COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Date: 2011-10-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, European Social Fund, administrative formalities, dismissal, economic and social cohesion, economic recession, education, labour mobility, productivity, social integration, vocational training, youth unemployment

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 6.10.2011 
SEC(2011) 1131 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

Accompanying the document 

Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE 
COUNCIL 

on the European Social Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1081/2006 

{COM(2011) 607 final} 
{COM(2011) 608 final} 
{COM(2011) 609 final} 
{SEC(2011) 1130 final} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
  
 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES 

The European Social Fund is covered by the Common Strategic Framework  together with the 
European Regional Development Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund 
for  Rural  Development  and  the  European  Maritime  and  Fisheries  Fund.  These  financial 
instruments  are  regulated  by  means  of  a  regulation  laying  down  common  provisions  on  the 
European  Regional  Development  Fund,  the  European  Social  Fund,  the  Cohesion  Fund,  the 
European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries 
Fund covered by the Common Strategic  Framework  and laying down general provisions  on 
the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund 
and  repealing  Regulation  (EC)  No  1083/2006.  (Common  provisions  regulation).  Impact 
assessments have been prepared for the Common Provisions Regulation, discussing European 
added value, performance and delivery of policy, and also for the specific regulations. For the 
ESF impact assessment, the focus is on the future scope of the instrument and on one specific 
aspect of simplification, namely the form of cost accounting. Other aspects are covered in the 
impact assessment for the Common Provisions Regulation. 

The ESF impact assessment also discusses the articulation between the financial instruments 
available  to  the  Commission’s  Directorate-General  for  Employment,  Social  Affairs  and 
Inclusion,  notably  the  ESF  itself,  the  European  Globalisation  Fund,  the  PROGRESS 
programme, EURES and the PROGRESS Microfinance Facility. 

1.1. 

Consultation and expertise 

Extensive public consultations have been carried out both on cohesion policy as a whole1 and 
specifically for the ESF. Expert advice was provided by the ESF Committee’s ad-hoc group 
on the future of the European Social Fund. This informal group of experts from the Member 
States  and  the  social  partners  met  seven  times  between  December  2009  and  March  2011. 
Moreover, permanent working contacts with managing authorities and with other stakeholders 
(for  instance  through  the  monitoring  committees  for  the  ESF  programmes  or  the  ESF 
Technical Working Group) helped to gain knowledge of day-to-day difficulties and concerns 
during the implementation process.  

The conference ‘Shaping the future of the ESF — ESF & Europe 2020’ in Brussels on 23 and 
24  June  2010  brought  together  over  450  high-level  representatives  from  public  authorities, 
social  partners  and  civil  society  at  EU  and  national  levels  as  well  as  from  third  countries.2 
NGOs and social partners were specifically consulted on the future of the ESF in December 
2010. 

On  7  October  2010,  the  European  Parliament  adopted  resolutions  on  the  future  of  cohesion 
policy3 and the ESF.4 Both the Economic and Social Committee (on 15 March 20115) and the 

1 
2 

3 

See the Common Provisions Regulation Impact Assessment. 
The  conference  report 
conference-report-final_en.pdf. 
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&reference=P7-TA-2010-
0356&language=EN&ring=B7-2010-0539. 

is  available  at:  http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/esf/docs/100907-

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Committee of the Regions (on 30 March 20116) adopted exploratory opinions at the request of 
the  Commission.  Moreover,  both  EMCO7  and  SPC8  issued  opinions  as  did  the  ESF 
Committee in June 2010 and March 2011.9 

Two stakeholder conferences10 were organised to discuss the future of the EGF on 25 and 26 
January  2011  and  8  March  2011.  Expert  advice  was  obtained  through  questionnaires  in 
August  and  October  2010  and  in  February  2011.  Expert  meetings  were  held  in  September 
2010 and in March 2011. In September 2010, the European Parliament adopted a Resolution11 
on the functioning and funding of the EGF. 

As  part  of  the  review  of  the  current  PROGRESS  programme,  the  Commission  organised  a 
two-step consultation: a working group gathering together the programme’s key stakeholder 
representatives12  and  a  public  online  consultation  carried  out  between  April  and  May  2011. 
The  2011  meetings  of  the  EURES  Working  Party  and  the  Heads  of  Public  Employment 
Services (PES) held specific discussions on the future of EURES. 

PROBLEM DEFINITION 

Society across Europe is confronted with multiple challenges stemming from increased global 
competition,  the  fast  pace  of  technological  progress,  demographic  trends,  and  climate 
change.13  These  challenges  have  been  compounded  by  the  recent  economic  and  financial 
crisis, leading to record unemployment levels in some Member States, especially among the 
most vulnerable groups and young people. At the same time, shortcomings in skills and low 
labour mobility persist. 

Many  Member  States  and  regions  face  difficulties  in  completing  the  transition  to  more 
competitive  activities,  and  there  are  still  considerable  disparities  in  employment,  social 
inclusion, levels of health, and the availability and accessibility of education. 

The  crisis  also  highlighted  the  close  links  and  spill-over  between  the  EU-27  economies, 
especially  in  the  euro  area,  which  means  that  reforms,  or  the  lack  of  them,  in  one  country 
affect the performance of the others. European financial support can help to coordinate efforts 
to develop and introduce active labour market policies, effective lifelong learning, instruments 
to promote labour mobility, and adequate social security systems. Action at European level is 
required, all the more so as a lack of economic, territorial and social cohesion would hinder 

4 

5 

6 

7 
8 

9 
10 
11 

12 

13 

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P7-TA-2010-
0357+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN. 
http://www.toad.eesc.europa.eu/AgendaDocuments.aspx? 
pmi=ha5jDW%2bOWSEKS2CtbtA2nl2VJruX4mnzBdsQyM7Dy60 %3d. 
http://www.cor.europa.eu/pages/PressTemplate.aspx?view=detail&id=b0a92bb4-7fbd-4cea-aade-
1cf0a26429aa. 
http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=115&langId=en. 
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/empl/dv/empl_spc_on_esf_/ 
empl_spc_on_esf_en.pdf. 
http://ec.europa.eu/esf/main.jsp?catId=445&langId=en. 
http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=326&langId=en&eventsId=320&furtherEvents=yes. 
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&reference=A7-2010-
0236&language=EN. 
National  authorities,  social  partners  and  EU-level  networks  of  civil  society  organisations.  The  Group 
met twice in January and February 2011. . 
COM(2010) 2020. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                                                                                                                         
 
 
the  European  Union’s  further  development  and  undermine  its  legitimacy  in  the  eyes  of  its 
citizens. 

Ensuring  equal  protection  for  European  citizens  in  the  workplace,  particularly  in  sectors 
considered to be at risk and for categories of workers who are most vulnerable (young people, 
workers  on  fixed-term  contracts, 
the 
strengthening of EU legislation. 

low-skilled  workers,  migrants,  etc.),  requires 

Stakeholders,  evaluations  and  studies  generally  agree  that  the  different  instruments  make 
positive  contributions  towards  employment  and  social  inclusion.  While  it  is  difficult  to 
quantify  the  European  added  value  of  European  support,  qualitative  analysis  provides 
convincing  evidence  that  the  ESF  has  made  a  difference  not  only  in  terms  of  the  quality  of 
active  labour  market  policies,  in  particular  in  many  Member  States  and  regions  that  are 
lagging behind, but also in terms of quantity. 

Still,  when  it  comes  to  implementation  the  picture  is  mixed.  In  the  current  period,  ESF 
programmes  have  started  late  and  actual  rates  of  payment  are  well  below  those  at  a  similar 
time  in  the  previous  programming  period.  Error  rates  have  declined  but  are  still  above  the 
materiality threshold set by the European Court of Auditors, indicating that there is still some 
way to go to simplify and streamline delivery. With regard to the EGF, it was conceived as an 
emergency instrument, and while its arrangements are indeed very flexible in helping workers 
affected by restructuring, the average deployment time of 11 months needs to be shortened. 
The different direct management instruments suffer from being implemented in isolation from 
each  other  and  from  the  ESF,  although  stakeholders  and  experts  confirm  that  many  of  the 
objectives they are intended to achieve are broadly relevant.  

EU  action  is  justified  on  the  grounds  of  the  subsidiarity  principle,  the  objectives  set  out  in 
Article  174  of  the  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the  European  Union  (TFEU),  Article  175 
TFEU,  which  explicitly  calls  on  the  EU  to  pursue  these  objectives  through  the  Structural 
Funds, and the aims of the European Social Fund (ESF), defined in Article 162 TFEU. The 
legal basis for the EGF is the third paragraph of Article 175 TFEU, which provides for other 
specific actions outside the Structural Funds. The legal basis for the PROGRESS programme 
is Articles 149 and 153 TFEU, which provide for the coordination of employment and social 
policies.14 The current legal basis for Progress Microfinance is the third paragraph of Article 
175  TFEU.  EURES  is  based  on  Article  45  TFEU,  which  aims  to  secure  freedom  of 
movement for workers, one of the four freedoms enshrined in the TFEU. 

OBJECTIVES 

The general objective of the financial instruments for promoting the labour market and social 
inclusion  is  to  support  the  EU  in  developing  a  smart,  sustainable  and  inclusive  economy 
achieving  high  levels  of  employment,  productivity  and  social  cohesion,  i.e.  to  contribute 
fully to the Europe 2020 Strategy, in accordance with the Single Market Act of April 2011.15  

14 

15 

Actually,  the  current  PROGRESS  programme  has  a  threefold  legal  basis.  However,  actions 
implemented on the basis of Article 19 TFEU fall within DG JUST’s area of competences and will form 
part of its future post-2013 programmes. 
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/smact/index_en.htm. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
1.2. 

Specific objectives 

Alongside  the  overarching  specific  objective  of  ensuring  consistency  between  the  different 
instruments, each instrument has its own specific objectives. 

For the ESF, these are to promote (i) employment and mobility, (ii) education/training skills, 
(iii)  social  inclusion,  and  (iv)  institutional  capacity.  This  will  be  tracked  using  the  four  EU 
2020  indicators  and  targets  directly  relevant  for  the  labour  market  /  social  inclusion 
instruments.  EU-level  targets  for  the  ESF  cannot  be  set  as  implementation  follows  national 
and  regional  operational  programmes.  The  ESF  and  EGF  also  contribute  indirectly  to  other 
policy objectives such as the transition to a low-carbon and climate-resilient economy and the 
digital agenda. 

The specific objective for the EGF is to support workers made redundant as a result of major 
structural change. 

For  the  instruments  under  direct  management,  the  specific  objectives  are  derived  from  the 
legal  bases  justifying  EU  actions  and  will  be  reflected  in  the  legislative  proposals.  For  the 
purpose  of  this  impact  assessment,  the  most  relevant  specific  objective  is  improved  policy 
coherence and efficiency through cross-cutting work across the various strands of action and 
complementarity with other EU financial instruments, in particular the ESF.  

1.3. 

Operational objectives 

The  operational  objective  for  the  ESF  is  to  simplify  delivery.  The  following  indicators  are 
chosen  as  proxies  for  the  degree  of  simplification:  (i)  absorption  (target:  100 %  or  no 
automatic decommitment), (ii) error rate (target: less than 2 %), and (iii) use of the simplified 
cost  options  (target:  at  least  75 %  of  the  total  cost  of  grants).  Content-level  operational 
objectives are to be defined in the operational programmes. 

The operational  objectives for the EGF  are to  support redundant  workers more rapidly (< 8 
months) and to strive towards at least 50 % of assisted workers having a new and stable job 
within 12 months.  

Operational objectives are also defined for the direct management instruments.  

POLICY OPTIONS 

The options considered cover the following dimensions: (i) scope of the ESF, (ii) possibilities 
to  simplify  ESF  cost  accounting,  (iii)  status  of  the  EGF  and  link  with  the  ESF,  (iv) 
relationship  between  the  direct  management  instruments  and  link  with  the  ESF.  For  each 
dimension,  the  range  of  options  considered  has  been  shaped  by  dialogue  with  stakeholders 
and recommendations derived from research in the area. 

The options for the scope of the ESF range from a narrow focus on employment and mobility 
to a much broader scope including income support measures. The main differences between 
the  simplification  options  is  the  extent  to  which  different  simplified  reimbursement  options 
can  or  must  be  introduced  and  whether  these  can  be  linked  to  results.  This  mirrors  a 
discussion in the impact assessment of the Common Provisions Regulation for the European 
Regional Development Fund (ERDF), Cohesion Fund (CF) and European Social Fund (ESF). 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
The options considered for the EGF16 range from a continuation of the status quo to having its 
own budget, either as part of the ESF or as a stand-alone instrument.  

The options considered for the direct management instruments are continuation of the status 
quo,  a  single  integrated  direct  management  programme  and  integration  of  the  direct 
management instruments within the ESF. 

The  no-funding  policy  option  was  discarded  at  an  early  stage.  It  would  mean  the 
discontinuation  of  European  financial  support  for  active  labour  market  policies,  effective 
lifelong learning, promotion of labour mobility, and modernisation of social security systems. 
This would directly affect millions of citizens annually, end the most tangible expression of 
EU solidarity and greatly diminish the ability to promote EU employment and social policy 
objectives. 

ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON OF THE OPTIONS 

This analysis is essentially qualitative and focuses on social and economic impacts. On a very 
general  note,  all  the  instruments  are  supposed  to  facilitate  or  mitigate  changes  in  economic 
structures, including employment structures. As mentioned in the objectives section, although 
employment  and  social  policy  are  expected  to  facilitate  the  transition  to  a  low-carbon 
economy, these impacts depend on their concrete implementation and not directly on the legal 
provisions.  

1.4. 

Scope of the ESF 

In  economic  terms,  an  ESF  narrowly  focused  on  policies  and  actions  leading  directly  to 
employment (including support for education, but only tertiary and vocational education) will 
ensure a priori that the ESF concentrates on economically relevant tasks. However, a labour 
market  focus  would  tend  to  imply  a  focus  on  individuals,  whereas  barriers  to  employment 
may  lie  for  instance  in  the  household.  Focusing  the  ESF  exclusively  on  labour  market 
integration and training is likely to be too narrow. 

At the other end of the spectrum, broadening the scope of the ESF to include income support 
does not meet with much approval. The spending by Member States and regional authorities 
on passive measures is of a completely different order of magnitude than the funds potentially 
available  for  the  ESF.17  Furthermore,  providing  income  support  is  first  and  foremost  a 
national  or  regional  obligation.  Supporting  passive  measures  would  change  the  character  of 
the ESF and may even violate the Treaty provisions. Moreover, any amount spent on passive 
measures is not available for other activities where a European added value can be identified. 

The  different  scope  options  are  also  analysed  in  terms  of  their  contribution  to  the  ESF’s 
specific  objectives.  Actual  contributions  will  depend  on  funding  decisions  on  how  much  to 
allocate to a given policy area. These will only be taken in the context of negotiations with the 

16 

17 

The recently adopted MFF 2014-2020 proposal extended the scope of the EGF to include assistance to 
farmers whose livelihoods may be affected by globalisation. This responded to the need to facilitate the 
adaptations required by international trade agreements. 
During the programming period 2007–2013, the budget available for the ESF was nearly €
The MFF provides for the ESF to receive at least €
2014–2020. 

 76 billion. 
 84 billion for the seven-year programming period 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Member States on the operational programmes. The assessment is therefore a qualitative one 
based on a hierarchy of objectives. 

A broad ESF scope, but not including income support measures, is the preferred option. It is 
likely  to  favour  efficiency  since  more  actors  can  be  involved  and  programmes  more  easily 
tailored to local needs and established delivery systems. 

Table 1. Comparison of the scope options 

Specific objectives 

Options 

Employment 

Education 

Inclusion 

Institutional 
capacity building 

Opportunity 
costs 

1.1  –  No 
policy 
change 

1.2  –  Focus 
on 
employment 

1.3  –  Broad 
scope 

1.4  –  Broad 
scope 
including 
passive 
measures 

0 

+ 

= 

-- 

0 

-- 

= 

- 

0 

-- 

+ 

- 

0 

-- 

++ 

+ 

0 

+ 

- 

- 

Legend:  +  means  an  increased  impact  (or  opportunity  cost)  as  compared  to  ‘no  policy  change’;  -  means  a 
reduced impact (or opportunity cost) 

1.5. 

Simplification 

The options distinguish the extent to which standardised cost calculation and reimbursement 
schemes are introduced and whether these can or cannot be linked to performance. Under ‘no 
policy change’, with the voluntary use of such schemes, managing authorities will probably 
slowly begin to make more use of these possibilities. Option 3 would see all payments linked 
to  pre-agreed  performance  levels.  While  this  could  simplify  the  implementation  of 
programmes,  it  is  likely  to  make  their  formulation  significantly  more  complex.  The  need  to 
agree on performance levels may result in ‘creaming’ effects and discourage more innovative 
actions. Option 2 offers increased flexibility (compared to options 1 and 3), leaving managing 
authorities  with  the  widest  range  of  possibilities  to  introduce  the  simplifications  they  feel 
confident  with  and  which  fit  their  needs.  It  is  the  option  expected  to  deliver  most  on  the 
operational objective and is therefore preferred. 

Table 2. Comparison of the simplification options 

2.1 - No policy change 

2.2 - Proportional 
approach 

2.3 - Prescriptive 
approach 

Efficiency 

Flexibility 

Administrative burden  

0 

0 

0 

++ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

- 

- 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
 
 
Legend: + means better as compared to ‘no policy change’; - means worse. 

1.6. 

Relationship between the EGF and the ESF 

Incorporating  the  EGF  within  the  ESF  or  making  it  a  stand-alone  instrument  with  its  own 
budget is likely to allow for quicker delivery than is currently possible. However, this would 
change  the  character  and  profile  of  the  intervention,  which  should  remain  exceptional.  It 
would also be associated with greater rigidity in terms of budget use, whereas actual needs are 
by  nature  highly  unpredictable.  The  ‘no  policy  change’  option  offers  the  greatest  flexibility 
and does not preclude further reforms to speed up the decision-making process.  

Table 3. Comparison of EGF options 

3.1 — No policy change 

3.2 — Incorporation of 
the EGF within the ESF 

3.3 — Stand-alone fund 
with its own budget line 

Speed of delivery 

Efficiency 

Effectiveness 

0 

0 

0 

+ 

- 

0 

+ 

- 

0 

1.7. 

Links between the ESF and the direct management instruments 

PROGRESS deliverables feed into policy initiatives which are, where relevant, underpinned 
by  their  own  impact  assessments.  Assessment  of  the  social,  environmental  and  economic 
impacts  needs  to  be  at  the  level  of  these  policy  initiatives.  The  analysis  of  the  options  and 
their  subsequent  comparison  is  therefore  confined  to  the  criteria  of  effectiveness,  efficiency 
and coherence. 

Under the ‘no policy change’ option, PROGRESS, EURES and the European Microfinance 
Facility  continue  to  exist  as  distinct  instruments  alongside  the  ESF.  The  opportunity  to 
increase  policy  coherence  by 
the  self-employment  and 
entrepreneurship support provided by the Microfinance Facility and the intra-EU mobility of 
workers promoted by EURES is missed. There are no efficiency gains that could be derived 
from  the  rationalisation  of  the  financial  instruments.  For  all  these  reasons,  option  4.1  is 
discarded. 

linking  PROGRESS  with 

Option 4.2 is the preferred option. It calls for a new integrated programme for employment, 
social policy and inclusion, which brings together PROGRESS, EURES and the Microfinance 
Facility. This option enables the Commission to increase policy coherence and the impact of 
its  instruments  which  pursue  common  policy  objectives.  It  also  allows  efficiency  gains 
compared  to  option  4.1  in  terms  of  considerable  rationalisation  of  the  direct  management 
instruments,  streamlining  of  their  management  rules  and  procedures,  and  flexibility  through 
allocating resources to changing policy priorities. Emphasis is placed on innovative ways of 
responding to long-standing social challenges (mutual learning, partnerships between public, 
private  and 
in  social  enterprises).  Synergy  and 
complementarity  with  the  ESF  could  be  better  achieved  by  adequate  coordination  by  the 
Commission  rather  than  by  merging  these  instruments  with  the  ESF,  as  considered  under 
option 4.3. 

third-sector  actors, 

investment 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
 
 
The main difference between option 4.2 and option 4.3 is that the latter proposes that all three 
instruments  be  regrouped  as  an  ESF  component  for  direct  management.  Such  a  single 
instrument  certainly  would  enhance  the  coherence  of  EU  budget  support,  increase  volume 
(with  the  ESF  part)  and  improve  consistency  in  implementation.  Conversely,  it  would 
increase the risk of reduced efficiency due to more complexity. However, a single instrument 
would  require  two  major  components,  implemented  according  to  completely  different 
management rules (i.e. shared, direct and joint management). Moreover this option involves 
political  and  institutional  risks  inherent  in  the  adoption  of  an  excessively  complicated  ESF 
Regulation. Therefore option 4.3 should be discarded. 

Table 4. Comparison of the options for direct management instruments 

4.1 – No policy change 

4.2 — Integrated direct 
management 
programme  

4.3 — Incorporation 
within the ESF as a 
direct management 
component 

Efficiency 

Critical mass 

Coherence 
effectiveness 

and 

Political 
institutional risks 

and 

0 

0 

0 

0 

+ 

+ 

++ 

+ 

- 

+ 

+ 

- 

Legend: + means better as compared to ‘no policy change’; - means worse. 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

1.8. 

ESF 

Under the existing Structural Fund Regulations, monitoring and evaluation are primarily the 
responsibility  of  the  Member  States:  their  managing  authorities  are  required  to  set  up  a 
monitoring  system  and  to  provide  annual  reports  and  a  final  implementation  report.  The 
overall  allocation  of  responsibilities  will  remain  unchanged.  However,  there  are  some 
weaknesses  in  the  current  ESF  monitoring  and  evaluation  systems:  data  quality  is  uneven, 
data collection methods vary greatly among Member States, and no information is provided 
on the intensity of support for individuals. This makes it difficult to aggregate results at EU 
level or to assess the longer-term effects of ESF interventions on individual participants and 
on Member State economies and systems in general. 

Against this background, the main focus of the future monitoring and evaluation system will 
be  on  setting  minimum  quality  standards  and  introducing  a  set  of  compulsory  common 
indicators.  This  should  ensure  that  monitoring  produces  robust  and  reliable  data  and  that 
evaluation focuses on assessing the effectiveness and impact of ESF support. 

1.1. 

The EGF 

Monitoring  and  evaluation  are  primarily  the  responsibility  of  the  Member  States.  In  future, 
Member  States  will  be  obliged  to  specifically  monitor  achievement  of  the  operational 
objectives,  in  terms  of  people  reintegrated  into  employment  after  12  and  24  months  of 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
 
implementation. A mid-term evaluation to assess the effectiveness and sustainability of results 
will be conducted by the Commission and will be followed by an ex-post evaluation. 

1.9. 

The integrated programme for employment, social policy and inclusion (Social 
Development Agenda) 

The  integrated  programme  for  employment,  social policy and inclusion will remain focused 
on  results  and  achievements  rather  than  resources  and  activities.  To  this  end,  the  integrated 
programme  will  be  monitored  on  an  annual  basis  in  order  to  assess  progress  towards  the 
achievement  of  its  specific  and  operational  objectives  against  clear  indicators18  and  also  to 
allow  for  any  necessary  adjustments  to  policy  and  funding  priorities.  The  integrated 
programme will also be subject to mid-term and ex-post evaluation. The opportunity to bring 
together three instruments will enable the Commission to streamline evaluation arrangements 
and reduce their costs. 

18 

Indicators will be developed in the ex-ante evaluation for the integrated programme. 

EN 

10 

   EN