REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the evaluation of the Union's finances based on the results achieved
Date: 2012-02-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU financing, EU programme, continuing education, cost-effectiveness analysis, innovation, job mobility, knowledge economy, research and development, research programme, student mobility

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 17.2.2012  
COM(2012) 40 final 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND 
THE COUNCIL 

on the evaluation of the Union's finances based on the results achieved 

{SWD(2012) 4 final} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
  
 
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 
AND THE COUNCIL 

on the evaluation of the Union's finances based on the results achieved 

1. 

PRELIMINARY REMARKS 

This is the first Commission report to the European Parliament (EP) and the Council 
on  the  evaluation  of  the  Union's  finances  based  on  the  results  achieved,  pursuant  to 
Article 318 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).  

Article 318 TFEU provides that the Commission shall: 

"submit  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  an  evaluation 
report  on  the  Union's  finances  based  on  the  results  achieved,  in 
particular  in  relation  to  the  indications  given  by  the  European 
Parliament and the Council pursuant to Article 319." 

that 

Article  319  TFEU  provides 
the  European  Parliament,  acting  on  a 
recommendation  from  the  Council,  shall  give  a  discharge  to  the  Commission  in 
respect  of  the  implementation  of  the  EU  budget.  The  article  also  provides  that,  in 
doing  so,  the  Council  and  the  European  Parliament  examine  the  accounts,  the 
financial statement and the Article 318 TFEU evaluation report, plus the annual report 
by the Court of Auditors and the replies of the institutions to the observations of the 
Court of Auditors, and the statement of assurance as to the reliability of the accounts 
and  the  legality  and  regularity  of  the  underlying  transactions  required  under  Article 
287 TFEU.  

The Commission is examining ways to align the reports required under the different 
procedures  with  due  regard  to  the  different  timing  and  coverage  of  evaluation  and 
budget discharge work and to avoid any duplication of work, as explained further in 
this report. This will be a progressive process, building each year on the experience of 
earlier  years.  As  from  the  2011  discharge  procedure,  the  Commission  will  aim  to 
adopt the evaluation report by mid-November each year. 

2. 

INTRODUCTION 

One of the main features of Article 318 TFEU is that the evaluation report focuses on 
the finances of the Union from the standpoint of the results achieved by the relevant 
programmes.  

To  contribute  to  this  assessment  of  overall  results  and  impacts,  the  Commission 
undertakes  evaluations  during  and  after  the  completion  of  the  different  financial 
programmes  in  order  to  analyse  the  extent  to  which  the  programmes  have  achieved 
their objectives and to measure the impact of the programmes on society. 

EN 

2 

   EN

 
The  implementation  of  the  programmes  entails  initial  capacity-building  and  it  can 
take  several  years  for  the  momentum  of  change  to  gather  force  and  speed,  with  the 
result  that  expenditure  is  spread  over  several  years.  Longer-term  impacts  only 
materialise over time and not necessarily on a uniform or regular annual basis.  

It is also important to base the evaluation of results and subsequent decision-making 
on  data  trends  rather  than  single  sets  of  figures  so  that  sound  conclusions  can  be 
drawn.  Sufficient  and  reliable  information  on  the  results  and  impacts  of  specific 
programmes tend to become available only several years after the completion of the 
whole programme.  

In contrast, the process for the discharge of annual expenditure under the EU budget 
is  a  specific  process  designed  to  produce  a  definitive  result  on  each  year's 
expenditure.  It  is  a  process  which  follows  a  set  timetable  which  allows  it  to  be 
completed  for  a  year  of  expenditure  by  May  in  the  second  subsequent  year.  
Moreover, the budget discharge process has in the past mainly focused on legality and 
regularity, although now a broader focus is being developed. 

Thus,  there  is  no  direct  match  between  the  timing  and  coverage  of  evaluations  of 
financial programmes on the one hand and the discharge of annual expenditure on the 
other  hand.  The  indications  given  by  the  European  Parliament  and  Council  in 
connection with the procedure for the financial discharge for expenditure incurred in 
one  year  may  not  always  relate  to  the  phase  of  the  financial  programme  and  the 
evaluation results produced at or around the same time.  

A lot of detailed information on the assessment of the results and impacts of different 
EU  financial  programmes  is  already  made  available  through  individual  evaluations 
and  Impact  Assessments  and  through  the  Annual  Activity  Reports1,  the  Synthesis 
Report of Management Achievements, the Activity Statements2 and the report on the 
follow-up  to  the  Discharge  resolution  and  recommendation,  which  are  all  published 
year-on-year.  In  addition,  the  Article  318  TFEU  evaluation  report  should  not 
duplicate the evaluation work done as required by the basic acts establishing the EU 
Programmes.  

Therefore,  the  Commission  has  considered  whether  the  evaluation  report  should 
systematically  cover  all  programmes  each  year  or  rather  in  each  year  only  those 
programmes for which sufficient relevant and new information has become available . 
To  cover  all  of  the  programmes  financed  by  the  EU  from  year  to  year  would  risk 
producing  a  very  extensive  and  unfocussed  outcome,  with  repetition  of  information 
contained in earlier reports for those programmes where no major evolution has taken 
place since the last report. A clearer and stronger focus will result from reports which 

1 

2 

Each Director General/Head of Service shall submit to his/her institution an Annual Activity 
Report together with financial and management information. This report gives account of the 
achievements  of  the  key  policy  objectives  and  core  activities  of  the  Directorate-General  or 
Service taking into account the corresponding resources used 
Activity  Statements  provide  the  main  elements  of  justification  for  the  level  of  resources 
requested by the Commission in its Draft Budget (DB). They include details of the resources 
(human  and  financial)  allocated  by  Activity,  as  well  as  associated  objectives,  indicators  and 
outputs. Major achievements and evaluation results are also included. Hence, they justify the 
Commission's  DB  in  terms  of  performance  information  (objectives,  indicators,  evaluation 
results  and  outputs),  i.e.  depict  what  benefits  are  rendered  to  the  beneficiaries  of  EU  - 
programmes. 

EN 

3 

   EN

 
                                                 
target a limited number of programmes each year, taking account of the importance of 
each programme and the availability of recent evaluation results, while ensuring that a 
broad range of financial sectors are covered in the medium term. 

In  order  to  avoid  duplication  and  to  start  this  new  process  of  reporting,  the 
Commission  has  decided  to  focus  on  selected  policy  areas  in  this  evaluation  report. 
The report covers two areas: Education and Culture, and Research. These areas seem 
most appropriate for this first report as they contribute to the EU 2020 headline targets 
and flagship initiatives.3 They involve an important amount of expenditure, nearly € 8 
billion in 2010. They are also key examples of policies implemented on a centralised 
basis, not on a shared basis with the Member States. In future years the Commission 
intends to cover the main financial programmes implemented on a centralised basis or 
by shared or decentralised management, each year covering a different selection from 
such  areas  as  Regional  Policy  or  one  of  the  other  Structural  Funds,  Enterprise, 
Taxation, Energy, Mobility and Transport or Information Society.  

The  availability  of  the recent  evaluation  results  referred  to  later  in  this  report  in  the 
two  selected  areas  makes  them  well-suited  to  be  covered,  even  if  recent  evaluation 
material is available this year for many financial programmes due to the preparations 
under  way  for  the  new  Multi-annual  Financial  Framework.  In  other  years  the 
availability  of  recent  evaluation  results will  vary,  since  evaluations  are  programmed 
as much as possible to support decision-making. The Commission is therefore making 
an  effort  to  better  align  the  monitoring  and  evaluation  arrangements  with  the 
programming cycle, which means that there are likely be more evaluations available 
for the preparation of new proposals and fewer evaluations in the other years.  

In  line  with  Article  318  TFEU,  the  examination  of  the  two  selected  policy  areas 
should have been linked to the 2009 discharge recommendation, that is to the requests 
made by the European Parliament and Council with regard to those areas. However, 
the  Discharge  Authority  did  not  give  any  particular  indications  regarding  the  policy 
outcomes  of  Education  and  Culture  and  Research  in  the  2009  resolution  and 
recommendation.  

In the following sections, the report first identifies the programmes covered and then 
summarises their role and current objectives. Second, it looks at the recent evaluation 
results  that  have  been  produced,  variously  covering  the  extent  to  which  the 
programmes have contributed to their objectives and produced the expected impacts. 
Since  the  programmes  are  still  running,  this  evaluation  report  presents  the  main 
conclusions  on  progress  achieved  so  far.  Finally,  it  also  sometimes  refers  to 
evaluations  of  earlier  programmes  in  order  to  present  a  reasonably  complete  and 
coherent picture. A list of reference documentation is provided in the accompanying 
Staff Working Document.  

3. 

EDUCATION AND CULTURE 

3.1. 

Introduction 

The policy area Education and Culture has the following general objectives:  

3 

COM(2010)2020 final 

EN 

4 

   EN

 
                                                 
(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

Raise the level and relevance of skills contributing to excellence and equity 
and to make mobility a possibility for all young learners and researchers.  

Foster  creativity,  promote  intercultural  dialogue  and  cultural  and  linguistic 
richness and to build the job-creating potential of the creative economy.  

Reinforce  participation,  solidarity  and  exchanges  between  people,  focusing 
on the young.  

Cooperate  with  world  partner  countries  or  regions  and  international 
organisations  to  promote  European  values  worldwide,  and  to  strengthening 
people to people contacts. 

The  Lifelong  Learning  Programme  (LLP),  the  European  Institute  of 
Innovation  and  Technology  (EIT),  the  Marie  Curie  Actions  (in  the  FP7 
People  programme),  Youth  in  Action,  the  Culture  programme  and  MEDIA 
2007  are  the  main  financial  instruments  applied  to  achieve  the  general 
objectives, with a total budget of nearly €14 billion for 2007-2013. As such, 
they also contribute to several flagship initiatives of the Europe 2020 agenda 
(Youth  on  the  Move,  Agenda  for  new  Skills  and  Jobs,  Innovation  Union, 
Digital Agenda, and Platform against Poverty) and to progress in the Europe 
2020 headline targets in the education field.4 

The  added  value  of  the  programmes  lies  in  the  transnational  character  of  their 
activities,  which  are  additional  to  national  or  regional  actions.  In  addition,  the 
European  action  ensures  a  wider  dissemination  of  results,  which  can  contributes  to 
better informed policy-making throughout the Union and beyond. 

3.2. 

Lifelong Learning  

The Lifelong Learning Programme (LLP) is comprised of five sector programmes: 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

Comenius (primary and secondary school education) 

Erasmus (higher/tertiary education) 

Leonardo da Vinci (vocational education and training) 

Grundtvig (adult education) 

Transversal  and  Jean  Monnet  (supporting  cross-cutting  activities,  such  as 
policy cooperation and innovation).  

The LLP supports mobility for students, pupils and education staff from all education 
sectors to spend time learning in the educational system of another Member State. In 
line  with  the  Europe  2020  strategy,  the  general  objective  is  to  contribute  to  the 

4 

Reduce the number of early school leavers to below 10% of 18-24 year olds by 2020 (declined 
from  17.6%  in  2000  to  14.4%  in  2009);  increase  the  number  of  graduates  from  tertiary 
education to at least 40% of 30-34 year olds by the same date (increased from 22.4% in 2000 
to 32.3% in 2009). 

EN 

5 

   EN

 
                                                 
development  of  the  EU  as  an  advanced  knowledge-based  society,  with  sustainable 
economic development, more and better jobs and greater social cohesion. 

The 2011 interim evaluation5 finds that the LLP overall is effective in dealing with the 
needs of the sectors addressed. It has been found that the actions carried out bring a 
clear  added  value  to  national  activities.  The  programme  is  either  identified  as 
achieving most of its objectives or it is indicated that the implementation and output 
results  show  that  it  will  in  all  likelihood  achieve  those  objectives.  Furthermore  the 
main target groups are being reached. The programme is evaluated as enhancing the 
skills, adaptability and employability of students, and strengthening the openness and 
efficiency of labour markets. It enhances professional development for staff members, 
improving the effectiveness of European education. 

Also in terms of interim results, 2.4 million students have benefited from the Erasmus 
sub-Programme since 1987, building from a low starting point, and with a target of 3 
million students by 2013. The market value of this type of exchange is confirmed by 
more than 40% of employers who consider that internationally experienced graduates 
have  higher  competences  than  those  without  international  experience.  Over  40,000 
members of university staff have benefited from the same programme every year. 

Similarly,  according  to  the  LLP  interim  evaluation,  more  than  77,000  persons  have 
benefited from learning or teaching mobility supported by the Leonardo da Vinci sub-
programme.  85%  of  the  participants  in  Leonardo  da  Vinci  mobility  find  that  their 
training placements were beneficial for their career.  

The interim evaluation indicates that the LLP has proven its added value in terms of 
increasing  the  European  dimension  of  learning  in  all  its  areas  and  sub-programmes. 
The higher education sub-programme, Erasmus, shows measurable EU added value6 
beyond "inspiring" or "influencing". 

Overall, it is concluded that the efficiency and effectiveness of LLP is good and the 
objectives  are  still relevant. Findings  of implementation  problems  are  mostly  due  to 
negative  external  factors  such  as  the  lack  of  language  knowledge  among  potential 
participants. The Erasmus sub-programme deals most directly with this. 

However,  according  to  the  findings  of  the  interim  evaluation,  there  are  also  clear 
indications  that  the  performance  of  the  different  sub-programmes  is  uneven  and  the 
level  of  ambition  of  the  objectives  are  in  certain  instances  disproportionate  to  the 
funds  allocated,  particularly  for  the  sub-programme  Comenius.  The  number  of 
specific and operational objectives is too large, which may have a negative influence 
on  the  already  fragmented  nature  of  the  LLP.  Furthermore  some  of  the  specific 
objectives lack a clear link to the general objectives and the objectives also overlap in 
several cases. These findings provided critical input for the streamlined design of the 
proposed "Erasmus for All" programme. 

5 

6 

EN 

evaluation  of 

the  Lifelong  Learning  Programme 

Interim 
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/evalreports/education/2011/llpreport_en.pdf 
For  more  details  on  the  EU  added  value,  see  SEC(2011)867:  Commission  Staff  Working 
Paper - The added value of the EU budget -accompanying the document COM(2011)500: A 
budget for Europe 2020 

(2007-2013),  2011: 

6 

   EN

 
                                                 
3.3. 

European Institute of Innovation and Technology 

The recently established European Institute of Innovation and Technology targets the 
integration of higher education, research and innovation. Its priorities are the transfer 
of  long-term  innovation  activities  to  commercial  applications,  in  particular  through 
start-up and spin-off enterprises. 

The  first  Knowledge  and  Innovation  Communities  (KIC)  supported  by  the  EIT,  but 
with 75% of KIC budget coming from other sources of funding, started work in 2010. 
The  first  evaluation  confirmed  that  the  EIT  has  broadly  met  its  key  operational 
objectives  in  the  start-up  phase,  although  with  some  delays  due  to  its  inherent 
complexity.7 

The  evaluation  also  noted,  however,  that  at  this  early  stage  in  its  development,  the 
EIT is still working towards achieving the objective of being a reference model. It still 
needs to acquire a sufficient level of experience and expertise across its functions. It 
was  also  found  that  the  participation  of  world-class  universities  and  innovation 
centres  as  well  as  the  complementary  relationship  between  the  EIT  and  other  EU 
programmes  could  be  improved.  The  process  and  the  criteria  for  selecting 
participating actors could be clarified. These evaluation findings provided input to the 
recent  Commission  proposal  for  the  amendment  of  the  EIT  regulation  (Regulation 
(EC) No 294/2008) and an Action Plan will be prepared in response to the evaluation 
results. 

3.4.  Marie Curie8 actions 

Marie  Curie  actions  to  support  mobility  and  training  of  researchers  are  financed 
through the "People" Specific Programme under the Seventh Framework Programme 
for  Research.  The  recent  Interim  Evaluation  of  FP7  concluded  that  the  People 
Programme seems to have been successful so far and that the actions taken are well-
structured  and  balanced.  The  actions  set  a  valuable  bench-mark  for  the  working 
conditions and employment standards of EU-researchers. It was recommended for the 
remaining years of FP7 to abstain from the introduction of new support schemes. 

3.5. 

Youth in Action  

In the framework of the Europe 2020 strategy, the Youth in Action programme (YiA) 
aims at promoting opportunities for cross-border learning mobility and employability 
of  young  people  and  youth  workers,  as  well  as  personal  development  and 
entrepreneurial  spirit.  According  to  the  interim  evaluation  of  the  YiA,  since  2007, 
more than 500,000 young people or youth workers participated in projects supported 
by the programme.9 Up to 2011, more than 130,000 Youth pass non formal learning 

7 

8 

9 

EN 

of 

the 

Institute 

European 

Evaluation 
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/evalreports/education/2011/eitreport_en.pdf  
Although  Marie  Curie  actions  are  part  of  the  People  Programme  financed  from  the  Seventh 
Framework  Programme,  they  are  included  in  the  policy  area  of  Education  and  Culture 
according to the ABB nomenclature and are therefore reported under this section. 
Interim 
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/evalreports/youth/2011/interimreport_en.pdf 

Innovation, 

evaluation 

Action, 

Youth 

2011: 

2011: 

of 

of 

in 

7 

   EN

 
                                                 
opportunities  certificates  were  delivered,  documenting  better  the  improved  skills 
intended to increase employability. 

The Interim Evaluation confirms the added value of the programme. It is identified as 
helping young people having fewer opportunities, a unique feature compared to other 
programmes.  95%  of  participating  young  people  consider  that  they  learned  to 
communicate  better  with  people  who  speak  another  language  and  66%  believe  that 
their  job  chances  have  increased  thanks  to  the  co-funded  project  experience. 
Furthermore,  the  evaluation  and  recent  monitoring  surveys10  confirm  that  the 
programme  is  effective  in  encouraging  the  active  participation  of  young  people  in 
society. 

However, it has also been identified that too high a number of objectives and actions 
makes the programme lose focus and internal coherence. The framework of the future 
single programme "Erasmus for All" provides an opportunity to re-group and revise 
the current objectives to make them more consistent and coherent. 

3.6. 

Culture  

The  Culture  programme  promotes  cross-border  mobility  of  those  working  in  the 
cultural sector, encourages the transnational circulation of cultural and artistic output, 
and fosters intercultural dialogue. 

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

In  2010  alone,  almost  20,000  artists  and  cultural  workers  moved  between  Member 
States  through  transnational  cooperation  projects  and  several  thousands  of  works 
circulated  within  the  EU  due  to  the  support  provided.  This  provided  millions  of 
Europeans  with  access  to  European  cultural  works;  for  example,  some  25  million 
people visited more than 22,600 sites open to the public in 2010 under the European 
Heritage Days co-financed by the programme.  

According  to  the  Mid-term  Evaluation,  the  programme  plays  a  unique  role  in 
stimulating 
the 
professionalisation  of  the  sector,  increasing  the  access  of  European  citizens  to  non-
national works of European origin.11 

cooperation,  promoting  peer 

cross-border 

learning 

and 

However,  the  evaluation  also  concludes  that  there  is  a  need  to  adapt  the  current 
programme's  three  specific  objectives  to  the  real  needs  of  project  promoters. 

10 

11 

EN 

YiA 
monitoring 
http://ec.europa.eu/youth/focus/doc/monitoring_survey/report_monitoring_survey_2011.pdf 
Interim 
(2007-2013), 
Culture 
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/evalreports/culture/2010/progreport_en.pdf 

Programme 

evaluation 

the 

of 

surveys:  

2011: 

8 

   EN

 
                                                 
Experience  of  the  co-operation  projects  also  shows  a  clear  problem  with  how  the 
objectives of the programme should be understood, articulated and promoted. In the 
management of the programme itself, there remains room for further improvement on 
some aspects of the information systems supporting the programme. Drawing on these 
lessons,  the  Commission's  proposal  for  the  future  Creative  Europe  framework 
programme seeks to make the necessary adaptations to meet the challenges currently 
faced by cultural and creative sectors in Europe. 

3.7.  MEDIA 2007  

In line with the Europe 2020 strategy, the main objective of the MEDIA programme 
is  to  strengthen  the  competitiveness  of  the  European  audiovisual  sector.  The 
programme  supports  training  and  networking  for  professionals  and  the  development 
and  cross-border  circulation  of  European  films  and  audiovisual  works.  The  new 
MEDIA  Production  Guarantee  Fund  facilitates  access  to  financing  for  European 
audiovisual  production  companies.  MEDIA  Mundus  supports  cooperation  between 
professionals from the EU and third countries.  

The  Commission  estimates  that,  thanks  to  the  leveraging  effect  of  the  MEDIA 
Production  Guarantee  Fund,  more  than  €100  million  will  result  in  loans  to  film 
producers. About 300 new films are supported by the MEDIA Development scheme 
every year, and those supported under the MEDIA Distribution scheme represent 50% 
of  European  films  displayed  in  cinemas.  One  Euro  invested  from  the  MEDIA  2007 
programme  is  assessed  as  triggering  the  generation  of  €6  from  private  financing 
sources with a multiplier of 14 in the funding of the cinema theatres sector.  

The Interim Evaluation of MEDIA 2007 concludes that the programme is achieving 
its main objective. It contributes substantially to the promotion of cultural diversity in 
Europe.  The  effectiveness  of  co-funded  actions  was  affirmed  and  the  added  value  it 
brings to national interventions was confirmed. The evaluations available for MEDIA 
Plus  and  MEDIA  2007  demonstrated  that  these  programmes  contributed  to  a  more 
even  production  of  audiovisual  works  from  European  countries  having  varied 
audiovisual production capacity.12 

However, the interim evaluation also concludes that there is poor effectiveness in the 
MEDIA programme's support for broadcasting and for the development of online and 
offline  interactive  work.  While  efforts  are  being  made  to  adapt  the  MEDIA 
programme, in some instances, the programme's traditional modes of intervention do 
not enable it to fully meet the fast-changing needs of the sector. The Commission has 
proposed  to  remedy  this  situation  in  the  framework  of  the  future  “Creative  Europe” 
programme. 

12 

EN 

of 

evaluation 

Interim 
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/evalreports/culture/2010/media_en.pdf 
Évaluation 
http://ec.europa.eu/culture/media/programme/docs/overview/evaluation/reports/media%20plu
s/rapport_finale_m_plus.pdf  

finale  des  programmes  MEDIA  Plus  et  MEDIA  Formation,  2007: 

Programme, 

MEDIA 

2010: 

2007 

the 

9 

   EN

 
                                                 
4. 

RESEARCH

13 

4.1. 

Introduction 

In line with the Treaty, the Europe 2020 strategy and the Innovation Union flagship 
initiative14, there are three general objectives for European research policy:  

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

Developing an economy based on knowledge and innovation. 

Mobilizing  and  coordinating  research  and 
innovation  efforts  on  an 
appropriate  scale  to  tackle  societal  challenges,  such  as  climate  change, 
energy and resource efficiency, health and the ageing population. 

Strengthening  the  knowledge  base  and  achieving  research  excellence  in 
Europe.  

The  Seventh  Framework  Programme  (FP7)  is  the  main  policy  tool  of  the  European 
Union in the field of research with a total budget of over € 50 billion. 15  

FP7  invests  in  and  promotes  leading-edge,  world-class  research.  The  FP7  is  being 
implemented  through  four  specific  programmes:  Cooperation,  Ideas,  People16  and 
Capacities.  

The  Specific  Programme  'Cooperation'  provides  funding  for  collaborative  research 
projects  carried  out  by  transnational  consortia  of  industry  and  academia  organised 
through  ten  themes:  Health;  Food,  Agriculture  and  Fisheries,  Biotechnology; 
Information  and  Communication  Technologies;  Nanosciences,  Nanotechnologies, 
Materials and new Production Technologies; Energy; Environment (including Climate 
Change);  Transport 
(including  Aeronautics);  Socio-economic  Sciences  and 
Humanities; Space; Security.17 

The  Specific  Programme  'Ideas'  provides  funding  for  individuals  and  their  teams 
engaged in frontier research in new areas of scientific and technological advancement. 
The programme is implemented by the European Research Council (ERC). The ERC 
has  been  established  with  the  objective  of  reinforcing  excellence,  dynamism  and 
creativity, as well as improving the attractiveness of Europe for the best investigator-
driven research projects. 

13 

14 
15 

16 

17 

This section focuses on research activities included in title 8 'Research' of the General Budget. 
Activities in the Seventh Framework Programme that are part of other policy areas according 
to the ABB nomenclature are not included.  
SEC(2010)1161 
Decision No 1982/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 
2006  concerning  the  Seventh  Framework  Programme  of  the  European  Community  for 
research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013), OJ L 412/2006 
The  achievement  of  objectives  of  Marie  Curie  Actions  is  reported  under  the  Education  and 
Culture part as since 2010 it is DG EAC that manages this Programme 
Parts of the Cooperation Program (Space and Security) are managed by DG Enterprise, while 
DG  INFSO  is  responsible  for  managing  the  Information  and  Communication  Technologies 
part 

EN 

10 

   EN

 
                                                 
The  Specific  Programme  'Capacities'  funds  actions  that  are  designed  to  improve 
Europe's  research  infrastructure  and  the  research  capacity  of  SMEs.  It  also  hosts 
smaller programmes relating to Science in Society, Regions of Knowledge, Research 
Potential,  International  Cooperation,  and  the  Coherent  Development  of  Research 
Policies.  

For the first four years of FP7 (2007 until 2010), 245 concluded calls received 59,140 
proposals18,  involving  about  312,600  applicants.  Out  of  these,  almost  12,500 
proposals involving about 69,300 participants were retained for funding negotiations, 
with a corresponding total EU contribution envisaged of 20.4 billion € 19. 

In  2010,  35%  of  participants  in  retained  proposals  came  from  the  Higher  and 
Secondary  Education  sector,  so  mainly  from  universities.  27%  of  the  participants 
came  from  industry,  and  research  organisations  represented  another  24%  of 
participants.  

The  Commission  pays  special  attention  to  the  funding  for  SMEs  under  the 
Cooperation Specific Programme, following the corresponding 15% target in the FP7 
Decision20.  Focusing  on  SME  participation  in  the  Cooperation  Programme  themes, 
just  over  14%  of  the  Cooperation  Programme  budget  is  going  to  SMEs.  With  the 
scheduled SME dedicated calls under the 2011 and 2012 Work Programmes, the 15% 
target should be met before the end of FP7 in 2013. 

The strong international character of the FP is illustrated by the fact that 169 countries 
are involved in FP7 activities. 
FP7 runs from 2007 until 2013. The evidence presented here is based on the Interim 
Evaluation  of  FP7,  which  was  carried  out  in  2010,  and  on  the  –  somewhat  more 
extensive – Ex-post Evaluation of FP6, which was presented in 2009.  

4.2. 

Framework Programmes 6 and 7 

The  FP6  ex-post  evaluation  report  acknowledges  the  Framework  Programme  as  a 
powerful  mechanism  for  catalysing  research  and  development  in  Europe  that  could 
only  be  realised  through  action  at  the  European  level.  The  activities  under  FP6  are 
identified  as  having  generated  European  added  value,  contributed  generally  towards 
increased 
industrial  competitiveness,  generated  network  externalities,  and 
strengthened the knowledge infrastructure in Europe.21  

More specifically, but still concerning the performance of the overall programme, FP6 
was identified as having included first-rate projects, involving top-quality researchers 
and  well-managed  consortia.  These  have  contributed  to  the  improved  mobility  of 
researchers and the internationalisation of research teams. This has helped Europe to 

18 

19 

20 
21 

Numbers  based  on  eligible  proposals  and  not  including  first-stage  proposals  in  the  case  of  two-stage 
calls. 
These  figures  and  those  in  the  three  following  paragraphs  are  extracted  from:  Fourth  FP7 
Monitoring 
2010: 
http://ec.europa.eu/research/evaluations/index_en.cfm?pg=fp7-monitoring  
The aim is to ensure that at least 15% of the funding of the programme goes to SMEs. 
Evaluation of the Sixth Framework Programmes for Research and Technological development 
2002 
2006: 
– 
http://ec.europa.eu/research/reports/2009/pdf/fp6_evaluation_final_report_en.pdf 

Monitoring 

Report 

Report 

- 

EN 

11 

   EN

 
                                                 
improve its capacity to perform internationally competitive research at the frontiers of 
science and technology and in research areas of social and industrial importance.  

Concerning areas which need to be improved, the goal of 40% female participation is 
some way from being met and is particularly challenging given that women comprise 
only some 30% of the research workforce across the EU. Women are also even less 
represented  at  the  most  senior  levels,  even  if  this  is  expected  gradually  to  improve 
over time. 

Furthermore despite the acknowledged importance of the participation in research of 
both  large  companies  and  SMEs  to  bridge  the  gap  between  research  results  and 
innovation, industry participation has been declining, whether measured as a share of 
funding or number of participants. Industry participation fell from 39% in FP4 to 31% 
in FP6 and currently accounts for only 25% in FP7. There is still evidence that small 
businesses  are  more  easily  deterred  by  complexity  of  procedures  and  delays  in 
contracts. This is the case even if increased industry participation is expected to come 
from Joint Technology Initiatives which have been slow to develop. 

Nevertheless,  FP7  has  been  evaluated  as  creating  and  fostering  a  broad  range  of 
networking  activities  between  a  large  number  of  national  research  centres,  opening 
opportunities for scientists and supplementing existing financing such as through the 
Risk-sharing  Finance  Facility.  Its  role  has  been  confirmed  in  fostering  collaborative 
research  with  a  strong  international  dimension  through  the  participation  of  169 
countries  world-wide.22Whether  judged  by  the  number  of  researchers  involved,  the 
geographical spread of teams or the range of topics covered, the evaluation identifies 
that FP7 has an impressively wide reach.23  

More specifically, the FP7 Interim Evaluation also reasoned that, even though the FP7 
is defined as a pre-competitive research and development programme, it has some key 
components  that  underpin  innovation  processes  and  capacities  contributing  to 
industrial  and  market  efficiency.  Reference  is  made  to  the  ways  in  which  research 
teams  from  different  countries  and  across  different  sectors  collaborate,  creating  a 
distinctive feature of dynamic innovation systems. This contributes to the finding that 
participants  from  industry,  research  and  higher  education  achieve  a  high  degree  of 
inter-disciplinary collaboration and application-orientation.24 

Evaluations acknowledge the correctness of the FP implementation, highlighting that 
there has been considerable improvement in the way evaluation of the FP is organised 
in  recent  years25  and  that,  at  a  procedural  level,  calls  have  been  developed  and 

22 

23 

24 

25 

of 

the 

Seventh 

Evaluation 

Evaluation 

Framework 

Interim 
Programme: 
http://ec.europa.eu/research/evaluations/pdf/archive/other_reports_studies_and_documents/fp7_interim_
evaluation_expert_group_report.pdf  
Interim 
Programme: 
of 
http://ec.europa.eu/research/evaluations/pdf/archive/other_reports_studies_and_documents/fp7_interim_
evaluation_expert_group_report.pdf 
Interim 
Programme: 
of 
http://ec.europa.eu/research/evaluations/pdf/archive/other_reports_studies_and_documents/fp7_interim_
evaluation_expert_group_report.pdf 
FP6 Ex-Post Evaluation, p. vii 

Framework 

Framework 

Evaluation 

Seventh 

Seventh 

the 

the 

EN 

12 

   EN

 
                                                 
processed effectively and that these procedures have ensured that funds are allocated 
in a reasonably timely manner and with integrity26. 

At the same time, both FP level evaluations identify a strong need for further efforts at 
simplification of the FP, highlighting the various problems related to complexity in its 
functioning.  The  FP6  Ex-Post  Evaluation  states  that  FP6  has  continued  to  entail  a 
cumbersome level of administration. The experts point to the fact that this burden is 
especially  large  for  new  participants  –  whether  they  are  SMEs,  young  researchers, 
participants from the new Member States or from ‘Third Countries’27.  

Two years later, in 2010, the FP7 Interim Evaluation Panel highlights that several of 
the  changes  that  were  implemented  for  FP7  have  been  welcomed  by  the  research 
community  and  have  undoubtedly  been  successes,  notably  the  Unique  Registration 
Facility  (URF),  the  EPSS  submission  tool  and  less  demanding  audit  requirements. 
Nevertheless,  the  experts  judge  the  lack  of  progress  on  many  known  problems  as 
disappointing28.  

4.2.1.  Cooperation Programme 

The  Cooperation  Programme  is  one  of  the  main  sources  of  public  funding  for 
collaboration  across  national  borders  in  the  EU,  ensuring  European  added  value. 
Existing evaluations underline the importance of the programme for the formation of 
networks  across  Europe.  The  FP7  Interim  Evaluation  concludes  that  collaborative 
projects  are  at  the  core  of  the  European  Research  Area  and  that  FP7  is  filling 
important  gaps  between  national  research  activities,  thus  ensuring  critical  mass  and 
added  value  in  many  areas.  Many  FP7  activities  are  identified  as  not  likely  to  have 
taken place without EU level funding.29  

One of the main conclusions from the body of work on research networks and their 
formation is that the FPs have been instrumental in stimulating a growing culture of 
knowledge-sharing.  According  to  one  study,  FP6  has  facilitated  the  creation  of  the 
ERA by improving the integration and coordination of research across Europe and has 
led to increased competitiveness. The study highlights a significant change in attitudes 
and  behaviour  among  many  of  the  FP6  participants  and,  in  particular,  an  increased 
openness to international knowledge-sharing and collaborative research.30 

26 
27 
28 
29 

30 

of 

the 

Evaluation 

FP7 Interim Evaluation, p.7 
FP6 Ex-Post Evaluation, p.36 
FP7 Interim Evaluation, p. 56-57 
Interim 
Programme: 
http://ec.europa.eu/research/evaluations/pdf/archive/other_reports_studies_and_documents/fp7_interim_
evaluation_expert_group_report.pdf 
NetPact:  Structuring  effects  of  Community  research.  The  impact  of  the  RTD  Framework 
Programme  on  network 
the  European  Commission: 
http://ec.europa.eu/research/evaluations/pdf/archive/fp6-evidence-
base/evaluation_studies_and_reports/evaluation_studies_and_reports_2009/structuring_effect
s_of_community_research_-
_the_impact_of_the_framework_programme_for_rtd_on_network_formation.pdf#view=fit&p
agemode=none 

formation.  Final 

Framework 

Seventh 

report 

to 

EN 

13 

   EN

 
                                                 
One  of  the  conclusions  of  the  FP7  evaluation  is  also  that  the  main  added  value  of 
collaborative health research at EU level is obtained from transnational cooperation, 
the  integration  of  different  activities  and  participants  in  different  projects  and  the 
concentration  of  European  effort  on  fewer  but  more  important  priorities.  It  also 
indicates that research into transport activities under FP7 applies a stronger as well as 
broader  approach  in  addressing  the  challenges,  including  integration  of  the  various 
modes  of  transport,  the  importance  of  the  role  of  infrastructure  and  patterns  of  use. 
Multi-modal activities, combining different forms of transport, such as road, rail, air 
and  waterway,  are  confirmed  as  of  great  European  added  value  since  national 
programmes more rarely address these  questions. The evaluation of FP7 also shows 
that  the  Cooperation  Programme  develops  the  potential  and  capacity  of  smaller 
Member States to participate and collaborate. 

4.2.2. 

Ideas Programme 

The findings of the FP7 Interim Evaluation on the Ideas Programme concluded that 
the principle of excellence in project selection is largely achieved, notably as leading 
researchers are being funded, the quality of proposals is generally assessed to be high 
and  there  is  robust  competition  for  funding.  It  was  highlighted  that  the  ERC  has 
succeeded in attracting and funding world-class research, playing an important role in 
anchoring research talent in the EU. 

The  funding  of  a  mix  of  investigator-driven  competitive  research  proposals  is 
identified as having allowed the ERC to fund research which is both directly relevant 
to  EU  policy  needs  and  has  the  potential  to  address  possible  future  challenges. 
Discoveries  from  ERC-funded  projects  have  been  hailed  as  "landmark"  and 
"exceptional advances" by the research community.  

4.2.3.  The Capacities Programme 

Current  evidence  shows  that  FP7  has  enhanced  the  capacity  for  high  level  research 
and knowledge in Europe by becoming the thread for networking for more than 500 
national  research  infrastructures  (RIs)31  in  diverse  fields  and  provided  high  level 
education  and  training  to  young  researchers  through  interactions  encouraged  in  the 
framework of RIs. Also FP-7 supported RIs have been evaluated as having an impact 
on  European  competitiveness  as  test-beds  for  promoting  innovation  and  creating 
'research market’ opportunities for industry.32 

5. 

CONCLUSIONS 

The  Commission  has  set  out  in  this  report  under  Article  318  TFEU  to  provide  an 
overview  of  the  main  results  of  recent  evaluation  work  focusing  on  the  different 

31 

32 

EN 

Please  note  that  parts  on  Research  Infrastructures  in  Capacities  Programme,  ICT-based 
Research Infrastructures (e-Infrastructures), are managed by DG Information and Society 
Fotkis C. (2010) FP7 Interim Evaluation: Analyses of FP7 supported research infrastructures 
from 
initiatives 
http://ec.europa.eu/research/evaluations/pdf/archive/fp7-evidence-
base/experts_analysis/c.%20fotakis_-_research_infrastructure.pdf#view=fit&pagemode=none  

the  European  Research  Area, 

context  of 

available 

the 

in 

14 

   EN

 
                                                 
stages in the development of two main areas of EU financial intervention: Education 
and Culture and Research. 

The  report  focuses  principally  on  the  results  and  impacts  identified  as  having  been 
achieved  as  a  result  of  EU  financing  through  the  most  recent  and  substantial 
evaluations  of  the  selected  programmes  and  actions,  sometimes  supplemented  by 
reference  to  earlier  evaluation  results.  It  provides  an  overview  of  the  main  recent 
evaluation  results  relevant  to  the  selected  programmes  compared  with  the  more 
detailed  reports  and  other  documents  already  available  on  specific  elements  of  the 
programmes.  

The report covers the areas of Education and Culture and Research, mainly in view of 
the  link  with  the  EU  2020  headline  targets  and  flagship  initiatives,  the  available 
performance  and  evaluation  related  information,  and  the  centralised  management 
method.  The  report  relies  upon  the  detailed  information  provided  in  the  numerous 
sources identified in the text. It seeks to provide an overview of the objectives of the 
programmes  being  the  subject  of  Union  financing,  and  the  impacts  and  results 
achieved dependent on the stage reached in the programme at the time of the relevant 
evaluations.  

As  regards  the  area  of  Education  and  Culture,  the  report  shows  that  the  financial 
instruments put in place, depending of the stage of realisation, show a good record in 
terms of producing tangible results and of achieving or being likely to achieve most of 
the  objectives  of  those  instruments.  Moreover,  the  report  provides  various  concrete 
examples  of  generated  added  value  by,  inter  alia,  introducing  a  transnational 
dimension, by cross- border cooperation and wider dissemination of knowledge or by 
generating leverage effects as for example in the case of the Media 2007 Programme. 
The  report  has  equally  detected  areas  for  improvement,  such  as  the  need  to  better 
define  and  focus  objectives  or  to  improve  management,  both  issues  which  were 
remedied in the proposed successor programmes. 

for  generating  European  added  value, 

In  the  area  of  Research,  the  report  indicates  that  the  Framework  Programmes  have 
delivered  or  are  in  the  process  of  delivering  the  expected  outcomes.  Framework 
Programmes are acknowledged as powerful mechanisms for catalysing research that 
could  only  be  realised  through  action  at  the  European  level.  They  are  also 
acknowledged 
industrial 
competitiveness,  network 
the  knowledge 
infrastructure in Europe. FP7 is clearly making a significant contribution to European 
science  and  the  development  of  the  European  Research  Area  and  has  a  vast  and 
impressive  reach.  The  report  also  recognises,  as  one  of  the  areas  for  further 
the  simplification  and 
improvement, 
implementation of the FP. Steps in that direction have been taken in the design of the 
new programmes prepared for the next financial framework, notably in the proposals 
for the Horizon 2020 programme. 

the  need  for  further  efforts  regarding 

strengthening 

externalities, 

increased 

and 

By  covering  each  year  a  limited  number  of  programmes  for  which  relevant 
evaluations  have  become  available,  this  report  will  be  able  to  cover  in  the  medium 
term a broad range of financial programmes under the different management methods. 

EN 

15 

   EN

 
The evaluations referred to in this report have also been used in the preparation of the 
proposals for the new Multi-annual Financial Framework to run from 2014 to 2020. 
Experience of the functioning of evaluation work also feeds into the design of future 
evaluations  with  a  view  to  strengthening  the  process  and  improving  outcomes.  The 
Commission  will  work  to  ensure  that  there  is  increased  co-ordination,  exchange  of 
information and coherence both within the Commission and with Member States on 
the  programming,  organisation  and  use  of  monitoring  and  evaluation  in  the  next 
financial framework. 

In producing this report, the Commission also raises the question of the function and 
timing  of  this  report  in  relation  to  the  annual  discharge  of  the  budget,  particularly 
given the varying timing and length of periods covered by the evaluation work carried 
out compared with the more specific annual focus of the budget discharge process.  

The  Commission  is  examining  further  how  to  develop  the  content  of  this  report, 
taking account of the criteria set out in Article 318 TFEU, and the interests expressed 
by Parliament and Council and is ready to adapt it in the light of their reactions to this 
report.  

EN 

16 

   EN