharing  knowledge  and  best 
practices for every rare disease. European cooperation can help to ensure that scarce 
knowledge can be shared and resources combined as efficiently as possible, in order 
to tackle rare diseases effectively across the EU as a whole.  

The creation and operation of the data base cost €6 million. For a cost of €0.20 for 
each of the 30 million EU citizens suffering from a rare disease, this enables access 
to  the  data  base  allowing  for  better  information  on  management  and  cure  of  the 
disease.  

Cooperating on cross-border diseases such as H1N1 flu also cannot be undertaken 
by individual Member States, and depends on initiatives and funding at EU level. In 
the area of health threats, EU's role, beyond the coordination of the answers to theses 
threats, is also to enhance the capacities of the Member States and of third countries 
to answer these threats. The rapid and coordinated answer to global health threats is 
also EU's role.  

The  Public  Health  Programme  has  developed  and  strengthened  networks  among 
European  health  specialists,  national  and  regional  health  authorities  and  other 
stakeholders  that  greatly  contribute  to  knowledge  sharing  and  building  health 
capacity  in  the  EU.  It  also  builds  consortia,  partnerships  and  other  forms  of 
interchange  of  information  and  practices  across  Europe,  thus  boosting  cooperation 
and  the  pace  of  research.  The  outcomes  of  the  projects  and  actions  funded  by  the 
Public Health Programme constitute the most effective, if not the only way to build 
the  evidence  base  for  defining  much  broader  regulatory  policies  (for  instance  on 
cancer, Alzheimer, rare diseases and health inequalities). 

The cancer screening guidelines 

Cancer screening guidelines were developed through EU level cooperation between 
highly  qualified  experts  across  the  EU.  This  could  not  have  been  achieved  by 
Member  States  operating  separately  and  individually  without  substantial  financial 
and  human  resources  inputs.  The  guidelines  now  represent  the  official  health  care 
quality standard at European level. By implementing the Guidelines Member States 
have the potential to organize their health systems more effectively and efficiently.  

The guidelines have been implemented in the Member States to mandate population-
based  screening  programmes  thus  improving  the  diagnosis  and  management  of 
cancer. Early detection can save billions of euros in subsequent care.  

The cost of development at EU level of the guidelines on breast and cervical cancer 
screening was €21 million. Had the guidelines been developed at the level of the 27 
Member  States  it  would  have  cost  significantly  more  and  resulted  in  27  different 

EN 

36 

   EN 

 
guidelines in the 27 Member States. For a cost of less than €0.05 each EU citizen has 
the  comfort  of  knowing  there  is  a  standard  for  early  screening  and  detection  of 
cancer. 

In the area of animal health, major animal diseases can have a devastating economic 
impact,  and  can  also  impact  on  public  health.  Diseases  do  not  stop  at  borders.  The 
EU  allocates  around  €300  million  per  year 
to  co-finance  annual  or  multi-annual 
programmes to control and eradicate a number of diseases. Despite the emergence of 
new  diseases  such  as  bluetongue,  the  EU  health  status  has  continuously  improved, 
also  in  the  new  Member  States,  with  a  positive  impact  on  the  functioning  of  the 
internal market in live animals and food of animal origin, on EU export possibilities 
and on consumer confidence. Support at EU level is important as the impact is cross-
border whereas the costs are to be shouldered generally by one Member State alone. 

Fighting swine fewer 

Classical  swine  fever  is  a  major  disease  of  pigs  and  wild  boar  which  caused 
devastating  outbreaks  in  the  1990s  in  several  EU  Member  States.  The  direct  and 
indirect losses from the outbreak in the Netherlands in 1997-1998 were estimated at 
around  €2  billion.  Since  the  mid-1990s  the  EU  allocated  around  €218  million  for 
emergency  eradication  and  surveillance.  The  disease  situation  has  improved 
considerably,  with  no  major  outbreak  during  the  last  ten  years,  leading  to  a  virtual 
eradication of the disease in most of the EU, and a substantial improvement also in 
the new Member States. This intervention has led to major savings: each euro spent 
at EU level has a potential cost savings of at least €9 for the budgets of the Member 
States. 

The European Union Reference Laboratories (EU-RLs)24 

A network of European Union and National reference laboratories (EU-RLs) dealing 
with  major  animal  diseases  has  been  set  up  with  scientific  and  technical  expertise 
within the areas of animal health, public health and zootechnics. In order to protect 
public  health,  potentially  hazardous  residues  and  contaminants  are  put  under 
vigorous scrutiny and strict authorisation procedures for new additives and crops for 
feed and food production are in place. The aim of EU-RLs is to guarantee uniform 
detection,  quantification  and  authorisation  procedures.  The  activities  of  EU-RLs 
cover all the areas of feed and food law and animal health. The main objective of the 
EU-RLs  is  to  contribute  to  a  high  quality  and  uniformity  of  results  obtained  in  the 
various official food and feed control laboratories throughout the European Union.  

EU-RLs  also  represent  a  unique  platform  for  information  exchange  on  analytical 
methodology and quality assurance tools for control laboratories. Together with the 
network of NRLs, they provide a pool of knowledge and facilities that makes them 
best placed to handle emerging issues.  

In  the  area  of  plant  health,  outbreaks  of  serious  plant  diseases  may  cause  major 
losses  to  agriculture,  the  EU  economy,  environment  and  landscape.  Such  problems 

24 

http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/diseases/laboratories/index_en.htm#list 

EN 

37 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
can rapidly spread between Member States with intra-EU trade and impact the entire 
EU market. A weakness in any part of the chain in the internal market may result in 
spread of harmful organisms in the entire internal market. 

Member States may receive EU co-financing for expenditures relating to eradication 
and  containment  of  regulated  harmful  organisms  of  plants.  Large-scale  eradication 
actions by Member States for outbreaks are very difficult without EU support as an 
individual Member State has to bear large costs the effect of which to much extent 
are in the benefit of other Member States and the Union as a whole. 

Pine wood nematode 

For plant pests of major importance to the Union such as pine wood nematode, the 
eradication  costs  of  Member  States  are  in  the  range  of  €1  to  €10  million  per 
outbreak.  The  EU  contribution  approved  since  the  start  (1999)  is  €27  million  for 
assisting  in  the  eradication  of  this  pest.  Studies  show  that  10-13  million  ha  of  pine 
forest in the south of Europe is threatened with a mortality of 50-90% and an annual 
economic loss for the Union of up to €400 m illion and a cumulative loss over the life 
cycle of the endangered forest of up to €90 billion. Thes e amounts do not include the 
effects  on  the  related  wood  industry  nor  the  effects  of  expected  quarantine  trade 
restrictions by third countries.  

Inaction at EU level in animal and plant health would undermine the internal market 
for  the  most  basic  of  consumer  goods  –  food.  Each  Member  State  would  have  its 
own  standards  and  control  leading  to  a  fragmentation  in  the  free  flow  of  food  and 
animal  products  thus  undermining  the  sustained  growth  and  potential  of  the  largest 
industry in the EU – the agro-food industry. 

10.2.  Consumer Policy 

EU actions and coordination is essential to ensure that products in the Single Market 
are  safe,  that  consumers  are  provided  with  the  right  information,  can  get  access  to 
redress  when  things  go  wrong  and  have  their  rights  enforced  when  buying  cross-
border.  The  essential  coordinating  role  of  the  EU  in  consumer  policy  depends  on 
initiatives  and  funding  at  EU  level.  Without  this  coordinating  role,  Member  States' 
actions  would  naturally  be  confined  to  their  national  borders  and  the  single  market 
for  consumers  and  businesses  that  the  EU  is  aimed  at  strengthening  would  be 
undermined. Moreover the high level of consumer protection in Union policies that is 
advocated by the Charter of Fundamental Rights would not be assured. 

The  European  added  value  of  consumer  policy  spending  is  particularly  visible  in 
terms  of  increasing  consumer  safety,  providing  consumers  with  information  and 
education  on  their  rights,  ensuring  redress  and  enforcement  of  consumer  rights 
through  coordinated  actions  throughout  the  EU.  For  example,  the  financing  of 
European  consumer  organisations  representing  consumer  interests  at  EU  level  and 
the  gathering  of  evidence  through  scoreboards  and  in-depth  market  studies  ensures 
that  consumer  interests  and  consumer  protection  requirements  are  known  and  are 
taken  into  account  in  defining  and  implementing  EU  policies  and  activities  as 
prescribed by the Lisbon Treaty.   

EN 

38 

   EN 

 
Through the EU budget the Commission supports the coordination of actions in the 
Member States in the field of consumer product safety and runs an EU database for 
rapid  alert  on  dangerous  consumer  products  (RAPEX).  Coordinated  actions  for 
ensuring  safety  at  source  are  also  undertaken  in  cooperation  with  the  main  world 
trading  partners,  notably  China  and  the  US.  The  enforcement  of  product  safety  by 
Member States requires coordination at the EU level to ensure effectiveness in ever 
more complex markets and supply chains across Europe and the world. Compared to 
a  series  of  individual  actions  by  the  Member  States,  EU  action  allows  filling  in 
information gaps and avoiding disparities in the Single Market. 

RAPEX 

The  number  of  measures  taken  against  dangerous  products  and  reported  through 
RAPEX  by  Member  States  is  constantly  increasing;  in  2010,  in  total  2,244 
notifications were sent (a 13% increase compared to 2009). Main product categories 
for notifications were in 2010: clothing and textiles, toys and motor vehicles. Most 
common risks: injuries, chemical and strangulation. 

RAPEX also enables the EU to support with good data the requests made to China to 
improve the quality and safety of Chinese origin products placed on the EU market.  
This is important knowing that China is the country of origin in approximately 60 % 
of  the  RAPEX  notifications  and  in  some  categories  (e.g.  toys)  the  figure  is  even 
higher.  Up  to  day,  in  total  5469  RAPEX  notifications  were  submitted  to  Chinese 
authorities for a follow-up. So far, Chinese authorities have reported conclusions of 
their investigations carried out with regard to 1,386 notifications; in 795 investigated 
cases,  Chinese  authorities  decided  to  take  restrictive  measures,  including  an  export 
ban. 

Regarding information to consumers on their EU rights across the Single Market the 
network of European Consumer Centres has proven particularly effective. 

The network of European Consumer Centres  

The  ECC-Net  was  established  and  is  co-financed  at  50%  by  the  Commission  at  an 
annual cost of around 3.5 million Euros. It provides a unique European network to 
inform citizens about their rights when shopping across-borders; and to support them 
in  seeking  redress  with  a  trader  in  another  EU  Member  State  (plus  Iceland  and 
Norway)  when  something  goes  wrong.  Governmental  structures  and  national  civil 
associations do not help consumers in cross-border cases. The system works because 
the network covers all Member States (EU dimension). Considering that the Member 
States'  actions  normally  target  the  national  market  only,  there  would  be  no  similar 
support to consumers shopping cross-border without action at EU level. 

In  2009,  cross-border  expenditure  amounted  to  175  billion  euros  in  the  EU.  The 
amount  spent  by  consumers  on  cross-border  internet  shopping  is  estimated  at  30 
billion  euros  for  the  same  year.  In  total,  these  expenditures  represent  1.75%  of  EU 
GDP.    As  the  total  detriment  suffered  by  EU  consumers  amounts  to  0.4%,  the 
detriment  related  to  cross  border  shopping  (including  internet)  can  be  estimated 
between 500 million and 1 billion euros. 

EN 

39 

   EN 

 
In  2010,  ECCs  helped  consumers  clarify  their  claims  for  an  amount  of  14  million 
euros, and the volume of cases handled by the network has increased by more than 
25% over the last 5 years. The services of the ECCs present a positive cost-benefit 
balance.  Every  Euro  invested  helped  consumers  to  settle  1.77  Euro  worth  of 
complaints  and  contributed  also  to  the  establishment  of  a  level  playing  field  for 
business operators. 

11. 

EUROPEAN ADDED VALUE IN TRANSPORT 

Trans-European networks in transport are some of the best examples of the value the 
EU  can  bring  to  its  citizens  and  its  Member  States.  The  Trans-European  Transport 
Network  (TEN-T)  covers  road,  rail  and  inland  waterway  networks,  seaports  and 
inland  waterway  ports,  airports  and  other  interconnection  points  between  modal 
networks. As the full functioning of the internal market and the achievement of the 
Europe 2020 strategy depend on access to transport infrastructure for individuals and 
companies, EU funding helps to join up missing links and remove bottlenecks. 

TEN-T  complements  national  funding:  in  transport,  the  EU  budget  finances  EU 
public goods with strong interdependencies that Member States and regions could or 
would  otherwise  not  finance  themselves,  or  where  it  can  secure  better  results.  The 
TEN-T  Programme  has  a  budget  of  €8  billi on  for  the  current  financial  framework 
(2007-2013).  Cross-border  infrastructure  links  up  Member  States'  networks  and 
complete  connections  that  would  not  otherwise  exist.  The  European  dimension  of 
TEN-T  policy  can  maximise  the  efficiency  and  effectiveness  of  Member  States' 
finances and help reduce their total expenditure.  

The development of effective transport networks is central to a successful economy. 
Competitiveness gains in other sectors can be squandered if infrastructure is dogged 
by problems like congestion. As the European economy has become more integrated, 
the  costs  of  poor  infrastructure  have  grown  and  the  cross-border  deficiencies  have 
become  more  obvious.  Allocating  resources  at  European  level  is  the  only  way  to 
redress the natural preference for directing national spending to schemes which start 
and finish within national boundaries. It also provides an opportunity to help the less-
developed  economies  of  Europe  to  develop  infrastructure  of  benefit  to  all  Member 
States. 

TEN-T  makes  a  key  contribution  to  growth  and  jobs.  Infrastructure  investment 
spending creates about 18,000 jobs for every $ 1 billion in new investment spending 
(direct, indirect and induced jobs).  

The Oresund fixed link 

The  Öresund  bridge  is  a  combined  two  track  rail  and  four  lane  road  bridge-tunnel 
across the Öresund straight. It is the longest combined road and rail bridge in Europe. 

Works started in 1995 and the link was open to traffic on 1 July 2000. The project 
cost  was  €2.7  billion  and  there  were  no  budget  overruns.  All  funds  for  planning, 
designing, building and operating the Øresund link as a whole are covered by road 
and rail fees. The repayment period is approximately 30 years. 

EN 

40 

   EN 

 
Rail  travel  has  developed  quickly  with  a  growth  of  230%  since  2001  with  11.2 
million  passengers  in  2009.  The  construction  of  Citybanan  in  Malmö  and  the 
perspective of the Swedish high-speed trains will greatly increase the connecting rail 
capacity. 

In 2009, 7 million vehicles crossed the Øresund Bridge. The high increase in traffic 
is mainly a result of the increased integration between the areas in both sides of the 
link. The traffic across the bridge has increased 10 to 16 percent each year since the 
opening, although in last two years, the recession has had an impact on the growth 
rates in traffic. 

An important aspect of the Øresund regionalisation is that an increasing number of 
businesses have activities on the other side of Øresund. 10 Nordic headquarters were 
located in Scania and 18 Nordic headquarters were located in Copenhagen. The most 
successful  examples  of  cooperation  are  the  Øresund  University  and  the  Øresund 
Science Region. The Øresund fixed link demonstrates at what point infrastructure is 
the basis for the good functioning of the Internal Market. 

The EU budget contributed €127 million to this project. 

TEN-T makes also a key contribution in the fight against climate change. A large 
share  of  TEN-T  financed  projects  are  in  more  environmentally-friendly  modes  of 
transport  and  therefore  allow  for  a  shift  of  passengers  and  freight  away  from  the 
more CO2-producing modes. 

EN 

41 

   EN 

 
The high-speed railway axis Paris – Brussels – Cologne – Amstrerdam - London 
(PBCAL) 

This  is  Europe’s  first  cross-border  high  speed  passenger  rail  project,  linking  major 
cities in France, Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. 

The  PBKAL  (Paris-Brussels-Köln-Amsterdam-London)  network  offers  substantial 
reductions  in  journey  times  between  the  five  countries  and  therefore  provides 
passengers with a real alternative to air and road transport and will make a significant 
contribution to the promotion of intermodal air-rail journeys, in line with Community 
transport  policy  objectives.  It  enables  improved  connections  between  some  of 
Europe’s key airports - Brussels, Frankfurt, Cologne/Bonn, Paris Charles de Gaulle 
and  Amsterdam  Schiphol.  The  PBKAL  is  a  Priority  Project  which  has  been 
completed with no outstanding financial or environmental problems. 

PBKAL is currently used by three international operators: Thalys, Eurostar and ICE 
trains,  as  well  as  fast  internal  intercity  services.  The  completion  of  the  section 
between  London  and  the  Channel  Tunnel  in  2007  has  had  a  big  impact  on  cross-
border traffic and provided a real alternative to air travel between London and cities 
in continental Europe. Eurostar has become the dominant operator in cross-channel 
intercity  passenger  travel  on  the  routes  that  it  operates,  carrying  more  passengers 
than all airlines combined. A large segment of Thalys's total sales and income comes 
from  the  connection  between  Paris  and  Brussels.  Airline  companies  no  longer 
provide this service, as taking the train is faster than flying. The number of Eurostar 
and Thalys passengers increased from 6.5 millions in 1995 to 15.3 millions in 2009. 

The EU TEN-T provided €720 million in funding  while the EIB lent €1.8 billion on a 
total project cost of €17.3 billion. 

12. 

EUROPEAN ADDED-VALUE IN CUSTOMS AND TAXATION 

12.1.  Customs Union 

The EU customs union has been in place for more than 40 years and has generated 
added  value  far  beyond  the  remit  of  European  customs  policy.  In  addition  to 
collecting customs and agricultural duties for EU Member States and the EU budget 
(exceeding  €20  billion/year),  it  supports  Member  States  in  the  collection  of  VAT, 
excise duties and other revenue and ensures the control of exports in order to avoid 
undue VAT or excise refunds. Furthermore, it directly controls and implements other 
EU policies such as transport, agriculture, sanitary or environmental measures. The 
customs  union  increasingly  manages  the  growing  task  of  ensuring  that  goods 
entering or leaving the EU territory are safe for consumers and the environment. The 
customs union is also the frontline for ensuring the security of the supply-chain, the 
fight against smuggling and fraud, and the enforcement of intellectual property rights 
(IPR) at the border.  

In  managing  the  flow  of  goods,  Member  States  are  subject  to  different  levels  of 
burden in implementing the customs union, depending on geographical and historical 
factors such as key trade routes, type and extent of external borders (maritime, land, 
air) or regional exposure to smuggling and fraud. In contrast to the unevenness of the 

EN 

42 

   EN 

 
burden of implementing the customs union, the benefits of the customs union, inside 
an  internal  market  with  fully  free  movement  of  goods,  are  common  and  shared 
among the people of Europe.  

Taking account of the considerable and unique value added to the Member States 
and  the  EU  that  the  customs  union  provides,  there  is  a  need  for  financial  support 
from the EU budget. Concretely, €1 euro invested cen trally through the EU can 
generate a saving of € 4 for the Member States .  

The Customs 2013 programme 

With a budget of €324 million over the period 2008-2013, the Customs programme 
is  a  key  EU  tool  that  enables  the  customs  union  to  function  seamlessly  as  one, 
instead of a patchwork of 27 implementing administrations. The Programme allows, 
among  other  things,  the  national  administrations  to  handle  7  customs  declarations 
every  second,  totalling  211  million  per  year,  without  disruptions  for  imports  and 
exports.  Over  one  billion  information  messages  are  exchanged  every  year  between 
tax  as  well  as  between  customs  administrations  via  IT  systems  covered  by  the  tax 
and  customs  programmes,  with  an  average  growth  rate  of  40%  in  the  last  5  years. 
With  the  help  of  this  programme,  10  million  trucks  carrying  third  country  goods 
circulate in the EU territory annually with real-time customs control (from departure 
to arrival and clearance) via 47 million electronic information exchanges.  

The  European-wide  secure  computer  network  interconnecting  all  customs  and  tax 
administrations  costs  €11  million  per  year   but  generates  annual  savings  of  €35 
million for Member States, because they do not need to establish bilateral networks.  

The central IT system which ensures that the EU tariff rates and trade measures are 
available  online  on  a  daily  basis  (TARIC)  is  another  example  of  the  enormous 
economies  of  scale  that  can  be  achieved  through  EU  management.  Since  2007,  the 
Commission has spent €3.7 million to develop  this system. If all Member States had 
developed  their  own  systems,  costs  would  have  totalled  about  €  80  million  which 
gives an impressive ratio of 1 of 20, thanks to funding via the EU budget.  

Another  recent  example  is  the  economic  operators  system  (EOS)  which  stores 
information on 2.5 million legal entities registered in the 27 EU Member States that 
come  into  contact  with  customs  administrations.  Sharing  this  information  between 
Member States avoids the need for economic  operators  to  register  in  each  Member 
State to perform customs operations, significantly reducing red tape and the cost of 
doing business. Development of the system by the Commission cost the EU budget 
€5  million.  Had  it  been  developed  by  each  Me mber  State  separately,  an  estimated 
investment  of  €25  million  would  have  been   needed.  Entirely  electronic  handling 
(replacing  paper  for  all  dealings  with  customs  in  all  EU)  offers  further  savings 
potential. 

12.2.  Taxation 

EU tax policy focuses on the elimination of tax obstacles to all forms of cross-border 
economic activity. It also supports Member States in their fight against tax fraud. The 
operational  taxation  work  of  administrations  has  evolved  from  being  limited  to 
control  within  a  Member  State  before  the  internal  market  to  cooperation  between 

EN 

43 

   EN 

 
Member  States  after  the  establishment  of  the  internal  market.  Administrative 
cooperation  between  tax  authorities  plays  a  key  role  ‘upstream’  in  detecting  and 
preventing fraud. 

Combating VAT fraud represents a major challenge for the EU. The overall annual 
VAT tax gap (difference between theoretical and current VAT revenue) for the EU 
was calculated at € 112 billion for the year  2006. From studies made within Germany 
and UK, it appears that cross border VAT fraud is about 25% of the total VAT gap 
(around € 25 billion). Cross-border VAT fra ud would be much larger in the absence 
of  massive  electronic  exchange  of  VAT 
tax 
administrations25. This represents billions of Euros in fraud avoidance. 

information  between 

the 

Fraud avoidance – VAT 

Using  a  centralised  IT  system,  tax  officers  across  the  EU  exchange  more  than  400 
million  messages  on  VAT  on  cross  border  transactions  within  the  EU  every  year. 
With EU annual operational overall costs of less than €20 million (€6 million from 
the  FISCALIS  programme)  the  EU  budget  facilitates  the  detection  of  billions  of 
Euros in VAT avoidance 

In  the  excise  field,  since  2010,  Member  States  control  on  line26  the  more  than  2.5 
million  annual  movements  of  goods  (cigarettes,  alcohol,  energy  products)  which 
circulate under temporary duty suspension. In many EU Member States, the sale of 
untaxed alcohol and cigarettes constitutes a major problem. For example, according 
to a study undertaken by the UK approximately 5% of sales of spirit drinks were sold 
untaxed in tax year 2007 - 2008, costing 171 million euro in lost revenue per year, in 
the same year untaxed cigarettes represented between 7 and 16 % of sales between 
800 to 2 500 million euro.) 

Fraud avoidance –excise duties 

The  FISCALIS  programme  acts  as  deterrent  in  the  fight  against  excise  fraud  by 
making it much more difficult for goods under temporary suspension of duties to be 
diverted from their declared destination (about 97% of all excise movements in the 
EU are monitored). It is estimated that the benefits hugely outweigh the cost of the 
IT system (annual overall cost of €30 milli ons to which the EU budget contributes €4 
million). 

13. 

EUROPEAN ADDED VALUE IN ENLARGEMENT AND NEIGHBOURHOOD 

The  successive  enlargement  of  the  EU  is  by  its  very  nature  a common  task  which 
can be pursued only at EU level. Only the Member States acting together can decide 
on the accession requests by new candidates. The pre-accession assistance provided 
through  the  EU  budget  is  designed  to  help  candidate  countries/potential  candidates 
prepare  for  future  membership:  IPA  (Instrument  for  Pre-Accession)  is  built  to  give 
countries a “test run” of obligations of membership before accession (such as put in 

25 
26 

thanks to the VAT Information Exchange system (VIES) 
EMCS (Electronic Movement Control System) 

EN 

44 

   EN 

 
                                                 
place  institutions  for  managing  structural  and  cohesion  policies,  or  adopting  the 
instrument  can  provide  such  a 
acquis).  No  other  multilateral  or  bilateral 
comprehensive toolbox. 

Pre-accession assistance and support in the Neighbourhood region is an investment 
in  the  future  of  the  EU,  supporting  the  stability  and  prosperity  of  neighbouring 
countries;  ensuring  the  effective  capacity  of  candidate  countries  to  implement  the 
acquis  upon  accession  and  help  approximation  and  gradual  integration  in  the 
Neighbourhood  region.  Technical  and  financial  assistance  speeds  up  the  process  of 
preparation and creates incentives for the necessary transformation of the society, the 
legal  systems  and  the  economy.  Such  assistance  helps  meet  the  objectives  of  the 
internal  policies  of  the  EU,  creates  opportunities  for  EU  businesses  and  provides 
tangible return on investment.  

Without the intensive involvement and closer partnership embodied in pre-accession 
assistance and support to the Neighbourhood, the EU would certainly have to spend 
more  on  combating  illegal  migration,  securing  the  external  borders  of  the  EU, 
ensuring security of energy supply and combating the effects of climate change and 
pollution.  In  recent  years  EU  member  states  have  been  reducing  the  level  of  their 
bilateral  assistance  to  candidate  and  potential  candidate  countries,  acknowledging 
that  coordinated  action  at  EU  level  is  more  effective.  About  half  of  the  overall 
financial  assistance  of  the  EU  to  the  enlargement  countries  in  2009  came  from  the 
EU  budget.  Multilateral  donor  organisations  have  largely  phased  out  their  support 
and those that remain have now aligned their programmes to the EU's priorities. 

Regional cooperation and reconciliation in the Western Balkans 

IPA funds have been the catalyst for Western Balkan countries to embark in cross–
border  cooperation  with  the  EU  and  with  their  neighbours.  IPA  cross-border 
cooperation  is  helping  Western  Balkan  countries  to  overcome  the  legacy  of  the 
conflict of the past. 

Under  IPA,  Western  Balkans  authorities  prepared  8  bilateral  cross–border 
programmes  2007–2013  (e.g.  Croatia–Serbia,  Bosnia  Herzegovina-Montenegro, 
etc.).  Despite  the  lack  of  previous  experience  implementation  of  cross  border 
programmes  (€  86  million  in  total  for  th e  8  programmes  for  the  period  2007–13), 
resulted in extensive cooperation between Western Balkans countries, in particular at 
local and regional level. In the first four years (2007–2010) of implementation:  

• 

• 

• 

• 

13,000 people were informed/trained during awareness seminars and trainings 
on project preparation; 

calls for proposals (2007–2008 funds) were over subscribed by five times: 492 
projects were submitted for a total value of € 97 million, out of which 86 could 
be financed; 

1,800 institutions/organisations entered into partnership relations and submitted 
jointly prepared cross–border proposals; 

984 cross–border partnerships have been created. 

EN 

45 

   EN 

 
Two  more  programmes  were  recently  initiated  between  Kosovo27  and  Albania  and 
Kosovo  and  the  former  Yugoslav  Republic  of  Macedonia.  A  third  one  between 
Kosovo and Montenegro is also in the pipeline. 

At  borders  between  potential  candidate  countries  and  member  states,  IPA  provided 
the necessary funds (€276 million for 2007-2013) to match ERDF allocations on the 
EU  side  (€330  million)    to  support  9  b ilateral  (e.g.  Slovenia  –  Croatia,  Bulgaria  – 
Turkey,  etc.)  and  1  multilateral  (IPA  Adriatic:  Italy,  Slovenia,  Greece  –  Croatia, 
Bosnia Herzegovina, Montenegro, Albania) cross–border cooperation programmes.  

Neighbourhood Investment Facility (NIF) 

The use of innovative financial instruments was spearheaded in the Neighbourhood 
Region trough the creation of the Neighbourhood Investment Facility (NIF). The NIF 
is a blending instrument trough which EU budget grants leverage IFI loans to provide 
assistance in support of the ENP objectives and its regional initiatives (Union for the 
Mediterranean  (UfM),  the  Eastern  Partnership  or  the  Black  Sea  Synergy).  Since  its 
inception  in  May  2008,  the  NIF  has  been  funded  with  nearly  €308  million  grant 
resources (€245 million from the EU budget, €62.5 million from the Member States) 
and has approved grant contributions to 39 projects for a total amount of about €277 
million,  contributing  to  leverage  over  €5  billion  loans  from  European  Finance 
Institutions for a total investment cost exceeding €10 billion. The NIF has proven to 
be an effective tool for mobilizing extra support for ENP countries (East and South) 
and it has also helped promoting donor co-ordination in the Neighborhood region.  

14. 

EUROPEAN ADDED VALUE IN THE AREA OF EXTERNAL ACTION AND DEVELOPMENT 
POLICY 

The  EU  is  in  a  uniquely  neutral  and  impartial  position  to  deliver  assitance  to  thrid 
countries on behalf of and with Member States.  The critical mass of EU assistance, 
combined with the capacity to coordinate with the Member States, puts the EU in a 
better position to conduct policy dialogue with partner governments and respond to 
global challenges. Thanks to the large scale of activities and worldwide presence, the 
EU can deliver help to the poor in some of the world's most remote areas; the EU has 
a network of international agreements all over the world, not matched by individual 
Member  States,  which  gives  them  influence  in  almost  all  fields  of  international 
relations.  The  EU  can  do  more  than  other  organisations,  because  it  do  not  just 
provide  development  assistance;  it  has  a  holistic  approach  to  development  and 
external  relations,  as  well  as  large  variety  of  instruments  for  e.g.  the  promotion  of 
democracy, and mechanisms to respond to a crisis. 

The EU is therefore best placed to take on the role of global leader on behalf of its 
citizens,  in  areas  such  as  poverty  reduction,  and  assistance  to  populations  most  in 
need  following  disasters;  stability  and  prosperity  in  our  neighbourhood;  peace, 
security and crisis prevention and response, notably in most unstable countries; and 
EU values (human rights and democracy, multilateral governance system). 

27 

Under United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244/1999 

EN 

46 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Division of labour through the EU is a crucial component of its added value. With its 
network  of  international  agreements  with  partners  and  organisations  all  over  the 
world,  the  EU  is  a  natural  coordinator,  and  can  influence  almost  all  fields  of 
international relations, that individual Member States cannot do alone.  At a time of 
budgetary restrictions, a more coordinated and integrated approach between the EU 
and  its  Member  States  through  joint  programming  is  being  pursued  tobring  about 
more  added  value,  increased  strength  and  legitimacy,  and  more  impact  and 
effectiveness.  

As the world's largest donor, the EU and it's Member States provide more than half 
of total aid to developing countries. Working together as one is a priority. 

Since 2004, thanks to the EU budget, in developing countries: 

–  More than 9 million pupils have been enrolled in primary education 

–  More than 720,000 primary school teachers have been trained. 

–  More  than  85,000  new  female  students  have  been  enrolled  in  secondary

 education 

–  More than five million children have been vaccinated against measles. 

–  More than 4 million births were attended by health personnel 

–  More than 5000 health centres and facilities have been built or renewed 

– 

– 

750 000 people with HIV have received antiretroviral combination therapy 

7.7 million people have been given insecticide-treated nets 

–  More  than  31  million  people  have  been  connected  to  drinking  water  and  9 

million to sanitation facilities 

– 

36 000 km of roads have been constructed or maintained 

At last year' Millenium Development Goal Summit, the EU demonstrated once again 
that it is leading the way in helping to meet the Millennium Development Goals. The 
European  Union  confirmed  its  commitment  to  meet  the  0.7  percent  GNI  (Gross 
National Income) target by 2015 and to assess progress on this every year.  

The African Peace Facility (APF) is a prime example of how the EU can take the 
initiative on an issue, involving Member States as well. Most Member States do not 
work in this area, but through the EU they are able to channel their contributions in a 
simple  and  fast  way.  Since  2004,  the  EU  has  provided  €740  million,  helping  to 
prevent conflicts and promote stability after they have taken place.  

The  Food  Facility  is  another  unique  project  which  only  a  donor  with  the  critical 
weight of the EU was able to put in place. Established in December 2008 as a rapid 
response  to  soaring  food  prices  in  developing  countries,  it  made  an  additional  €1 
billion available for projects and programmes in 50 target countries during the period 
2009-2011.  So  far  it  has  helped  around  50  million  people.  The  Food  Facility 

EN 

47 

   EN 

 
demonstrates  Europe’s  ability  to  react  rapidly,  efficiently  and  transparently  to  a 
global food security crisis, on a scale which Member States would find not possible 
to match.  

The Vulnerability FLEX (V-FLEX), launched by the European Union in 2009, has 
helped between 40 million and 80 million people in developing countries at risk of 
absolute poverty because of the global economic crisis. €434 million out of the €500 
million allocated under the mechanism in 2009 and 2010 have been disbursed. 17 of 
the poorest African and Caribbean countries have benefited. 

Promoting sexual and reproductive health and rights in 22 African, Caribbean and 
Pacific countries 

The  European  Commission  has  provided  €32  million  in  assistance  to  22  African, 
Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries over a period of 6 years to help fight poverty 
and to increase access to and quality of sexual and reproductive health services and 
commodities  to  the  most  vulnerable  and  underserved  people.  The  programme  was 
developed  in  line  with  the  ACP-EU  Partnership  Agreement  to  promote  the 
development of a common strategic approach to poverty reduction. 

As  a  result,  more  than  1.6  million  people  received  sexual  and  reproductive  health 
services  and  some  750  professional  staff  as  well  as  3  400  volunteers  were  trained. 
More than 8 700 medical teams and 21 500 non-health professionals were trained on 
sexual  and  reproductive  health  topics  boosting  the  capacity  in  reproductive  health 
among health care workers. 

Poverty Alleviation Budget Support Programme in El Salvador (PAPES) 

El Salvador is a country with serious social and territorial imbalances. Improvement 
was needed in basic services such as education, health, nutrition and infrastructures 
(drinking water, electricity, sanitation, roads and housing), particularly in rural areas. 
The  EU  contribution  of  €37  million  for  the  period  2005-2010  benefitted  the  100 
poorest  municipalities  of  El  Salvador.  The  programme  was  run  in  partnership  with 
the  agencies  for  development  of  Spain,  Germany  and  Luxembourg,  and  some 
international organisations such as the UNDP. 

The impact has been an extension of health services to 81 municipalities benefiting 
413.000  people;  more  than  250.000  inhabitants  of  local  communities,  as  well  as 
schools,  have  benefited  (rural  roads,  schools,  health  units,  bridges);  in  the  32 
municipalities classified as in severe poverty, there has been an increase from 65% to 
77% of population with access to sanitary services; an increase from 66% to 81% of 
schools  with  access  to  electricity  and  from  57%  to  85%  of  schools  with  access  to 
drinking water. 

The  EU  also  actively  promotes  interpersonal  relations  across  continents,  to  the 
mutual benefits of the EU and partner countries. 

The Erasmus Mundus Programme 

EN 

48 

   EN 

 
 
With  a  budget  of  €900  million  over  th e  period  2004-2010,  Erasmus  Mundus  has 
supported  more  than  1000  universities  from  over  100  countries,  and  thousands  of 
students  and  scholars  from  170  countries.  The  programme  has  deployed  an 
extraordinary range of world-wide mobility measures: the setting up of 148 Masters 
courses  and  24  Joint  Doctorates  involving  some  400  EU  and  over  600  non-EU 
universities  from  over  100  countries;  the  mobility  of  students  (over  30  000)  and 
scholars (1600) from over 170 countries. Erasmus Mundus has attracted participation 
from 76 of the top 100 EU universities in the 2010 Shanghai ranking. 

The  programme  has  strong  European  and  international  added  value,  by  developing 
integrated,  high  quality  transnational  Masters  and  Doctoral  levels  degrees.  It  has 
strengthened  institutional  and  systemic  reform  via  the  Bologna  Process  (e.g.  by 
the  EU).  Erasmus  Mundus  ensures 
facilitating  degree  recognition  beyond 
"Europeanisation" of supply (as universities from different countries work together), 
and "internationalisation" of demand (as EU universities attract non-EU students and 
modernise traditional recruitment patterns). 

15. 

EUROPEAN ADDED VALUE IN HELPING VICTIMS OF HUMANITARIAN CRISIS IN THIRD 
COUNTRIES 

EU humanitarian aid and civil protection assistance outside Europe are an expression 
of solidarity with the victims of disasters and conflict in third countries. By their very 
nature,  they  generally  constitute  the  first  concrete  response  by  the  Union  to  crisis 
situations  outside  Europe.  The  nature  and  the  complexity  of  humanitarian  disasters 
have been increasing over the past decade, with an economic cost in 2010 estimated 
at approximated €100 billion. Humanitarian n eeds are likely to increase sharply over 
the  coming  years:  it  is  expected  that  by  2015  the  number  of  persons  affected  by 
disasters  due  to  climate  change  alone  will  grow  by  375  million  yearly.  Water 
shortages  caused  by  drought,  already  affecting  884  million  people,  will  be 
exacerbated  further.  The  need  for  food  assistance  is  set  to  increase.  The  predicted 
increase  by  2050  in  the  global  population  to  over  9  billion  can  only  put  more 
pressure on humanitarian needs. Europe, already a significant player in the provision 
of humanitarian aid, will need to do its bit to help meet these increased needs. 

EU Member States are important actors in humanitarian aid in their own right, and in 
the area of civil protection the Union's role is primarily to facilitate and accompany 
their action, but the Union can add value in several respects: 

– 

– 

It  has  the  critical  mass  to  be  able  to  maintain  an  extensive  network  of 
humanitarian  field  experts  (more  than  100  based  in  areas  affected  by  or 
vulnerable  to  crisis),  able  to  provide  reliable  information  (e.g.  by  drawing  up 
regular situation reports) on humanitarian needs both to the Commission and to 
Member States. 

It  can  facilitate  and  coordinate  action  by  the  Member  States  where  this  is 
considered useful, particularly in the area of civil protection.  To  this end, the 
Union  has  built  up  the  EU  Civil  Protection  Mechanism,  with  the  Monitoring 
and Information Centre (MIC) as its hub, working closely with Member States 
to dispatch expert teams composed of Member State and Commission experts 

EN 

49 

   EN 

 
very rapidly to disaster areas to assess needs and channel European assistance 
to where it is most needed.  

– 

It can provide assistance not only in the small number of crises which happen 
to  attract  significant  media  attention,  but  can  also  help  people  in  so-called 
"forgotten  crises",  where  other  donors  may  not  be  able  to  devote  significant 
resources. In 2010, the Commission provided 16% of global humanitarian aid, 
making the EU budget the second-largest donor worldwide, and reaching over 
151 million people.  

The  EU's  contribution  to  humanitarian  crises  was  most  recently  assessed  positively 
by the March 2011 multilateral aid review undertaken by the United Kingdom, which 
recognises  the  Commission  to  be  strong  in  the  delivery  of  humanitarian  aid, 
acknowledges  the  value  of  ECHO  experts  in  the  field,  and  notes  the  rapidity  with 
which it disburses funds, especially in the emergency phase28.  

Helping victims of the Earthquake in Haiti 

In  January  2010  a  major  earthquake  struck  Haiti's  capital,  Port-au  Prince,  and  its 
surrounding  area  killing  230.000  and  displacing  2  million  of  the  9.8  million 
population. With much of the government infrastructure in disarray or destroyed, the 
EU's  response  in  the  provision  of  shelter,  food,  water/sanitation/hygiene  and 
healthcare was quick and amounted to €339  million in total, of which €122 million 
from  the  Commission  which  was  channelled  through  the  UN,  Red  Cross  and 
European NGOs.  

In  addition,  the  EU  civil  protection  mechanism  ensured  a  coordinated  response  by 
Member  States'  civil  protection  teams.  With  the  onset  of  the  cholera  epidemic  in 
October  2010,  the  EU  civil  protection  mechanism  was  again  activated  to  deploy 
experts on the ground, who worked closely with epidemiologists from the European 
Centre  for  Disease  Control  and  monitored  the  deployment  of  water  purification 
plants  provided  by  one  Member  State.  Moreover,  following  assessments  from 
ECHO's experts on the ground, the Commission provided €10 million in emergency 
aid, focusing on medical treatment, provision of clean water and sanitation facilities 
as well as support to epidemiological surveillance and logistics.  

Civil unrest in Libya 

On  16  February  2011,  civil  unrest  started  in  Libya,  quickly  spreading  across  main 
cities and resulting in violent repression by government forces. Within the following 
week,  the  Commission's  Department  for  Humanitarian  Aid  and  Civil  Protection 
(ECHO) had mobilized its Monitoring and Information Centre (MIC) to assist in the 

28 

The  UK  multilateral  aid  review  notes  that  ECHO  "is  the  second  biggest  humanitarian  donor  in  the 
world. Its comparative advantage is its huge field presence across the world and in most fragile states, 
and  its  size,  including  the  ability  to  release  up  to  €3m  in  the  72  hours  following  an  emergency.  This 
makes it a significant contributor to humanitarian outcomes and allows it to focus on ‘forgotten crises’, 
filling a gap in the system and supporting a more consistent approach to funding according to need. In 
2009,  ECHO  funded  relief  for  approximately  150  million  beneficiaries  in  more  than  70  countries." 
(DFID, Multilateral Aid Review, March 2011) 

EN 

50 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
evacuation  of  5,800  EU  citizens  from  Libya  by  identifying,  facilitating  and  co-
financing additional transport assets for evacuation. In the same week, it dispatched 
the first ECHO humanitarian teams to the Egyptian and Tunisian borders. 

Until  the  end  of  May,  the  Commission  had  deployed  experts  from  5  of  its  country 
offices  to  Tunisia,  Egypt,  Libya,  Algeria  and  Chad  to  permanently  monitor  the 
situation.  On  this  basis,  it  took  subsequent  financing  decisions  bringing  the  total 
financial aid to €70 million. This include s €10 million in Commission co-financing 
and  the  deployment  of  two  Member  State  teams  on  the  ground  coordinated  by  the 
MIC in order to ensure effective use of Member State assets in the effort to repatriate 
third  country  nationals  from  Libya's  borders.  In  this  way,  157  flights  and  5  vessels 
were put at the disposal of the International Organization for Migration to repatriate 
third country nationals. Overall, Commission financing and coordination through the 
MIC  ensured  the  repatriation  of  57,000  people  to  their  country  of  origin,  made 
possible some of the first relief supplies shipped to Misrata, the evacuation of people 
from the town as well as urgent medical, food and water supply assistance in Misrata 
and other conflict zones. 

The  European  Commission  was  the  first  international  humanitarian  donor  with  a 
continuous presence inside Libya. Until the arrival of the United Nations on 9 April, 
the  Commission's  humanitarian  experts  in  Benghazi  coordinated  the  international 
humanitarian aid effort in eastern Libya. Between mid-February and the end of May, 
the  Commission  issued  40  situation  reports  to  EU  Member  States  and  the 
international humanitarian community. It has also spearheaded – through meetings in 
the  field,  in  Brussels  and  teleconferences  –  the  effort  to  provide  continuous  and 
effective coordination of the European humanitarian assistance effort in Libya. 

Earthquake and tsunami in Japan 

A devastating earthquake and tsunami hit Northern Japan on 11 March 2011, leading 
to thousands of deaths and the displacement of hundreds of thousands of people. The 
Japanese authorities addressed a request for assistance to the EU a few days after the 
disaster, highlighting their wish that the European response be coordinated and self-
sufficient so as not to place further strain on Japan's badly-hit infrastructure. The EU 
Civil  Protection  Mechanism  was  immediately  activated.  A  large  number  of  EU 
Member  States  offered  assistance  through  the  Mechanism,  including  items  such  as 
blankets,  mattresses,  tents,  jerry  cans,  sleeping  bags,  beds,  food,  water,  clothing, 
special gloves, protective suits and masks, as well as dose rate devices. An EU Civil 
Protection  Team,  composed  of  experts  from  seven  Member  States  and  the 
Commission,  was  deployed  on  19  March,  and,  working  hand-in-hand  with  the  EU 
Delegation in Tokyo, set about identifying areas where the EU's assistance could be 
used most effectively. In total, five European relief flights (most of them offered free 
of  charge  by  European  companies)  were  then  arranged  by  the  Commission's 
Monitoring and Information Centre (MIC), transporting some 350 tons of assistance 
from different Member States, with the European Civil Protection Team and the EU 
Delegation in Tokyo arranging the delivery of the assistance on the ground. The EU 
also subsequently allocated € 10 m in hum anitarian assistance to provide support to 
displaced people through the Red Cross. 

EN 

51 

   EN 

 
 
 
Monsoon floods in Pakistan 

Over the course of the 2010 monsoon season, Pakistan experienced the worst floods 
in living memory. They affected 18 million people in 84 out of a total of 121 districts 
ranging over thousands of kilometres and covering an area the size of England. The 
first flash floods, on 22 July, were provoked by heavy rainfall in the North where the 
population  was  still  suffering  the  consequences  of  an  internal  conflict  that  had 
triggered the displacement of almost 3 million people in 2009. 

The Commission responded with a first funding decision of €30 million on 30 July to 
cover the conflict and flood affected population in the North. Immediate deployment 
of experts to Islamabad was organised in order to carry out needs assessments and to 
advice  the  Commission  and  Member  States  on  priority  needs  and  response.  At  the 
peak of the crisis in August, up to 14 expatriate staff from 7 different ECHO offices 
were  present  in  Pakistan.  Within  two  months,  24  field  assessment  missions  took 
place in all the affected provinces. The first ECHO situation report was issued on 3 
August,  followed  by  additional  reports  until  the  end  of  November,  providing  the 
European  Union  (Council,  Member  States,  European  Parliament,  services  of  the 
Commission)  with  consolidated  information  on  the  urgent  needs  and  priorities.  On 
the  basis  of  these  reports,  additional  financing  decisions  were  taken,  bringing  the 
total contribution from the EU budget to €150 million. This contribution represented 
35 % of the overall European Union humanitarian assistance (423 M€), with the UK 
being the other largest EU donor (35% also). 

The  Commission's  civil  protection  Monitoring  and  Information  Centre  (MIC)  was 
also activated rapidly and deployed a team to Pakistan in August. Thanks to the MIC, 
in-kind contributions of 18 Member States could be coordinated, ensuring that goods 
arriving in Pakistan could be processed quickly. The MIC also co-financed 11 flights 
to Pakistan out of the 14 flights which were part of the EU air bridge managed by the 
MIC,  with  an  important  contribution  from  the  Movement  Planning  Cell  of  the  EU 
Military Staff. 

16. 

EUROPEAN  ADDED  VALUE  IN  MANAGING  EXTERNAL  BORDERS,  MIGRATION  AND 
ASYLUM  

The challenges posed by migration and asylum can no longer be met adequately by 
national  administrations  alone.  The  abolition  of  internal  border  controls  must  be 
accompanied by common measures for the effective control and surveillance of the 
Union’s external borders. Improved operational cooperation involving the pooling of 
resources  in  areas  like  training  and  equipment  will  ensure  a  more  efficient  use  of 
public funds. In addition, integrated management of our external borders is the only 
way  to  achieve  a  fair  burden-sharing  between  Member  States,  some  of  whom  face 
the heavy burden of long frontiers or surges in migration. A degree of burden-sharing 
will  reinforce  solidarity  between  them  and  bring  overall  value  for  money  benefits 
through a more credible and fairer policy. In order to be effective internal policies on 
immigration  and  asylum  need  to  be  accompanied  by  cooperation  mechanisms  with 
third countries.  

Migration and asylum has become an important aspect of EU cooperation with third 
countries, through the EU's "Global Approach to Migration", which encompasses not 

EN 

52 

   EN 

 
only  the  prevention  and  management  of  irregular  migration,  but  also  measures  to 
manage labour migration, protect migrant's rights, combat trafficking and smuggling. 
the "Global Approach to Migration" is implemented through structures establishing 
political dialogue and cooperation, such as Mobility Partnerships, Migration Profiles, 
Regional  Protection  Programmes,  Migration  Missions  and  Cooperation  platforms, 
complemented by a predictable framework for technical and financial assistance.  

EN 

53 

   EN 

 
Annex 1 

European added value and Impact Assessment 

The Commission Impact Assessment process prepares evidence for political decision-makers 
on  the  advantages  and  disadvantages  of  possible  policy  options  by  assessing  their  potential 
impact. In so doing, the process also deals with the issue of the added value of Commission 
proposals.  The  current  Impact  Assessment  Guidelines,  in  particular,  present  the  European 
added value test in the context of the subsidiarity check with a set of questions to guide the 
assessment of the latter. 

When  doing  an  impact  assessment,  Commission  services  must  answer  in  particular  the 
following questions which are directly relevant for measuring EU added value:  

•  Would  actions  by  Member  States  alone,  or  the  lack  of  Community  action  "significantly" 
damage  the  interests  of  Member  States?  (e.g.  action  restricting  the  free  circulation  of 
goods) 

•  Would  actions  at  Community  level  produce  clear  benefits  compared  with  action  at  the 

level of Member States by reason of its scale? 

•  Would  actions  at  Community  level  produce  clear  benefits  compared  with  action  at  the 

level of Member States by reason of its effectiveness? 

In  its  examination,  the  Impact  Assessment  Board29  typically  plays  a  close  attention  to  the 
justification for the proposed EU action, and therefore, the added value of the EU action.  

Statistics for 2010 show that subsidiarity issues have been raised in 43% of all opinions (23 
cases out of 54) and in 38% of all resubmission requests (9 out of 24). 

Extract from the Impact Assessment Board 2010 report 

The  Board  pays  close  attention  to  how  subsidiarity  and  value  added  are  handled  in  IA 
reports. It commented on 'subsidiarity and proportionality' in half of its 2010 opinions on first 
submissions, far more than previously. It aims to ensure services produce a well-substantiated 
case for EU action, fit for scrutiny by national Parliaments. The Board believes that a robust 
and evidence-based justification for EU action and assessment of its 'value added' should be 
given in all IA reports. Where relevant, reports should clearly explain why a preferred option 
of EU intervention can achieve better results than Member State action.30 

In his letter of 26 November 2010 to the European Parliament and the Council, the President 
of the Commission undertook to: 

– 

29 

30 

Identify  European  added  value  as  part  of  the  Commission's  impact  assessment  of 
new legislative proposals having budgetary impact; 

More information on the role of the Impact Assessment Board as well as on the opinions delivered are 
available at the following web address: http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/iab/iab_en.htm  
SEC(2011)126 final: Commission staff working paper: Impact Assessment Board report for 2010. 

EN 

54 

   EN 

 
                                                 
– 

Fully take into account European added value as well as synergies between the EU 
and national budgets for specific policies, and possible savings, in its proposals to the 
next  Multiannual  Financial  Framework,  including  the  legal  bases  for  multiannual 
expenditures programmes. 

Accordingly, impact assessment reports are being prepared for all legislative policy proposals 
composing the next MFF. In its analysis of these reports, the Impact Assessment Board will 
look  for  adequate  indication  of  European  added  value  of  any  proposed  expenditure 
programme as well as an analysis of the conditions under which it would be maximised.  

In order to do so, the Board analysis will be guided by the following questions: 

•  What are the general and specific objectives of the expenditure programme? How do they 

relate to the fundamental goals of the EU and/or the objectives of Europe 2020? 

•  Why are public expenditures required to achieve these objectives (as opposed, for instance, 

to simply a regulatory initiative?) 

•  Why are expenditures financed from the EU budget required to achieve these objectives? 

Answering the latter question requires looking further: 

•  Why Member State expenditures alone would not be sufficient? Would they fail to achieve 
the sufficient scale (economies of scales)? Would they fail to take into account negative or 
positive externalities between Member States (insufficient provision of EU public good)? 
Would  they  risk  overlaps/duplication  of  efforts  (coordination  failures/economies  of 
scales)? 

•  Why would expenditures financed from the EU budget be needed? 

The  EU  budget  should  add  European  added  value  by  maximising  the  effectiveness  and 
efficiencies with which all public expenditures in EU support the achievement of common EU 
goals  and  not  simply  to  add  a  (thin)  layer  of  expenditures  on  top  of  those  already  financed 
directly  by  Member  States.  The  following  questions  aim  at  clarifying  how  this  should  be 
done. 

•  Would expenditures financed by the EU budget be used for the production of "pure" EU 

public goods (EU solidarity, EU administrative expenditures)? 

•  Would they solve specific problems identified with exclusive Member States spending? If 

so, how? 

•  Would they play a catalytic role? 

•  Would they have synergy effects (with national budgets and across EU policies)? 

•  Why would expenditures financed from the EU budget be sufficient? 

EU expenditure may be a good idea in theory but the limited size of the budget and/or known 
inefficiencies  may  suggest  caution.  The  following  questions  aim  at  assessing  how  much 
caution would be called for. 

EN 

55 

   EN 

 
•  Would expenditures financed by the EU budget be proportionate to the objectives (critical 

mass and assessment of costs)? 

•  Why would they be sufficient in reaching the objectives? 

•  Have existing evaluations shown the proposed programme (or similar ones) to be so? 

•  What are the risks/costs of the longer delivery chain implied by EU expenditures? 

•  Why would expenditures financed from the EU budget be advisable? 

Appropriate  answers  to  all  of  the  above  would  already  make  a  very  strong  case  for  the  EU 
action.  However,  experience  shows  that  further  factors  should  also  be  taken  into 
consideration, notably: 

•  What are the risks of EU-expenditures creating more distortions than national ones? 

•  What  are  the  risks  of  EU-expenditures  crowding  out  national  ones  (be  they  private  or 

public)? 

•  What are the risks of EU-expenditures duplicating national ones? 

•  Is  centralisation  at  the  level  of  the  EU  budget  proposed  for  an  area  where  there  is  a 

significant heterogeneity of preferences across Member States? 

•  Is centralisation at the level of the EU budget proposed for an area where there is resistance 

towards moving from national to EU level accountability? 

•  How do the benefits of the programme compare to the costs of centralisation? How would 

the programme minimize costs? 

EN 

56 

   EN 

 
 
Annex 2 

European added value and evaluation 

The  question  of  EU  added  value  is  also  addressed  by  Commission  services  in  ex  ante 
evaluations.  The  Implementing  rules  of  the  Financial  Regulation  (article  21),  specifies  the 
scope of ex ante evaluation in the Commission by stating that: 

"All  proposals  for  programmes  or  activities  occasioning  budget  expenditure  shall  be  the 
subject of an ex ante evaluation, which shall address:  

(a) the need to be met in the short or long term;  

(b) the added value of Community involvement; ….." 

In  the  context  of  ex  post  evaluations,  the  following  general  questions  serve  as  a  basis  for 
addressing the European added value: 

•  What impact has been achieved that would not have happen without EU spending? What is 

the scale of the impact? Who has benefitted most and how? 

•  Have  the  objectives  been  better  achieved  because  the  intervention  took  place  at  the  EU 

level?  

•  Has a given effect been achieved due to a particular European added value factor such as 

critical mass, economies of scale, synergy, catalyst, enlarged competition etc.? 

•  Has  a  given  effect  been  achieved  at  a  lower  cost  for  taxpayers  because  the  intervention 

took place at EU level? 

•  Were the objectives more relevant because the intervention was designed at the EU level? 

•  Has the issue been addressed in a more coherent way because it was addressed at the EU 

level? 

EN 

57 

   EN