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: 2012-11-21
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU financing, EU programme, European citizenship, area of freedom, security and justice, competitiveness, conservation of resources, cost-effectiveness analysis, innovation, job creation, management of resources, research and development, research programme, the EU's international role

EUROPEAN 
COMMISSION 

Brussels, 21.11.2012  
COM(2012) 675 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) 383 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. 

INTRODUCTION  

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. This report is the second report 
and relates to the financial year 2011.1  

In  the  context  of  the  budgetary  discharge  procedure  for the  financial  year  2010,  the 
European  Parliament  encouraged  the  Commission  "to  review  its  systems  for 
evaluating  the  effectiveness  of  expenditure  programmes  to  assess  whether  they  are 
adding value, delivering value for money and achieving the objectives for which they 
were  established".2  The  European  Parliament  sought  the  opinion  of  the  Court  of 
Auditors  which  suggested  that  the  scope,  purpose  and  content  of  the  report  be 
reviewed  and  this  should  be  the  starting  point  for  a  discussion  between  the 
Commission, the Council and the Parliament on how the report can be made useful to 
the discharge authority.3 

Based on the indications given by the Parliament and taking into account the Court's 
opinion,  the  Commission  is  examining  how  to  design  and  structure  this  report  to 
ensure  maximum  value  to  the  discharge  authority.  This  includes  a  method  to  report 
consistently  and  reliably  on  performance  on  a  yearly  basis.  For  the  near  term,  the 
Report  will  need  to  rely  on  performance  information  drawn  from  the  current 
monitoring and evaluation frameworks under the Multi-annual Financial Framework 
(MFF) and the Commission's annual reporting instruments.4 As indicated in last year's 
report,5 the preparation of the next MFF provides the opportunity to make adjustments 
to  improve  the  Report  in  the  future,  particularly  as  concerns  the  production  of 
improved performance information.  

Various issues of purpose, scope and timing are being taken into account in designing 
the future reports: 

1 

2 

3 
4 

5 

The first evaluation report on the financial year 2010 was adopted by the Commission on 17 
Feb. 2012 (ref. COM(2012)40). 
EP discharge decision of 10.05.2011 on discharge in respect of the implementation of the EU 
budget for 2009; section III; paragraphs 71 and 72 
Court of Auditor's opinion 4/2012, received by the Commission on 7 June 
That is: the Commission's Strategic Planning and Programming Cycle – the Annual Activity 
Reports, Annual Budget Statements, etc. 
Conclusions section, page 16. 

EN 

2 

   EN

 
                                                 
•  meaningful  annual  assessment  of 

the  effectiveness  and  efficiency  of 
expenditure  to  the  budgetary  authority.  The  Report  should  provide  an 
indication  if  the  financial  programmes  are  on  track  or  if  there  needs  to  be 
adjustment; 

•  great variety in the size and content of the programmes To be manageable, this 
requires agreement on a common framework– a set of key objectives and main 
indicators and a framework for monitoring and reporting on results relative to 
programme  objectives  and  criteria  such  as  effectiveness,  efficiency  and  EU 
added-value. This framework should be coherent with and drawn from both the 
Commission's annual reporting instruments and its evaluation work; 

• 

timely  reporting  on  evaluations,  taking  into  account  the  Parliament's  need  to 
have  the  report  available  in  the  context  of  the  annual  budgetary  discharge 
procedure.  

Article  318  links  this  evaluation  Report  to  the  Discharge  process.  There  is  clearly  a 
need to further clarify with the discharge authority how to draft the evaluation report 
in the light of the discharge resolutions . On timing, during the early years of financial 
programmes to which the discharge would refer, the main focus is on the initiation of 
the actions being financed. Conclusions on impacts would only be possible at a later 
stage.  This  is  because  evaluations  usually  refer  to  funds  committed  at  least  three  to 
five  years  previously.  Meeting  the  request  of  the  Court  of  Auditors  to  receive  the 
Commission's  next  report  on  the  n-2  budget  year  significantly  earlier  in  the  year  in 
order to take it into account in their annual discharge report will further shorten the 
time available to report on results. 

The link between the preparation and timing of the production of this report and the 
Annual Activity Reports also needs to be reviewed. Finding the right balance between 
early reporting and useful assessments of performance will be important. 

The conceptual work has started and an agreed framework should underlie the future 
Evaluation Reports.  

Taking  into  account  the  indications  given  by  the  Parliament,  calling  for  a  more 
comprehensive  approach,6  and 
this  report  provides 
performance-related  information  which  became  available  in  2011  for  funding  under 
all of the main budget headings.  

the  Court  of  Auditors7 

The report identifies: 

•  key  issues  of  EU  value  added,  effectiveness  and  efficiency,  indicating  when 
relevant,  the  limitations  inherent  to  the  interim  character  of  many  of  the 
available evaluation reports; 

• 

information  contributing 
programmes which could contribute to improve their final impacts;  

to  modifications 

the  management  of 

in 

the 

6 
7 

EP Discharge 2010 (P7_TA(2012)0153)_Part I).  
Court of Auditor's opinion 4/2012, received by the Commission on 7 June 

EN 

3 

   EN

 
                                                 
•  examples  of  evaluation  results  having  contributed  to  the  design  of  the 
Commission  proposals  for  the  MFF  2014  –  2020.  These  examples  show  how 
evaluations  have  contributed  to  simplification  of  the  programmes,  better 
monitoring  and  evaluation  frameworks  and  how  they  have  influenced  policy 
making; a full set of evaluation summaries for each budget heading8 and links 
to  evaluation  information  from  the  Annual  Activity  Reports  (AAR)9  and 
Activity Statements10 are provided in the Staff Working Paper in annex. 

2. 

OVERVIEW OF RESULTS ACHIEVED 

This Report uses the evaluations completed in 2011 (118 in total) as the main source 
of performance related information. It summarises evaluation results on the financial 
programmes  for  each  budget  heading,  highlighting  EU  value  added,  focus  and 
coherence,  effectiveness  and  efficiency  as  well  as  organisational  issues.  The  Report 
indicates if evaluations have made recommendations for improvements. This section 
follows the structure of the 2007 – 2013 Financial Framework. 

Heading 1a - Competitiveness for Growth and Employment 

Enterprise 

The Competitiveness and Innovation Programme (CIP) includes the Entrepreneurship 
and  Innovation  Programme,  the  ICT  Policy  Support  Programme  and  the  Intelligent 
Energy Europe Programme. 11 

The  interim  evaluation12  based  on  all  three  components,  examined  impacts  and  EU 
added-value. It concludes that the overall programme and its constituent elements are 
all performing well and on track to meet objectives. 13 The programme was assessed 
as  highly  relevant,  appropriately  structured,  effective  and  efficient.  The  evaluation 
identified room for greater synergies between the component programmes and a better 
strategic steer. In terms of results, the CIP has become a major vehicle for promoting 
innovation  with  over  186,000  jobs  created  or  maintained  largely  due  to  its 
interventions.  It  supported  134  eco-innovation  projects  in  recycling,  green  business, 
food  and  drinks  sector  and  the  building  sector.  The  Growth  and  Innovative  SME 
Facility (GIF) and SMEG loan and micro credit facility were confirmed as relevant to 
the needs of small and medium-sized businesses (SMEs) and, in terms of EU added-
value, fulfil a demand for finance which otherwise would not have been met. Between 
2007 and 2011, the financial instruments of the programme have assisted more than 
155,000  companies  financing  EUR  11.4  billion  under  guarantees  and  investment 
volumes up to EUR 2.2 billion under venture capital. More than 2 million SMEs each 

8 

9
10 
11 
12 

13 

Evaluative  studies  may  contain  reviews  of  specific  aspects  of  the  performance  of  activities 
and/or focus on monitoring and implementation issues. 
Standing instructions to 2011 AARs - Article 60(7) of the Financial Regulation, 
Art 33 FR 
Approximate multiannual budget of EUR 3,6 billion. 
The  general  approach  in  this  report  is  to  identify  Interim  evaluations.  Where  there  is  no 
indication of the interim or ex-post nature of the evaluation, it contains elements of both. 
Even if the programme covers the period 2007-2013, it is expected that the last results will be 
achieved around 2017.  

EN 

4 

   EN

 
                                                 
 
year have used the Enterprise Europe Network, half of them to access new markets or 
new product development.  

The  interim  evaluation14  of  the  Erasmus  for  Young  Entrepreneurs  Programme15 
identified  the  significant  job  creation  potential  of  the  programme.  Half  of  the  new 
entrepreneurs who took part in the programme commented that they would be likely 
to hire a new employee as a consequence of the placement despite the risk of those 
persons  becoming  competitors.  Costs  of  EUR  7,500  to  EUR  8,500  per  job  created, 
suggest  cost  effectiveness.  Participation  is  increasing,  with  an  improvement  in 
processing applications resulting in a higher number of exchanges per month. 

Economic and Financial Affairs 

The ex-post evaluation of the Euratom Loan Facility (ELF)16 showed that the aims of 
the ELF remain valid and aligned with its energy security and supply objectives. The 
ELF co-financed 21% of total investment in new construction over the period 1977-
2003 and created 6000 skilled jobs. Without this investment, the EU would have had 
to import an additional 10m tons of energy annually. The EFL directly contributed to 
safety  enhancements  in  Bulgaria  and  Romania,  helping  to  bring  their  nuclear 
installations  in  line  with  internationally  recognised  standards.  Euratom  lending 
stimulated  wider  reform,  including  creation  of  decommissioning  funds,  reform  of 
electricity tariffs etc. The financial performance of the EFL was good with all loans 
being fully repaid and no recourse to the EU budget guarantee.  

Mobility and Transport 

The  Mid-term  evaluation17  of  the  The  TEN-T  programme18  showed  that  while  the 
programme  played  an  important  role  in  structuring  the  EU  transport  network  and 
meeting mobility needs, progress in implementation was behind schedule with only a 
few  priority  projects  completed  and  key  parts  -  such  as  cross-border  sections  - 
missing.  It  indicated  that  the  TEN-T  network  is  an  assembly  of  largely  national 
sections,  often  poorly  interlinked,  rather  than  a  full  interoperable  network.  Most 
Priority Projects focused on rail,19 without achieving a complete and coherent network 
linking all modes of transport. In spite of the focus on rail, a Single European Railway 
Area  still  does  not  exist,  with  continuing  bottlenecks  and  significant  obstacles  to 
interoperability. The Priority Projects were not delivering the expected effects. 

Based  on  this  evaluation,  the  Commission  proposed  new  Guidelines  for  TEN-T 
projects  for  the  period  2014-2020  in  the  context  of  the  Connecting  Europe  Facility. 
These  draft  guidelines  set  out  standards  to  ensure  efficiency,  interoperability  and 
better project planning. The aim is to achieve by 2030 of a core network of European 
infrastructure and by 2050 a comprehensive network. The focus until 2020 will be on 

14 
15 
16 
17 

18 
19 

EN 

http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/dg/files/evaluation/eye_final_report_en.pdf 
Approximate budget of EUR 34 million 
EU budget only used for guarantees 
The  TEN-T  programme 
interoperability of the trans-European transport network and access to it. 
Approximate budget of EUR 8 billion 
Eighteen address rail and two address inland waterways  

to  ensuring 

is  directed 

the  cohesion,  interconnection  and 

5 

   EN

 
                                                 
those elements which provide the highest European added-value: cross border missing 
links, key bottlenecks and multi-modal modes. 

The Evaluation20 of the Marco Polo Programme 2003-201021 showed that while the 
programme delivers environmental benefits quantified in hundreds of million EUR22, 
the modal  shift  targets expressed in tonne-kilometres of  freight shifted from road to 
short sea shipping, rail and inland waterway transport have not been fully achieved. 
Being  a  market-driven  programme,  Marco  Polo  was  particularly  sensitive  to  the 
market  situation  and  the  economic  crisis.  It  has  a  unique  design  where  funding  is 
largely performance related. However, at the same time, it is considered by the market 
as  a  complex  instrument.  And  42  per  cent  of  beneficiaries  stated  that  their  projects 
would  definitely  have  gone  ahead  without  Marco  Polo  funds.  However,  it  was  also 
concluded  that  it  is  too  early  fully  to  assess  the  results  of  Marco  Polo  II  as  many 
projects are still being implemented.  

As  a  result  of  these  findings  taking  into  account  the  results  delivered  by  the 
programme  and  the  evolution  of  the  transport  policy,  the  Commission  has  proposed 
that  the  initiative  be  continued  in  the  framework  of  the  new  Connecting  Europe 
Facility and the new TEN-T programme. 

Information Society and Media 

The  interim  evaluation23  of  the  Safer  Internet  Programme24  concluded  that  the 
programme  adds  value  and  responds  well  to  changing  societal  issues,  including 
aspects  of  social  media  and  cyber-bullying.  The  programme  supported  projects  that 
would  not  otherwise  have  been  funded.  It  influenced  national  and  international 
activities, with the research and results widely used and quoted. The programme could 
benefit  from  a  longer  term  funding  perspective  and  a  more  strategic  vision.  In  its 
proposal  for  the  programme  for  the  next  MFF  (The  Connecting  Europe  Facility)  a 
more coherent and transparent  approach  to EU funding is provided  which will  offer 
certainty and should thus attract more private sector financing. 

The final evaluation25 of the eContent  Plus Programme26 found that the  programme 
has  contributed  to  making  digital  content  in  Europe  more  accessible,  usable  and 
exploitable,  facilitating  the  creation  and  diffusion  of  information  in  areas  of  public 
interest. Concerning the importance of this contribution, given increasing demand for 
quality digital content in Europe from citizens, students, researchers, SMEs and other 
businesses,  the  evaluation  recommended  continued  support  at  European  level  to 

20 

21 

22 
23

24 
25 
26 

The indication interim or ex post is not specified for evaluations which concern predecessor 
and ongoing programmes 
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/evaluations/doc/2011_marco-polo-programme-2003-2010.pdf. 
Partly  an  ex-post  evaluation  of  the  last  programme  and  partly  an  interim  evaluation  of  the 
current programme 
Approximate budget of EUR 417 million only for Marco Polo I 

http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/sip/policy/programme/current_prog

/index_en.htm 
Approximate budget of EUR 55 million  
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0548:FIN:En:PDF 
Approximate budget of EUR 149 million  

EN 

6 

   EN

 
                                                 
 
increase  the  availability  of  European  digital  content.  It  was  suggested  to  target 
funding at areas where progress is likely to be slow and access to content is limited by 
language and cultural barriers to maximise EU added-value. 

Energy 

The Final Evaluation27 of the Intelligent Energy-Europe (IEE) II programme28 found 
that  the  programme  was  well  aligned  with  policy  priorities  and  contributing  to  EU 
objectives by promoting energy efficiency and the utilisation of renewable energy. It 
has focused on the development of best practices and cross-border activities.  

The evaluation found that the programme addressed the needs and problems related to 
sustainable  energy  but  also  that  non-technological  barriers  continue  to  limit  the 
attainment of EU energy goals. To better address the financial barriers, hindering the 
uptake  of  sustainable  energy,  the  evaluation  recommended  increased  funding  of 
activities promoting innovative techniques, processes and products. This finding was 
corroborated  by  the  ex-ante  evaluation  of  the  successor  to  the  IEE  II  programme, 
which  found  that  the  most  cost-effective  policy  option  would  be  to  continue  the 
programme with an increased budget and to give more emphasis to actions supporting 
policy implementation, capacity-building and mobilisation of investment. The impact 
of the IEE II Programme could also be higher if more actions were targeted at small 
and medium players in the energy sector and if it was better linked to the Structural 
Funds. This issue is addressed by the Commission's proposal for the next programme. 
.Finally  the  evaluation  showed  that  the  efforts  made  by  the  Executive  Agency  for 
Competitiveness and Innovation (EACI) to simplify the management process might increase 
the effectiveness of the projects, and that the EACI was overall perceived as efficient.  

The  mid-term  evaluation29  of  the  European  Energy  Programme  for  Recovery 
(EERP)30  found  that  the  funding  had  not  always  been  used  as  rapidly  as  envisaged. 
The overall objectives and the resources of the programme were relevant to economic 
recovery,  and  energy  policy,  with  short-term  employment  generation  and  strong 
potential  for  long-term  employment  and  competitiveness  benefits.  Some  completed 
projects were already contributing to security of supply, competitiveness, greenhouse 
gas reduction and completion of the single market. In some cases, projects took longer 
to get off the ground than had been planned partially due to financing and permitting 
difficulties inherent in large infrastructure projects. 

The Commission has responded to the evaluation findings in its proposal for energy 
infrastructure guidelines which aims to introduce major improvements in the speed of 
implementation  of  the  programme.  The  proposal  contains  provisions  to  accelerate 
permit  granting  procedures  by  the  creation  of  single  national  authorities  to  manage 
this  part  of  the  process,  establishing  a  three  year  time  limit  for  the  permit  granting 
decision and increasing transparency and public participation.  

Research 

27 
28 
29 
30 

http://ec.europa.eu/energy/evaluations/doc/2011_iee2_programme.pdf 
Approximate budget of EUR 730 million  
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/evaluations/doc/2011_eepr_mid_term_evaluation.pdf  
Approximate budget of EUR 4 billion 

EN 

7 

   EN

 
                                                 
Under  the  Seventh  Framework  Programme  (FP7)  Framework  Programme  on 
Research31, in 2011, 40% of participants in retained proposals came from the Higher 
and Secondary Education sector, so mainly from universities, 26% from industry, and 
23%  from  research  organisations.  SMEs  received  16.3%32  of  the  funding  for  the 
Cooperation  Specific  Programme  compared  to  the  initial  aim  of  at  least  15%  SME 
funding. The strong international character of the FP is illustrated by the 169 countries 
involved. Up to February 2012, over 14,000 grant agreements have been signed and 
over 1,000 projects completed. Based on the final reports of the completed projects, 
on  average  each  project  produced  eight  publications,  four  being  'open  access'33.  On 
average, FP7 projects generated twenty-two direct full-time equivalent (FTE) jobs34. 

Evaluations  conducted  in  201135  underline  that  the  Framework  Programmes  have 
succeeded in involving Europe's best researchers and institutes, picking up emerging 
fields of science or maintaining EU competitiveness in setting research agendas. The 
evaluation studies36 show that the FP7 significantly contributes to helping European-
wide  partnerships  to  grow  and  strengthen.  Some  of  the  evaluation  studies  provide 
valuable  evidence  about  the  contribution  of  the  Framework  Programmes  to 
developing  innovative  products,  processes  and  services  which  have  an  impact  on 
competitiveness and job creation.  

A  study  into  the  'Longer  term  impacts  of  the  Framework  Programmes'  showed  the 
diversity  of  impacts  according  to  the  different  fields  of  research  analysed,  allowing, 
for example, the EU to become competitive with the other world R&D leaders in the 
area  of  Quantum  Information  Processing  and  Computing  or  helping  the  European 
research  community  to  become  a  world  leader  in  the  area  of  stratospheric  ozone 
research. The study further highlights the importance of more incidental impacts such 
as  community-building,  the  creation  of  new  disciplines  and  staff  exchange  between 
academia and industry. 

It  was  also  concluded  that  Framework  Programme  evaluations  improved  over  time, 
but still suffer from the predominance of input indicators and a scarcity of output and 
impact  indicators. The  Commission's  recent  proposal  for  Horizon  2020  provides  a 
more developed analytical framework. It presents a coherent intervention logic for the 
programme  as  a  whole  and  its  different  components,  including  a  hierarchy  of 
programme objectives and a list of key indicators to measure the outcomes and impact 
of  Horizon  2020.  In  addition,  the  proposal  has  been  designed  to  introduce 
simplifications  to  ease  the  administrative  burden  for  participants,  streamline  the 
applicable rules and procedures, ensure consistency between instruments and apply a 

Approximate budget of EUR 55 billion (Euratom included) 

31 
32  Situation on 30.09.2012 
33 

‘Open  access’,  defined  as  free  access  over  the  internet,  aims  to  improve  and  promote  the 
dissemination of knowledge, thereby improving the efficiency of scientific discovery and maximising 
return on investment in R&D by public research funding bodies. 

http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/index.cfm?fuseaction=public.topic&id=1294&lang=1 
34 

Fifth FP7 Monitoring Report - Monitoring Report 2011 – 
http://ec.europa.eu/research/evaluations/index_en.cfm?pg=fp7-monitoring 
http://ec.europa.eu/research/evaluations/index_en.cfm  
The  evaluation  of  the  FP7  Transport  Research  programme,  the  survey  carried  out  in  the 
Impact  Assessment  of  the  Regions  of  Knowledge  Programme,  the  evaluation  study  of  the 
FP6-NMP programme  

35 
36 

EN 

8 

   EN

 
                                                 
new risk/trust balance. Particular attention is being paid to ensuring the participation 
of SMEs.  

Education and Culture 

The  Interim  Evaluation  2007-2013  of  the  Lifelong  Learning  Programme  (LLP)37 
covered  the  four  sectoral  programmes38  and  the  Transversal  and  the  Jean  Monnet 
programmes,  supporting  transnational  mobility,  partnerships  and  other  cooperation 
projects in all educational sectors covered by the LLP.  

It  confirmed  that  the  more  integrated  approach  increased  the  efficiency  and 
effectiveness of the programmes. Important synergies were exploited, particularly in 
administration  and  promotion  actions.  However,  the  programme  was  found  to  be 
highly complex with around 70 actions and too many objectives, often with missing 
links between different levels.  

The  LLP  has  progressed  successfully  towards  its  objectives.  Up  to  96-100%  of  the 
earmarked  funds  were  used  in  the  initial  years  of  implementation.  Institutional 
beneficiaries pointed to the benefits of improved content and practice in education and 
training.  The  evaluation  noted  significant  European  added-value:  enhanced  policy 
cooperation  and  interchange  between  the  Participating  countries  and  an  increased 
European dimension. The evaluation identified nonetheless the risk that some of the 
programme's  quantified  targets  (such  as  on  mobility  and  the  Grundtvig)  may  not  be 
reached due to insufficient funding and that results needed to be better mainstreamed 
into policy to increase the effectiveness of the programme. 

Based  on  these  findings,  the  Commission  proposals  for  2014-2020  include  further 
integration  of  the  LLP  with  the  Youth  in  Action  and  various  international  co-
operation  programmes.  This  is  intended  to  create  one  simplified  and  streamlined 
system,  helping  to  further  develop  a  coherent  approach  to  lifelong  learning,  thereby 
improving  efficiency  and  cost-effectiveness.  It  is  also  planned  to  exploit  similarities 
between the previously different programmes to the full and ensure that activities in 
certain  areas  gain  the  critical  mass  necessary  to  provide  long  lasting  impact.  By 
improving  flexibility  and  increasing  the  incentives  available,  the  budget  allocation 
between  actions,  beneficiaries  and  countries  should  better  reflect  performance  and 
potential impact. 

The evaluation of the European Institute of Innovation and Technology 39 covered the 
creation  of  the  Institute,  its  entry  into  operation  and  initial  actions  up  to  2010.  It 
concluded  that  EIT  implementation  remained  on  track  and  was  even  ahead  of 
schedule  for  the  selection  of  the  first  Knowledge  and  Innovation  Communities 
(KICs).  The  budget  was  considered  to  be  sufficient  while  leverage  rates  within  the 
KICs  had  been  marginally  higher  than  anticipated,  with  the  KICs  drawing  on 
additional  sources  of  finance  including  partner’s  own  resources  (49%),  national  and 
regional  funds  (21%),  and  other  EU  sources  (7%).  It  was  concluded  that  the  EIT 
offers strong EU added-value.  

37 
38 
39 

Approximate budget of EUR 7 billion 
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/evalreports/education/2011/llpreport_en.pdf  
Approximate budget of EUR 309 million 

EN 

9 

   EN

 
                                                 
Heading 1b - Cohesion for Growth and Employment 

Employment and Social Affairs 

The Evaluation40 of the European Social Fund support for gender equality found that 
Member  State  implementation  started  more  slowly  for  gender-equality  specific 
actions  than  for  other  parts  of  the  ESF  Operational  Programmes  (OPs).  For  some 
Member States, this was the result of the economic crisis which shifted attention and 
resources away from the gender-equality objective towards labour market policies and 
reducing  unemployment.  Nevertheless,  all  Member  States  take  account  of  gender 
equality  although  to  varying  degrees  within  their  ESF  OPs.  In  some  cases  the  ESF 
provides the only source of funding for the actions concerned. The evaluation found 
that  while  ESF  interventions  focused  on  essential  issues,  there  is  a  tendency  for 
Member States to focus on the supply-side— i.e. women's labour market participation 
and their capacities to compete in the labour market’— more than on crucial aspects 
and  causes  of  gender  inequality  (e.g.  educational  segregation,  work  organisation, 
cultural  and  social  stereotypes).  The  evaluation  concluded  that  the  programmes 
provided  added-value  in  capacity-building  and  supported  the  uptake  of  gender 
equality on the policy agenda of most Member States .  

The evaluation of European Social Fund Support for Enhancing Access to the Labour 
Market  and  the  Social  Inclusion  of  Migrants  and  Ethnic  Minorities  (2000-2006) 
confirmed that the ESF was making a positive contribution in helping people with a 
migrant  and  minority  background  to  overcome  barriers  to  labour  market  access,  to 
improve  language  skills  and  strengthen  basic  skills  for  employability.  Regarding 
systems and structures, the capacity of public institutions to promote the integration of 
people with a minority background had been strengthened as a result.  

In this policy area the ESF filled an important funding gap. It had brought additional 
targeted funding support that would not otherwise have been available. The ESF, and 
the  EQUAL41  programme  in  particular,  supported  wider  target  groups  than  those 
normally  covered  by  national  budgets.  Participation  by  migrants  and  minorities  was 
significantly  higher 
in  2000-2006  (1.19  m  people,  or 
than 
approximately 8.7% of all ESF beneficiaries.)  

in  2007-2013 

The  Commission  proposal  for  the  next  generation  of  Structural  Funds  should 
contribute to simplification of procedures and improvement of the synergies with the 
European  Regional  and  Development  Fund,  the  Cohesion  Fund,  the  European 
Agricultural  Fund  for  Rural  Development  and  the  future  European  Maritime  and 
Fisheries fund. 

The  ex-ante  evaluation  of  the  future  PROGRESS  programme  (the  "European  Union 
Programme  Social  Change  and  Innovation")  highlighted  the  need  to  increase  the 
coherence of EU action in the employment and social areas by bringing together and 
the  PROGRESS  and  EURES 
developing 

implementation  of 

the  combined 

40

41 

EN 

http://ec.europa.eu/social/keyDocuments.jsp?type=0&policyArea=0&subCategory=0

&country=0&year=0&advSearchKey=evaluationesf&mode=advancedSubmit&langId=en  
Addressing discrimination in employment and the jobs market 

10 

   EN

 
                                                 
 
programmes  and  the  European  Progress  Microfinance  facility.  In  addition,  the  new 
Programme was found to provide an opportunity to simplify implementation through 
common  provisions  covering,  inter  alia,  common  general  objectives,  common 
typology of actions and rationalisation of reporting and evaluation. 

Regional Policy 

Regional  Policy  is  delivered  through  shared  management  with  Member  States  and 
regions  responsible  for  implementing  programmes  combining  EU  and  national  and 
regional  resources  aiming  to  achieve  economic,  social  and  territorial  cohesion. 
Evaluation  is  also  a  shared  responsibility.  Evaluation  evidence  is  used  whenever  it 
becomes  available  and  is  most  likely  to  feed  into  changes  in  policy  when  it 
accumulates across a number of evaluations. Evaluation evidence from the 2000-2006 
period  (programmes  were  in  operation  until  2009)  informed  the  proposals  for  the 
future  policy,  2014-2020,  in  the  5th  Cohesion  Report  in  2010  as  well  as  the  MFF 
proposals  in  2011.  Evidence  obtained  in  previous  years,  as  well  as  that  gathered  in 
2011 on the previous and current programming period has also fed into the European 
Commission's  position  papers  on  future  Cohesion  Policy  in  each  Member  State  and 
will be discussed in the negotiations on the new programmes – a process which will 
continue until the end of 2013. 

In  2011  the  ex  post  evaluations  of  the  2000  –  2006  programming  period  were  still 
being completed. Evaluation findings concerning the on-going implementation of the 
2007-2013 period were also obtained. The evaluation results confirm the direction of 
the Commission's proposals for the 2014-2020 programming period. Detailed policy 
insights will be discussed with Member States so that they can be reflected in the new 
programmes which will be developed in the coming year.  

As  part  of  the  ex-post  evaluation  of  the  Cohesion  Fund  2000  –  2006,  three  work 
packages  were  completed  in  2011  with  the  final  synthesis  to  be  available  in  2012. 
Two  studies,42  on  transport  and  environment,  used  ex  post  cost  benefit  analysis  to 
evaluate  impact.  Although  the  evaluation  concluded  that  it  was  too  early  to  fully 
assess impacts, the method was found to be appropriate and will be used further in the 
future.  All  the  transport  projects  delivered  value  for  money  and  the  Cohesion  Fund 
contribution  was  necessary  to  unlock  their  economic  benefits.  The  analysis  of  the 
environmental  projects  showed  that  many  environment  infrastructure  projects  were 
carried  out  to  meet  the  legal  requirements.  Costs  were  higher  than  the  benefits  that 
could  be  quantified  but  the  projects  generated  important  effects  in  terms  of 
environmental  awareness  and  institutional  learning.  Important  policy  lessons  from 
these  evaluations  and  from  those  completed  in  earlier  years  on  transport  and 
environment projects co-financed by the ERDF are being discussed with the Member 
States and will feed into the design of the future policy.  

Evaluations  of  Regional  Policy  enterprise  and  innovation  support43  provided  further 
evidence  to  confirm  the  correctness  of  the  Commission's  proposal  to  exclude  large 
enterprises  from  general  ERDF  support  schemes  in  the  future.  The  impact  of 
enterprise support was found to be greatest when targeted on smaller firms. The study 

42 
43 

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/evaluation/expost2006/wpb_en.htm 
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/information/evaluations/impact_evaluation_en.cfm#1 

EN 

11 

   EN

 
                                                 
of innovation support in Germany44 showed that the R&D grants impacted on a wide 
range  of  measures,  from  innovation  in  existing  products  and  processes  to  the 
development of new ones. More research is needed to explore if smaller grants might 
be  more  effective  than  big  grants  over  time and  to further  explore  best  use of loans 
rather than grants. 

in 

The  Expert  Evaluation  Network,  which  reports  each  year  on  regional  policy 
in 
the  current  programming  period,  concluded 
performance 
implementing  programmes  were  increasing  the  risk  of  priority  being  given  to 
absorption  rather  than  effectiveness.  Nevertheless,  there  are  signs  of  accelerated 
implementation, increased evidence of achievements and overall improvement in the 
quality of evaluations undertaken by the Member States. Policy Papers on Renewable 
Energy  and  Energy  Efficiency,  undertaken  by  the  network,  showed  that  the  EU 
support is marginal relative to national funding, raising the question of added-value. 
Investments in the sector need careful analysis on a case by case basis to ensure good 
value for money.  

that  delays 

Overall, the evidence generated from evaluations in 2011 confirmed the necessity to 
strengthen the results-focus of current and future policy and the necessity for Member 
States to undertake more evaluations of the impacts of policy. These elements are at 
the heart of the Commission's proposals for the future. 

Heading 2 - Preservation and Management of Natural Resources 

Agriculture and Rural Development 

The Evaluation of income effects of direct support45 confirmed that direct payments 
have contributed to enhancing the income of farmers and played an important role in 
generating farm income. This was particularly true for grazing livestock farms (beef, 
sheep  and  goats),  field  crops,  mixed  farms  and  dairy  farms.  Direct  payments  have 
contributed to reducing the gap between the average farm income per labour unit of 
small and large farms. The efficiency of direct payments providing income support to 
farmers was quite high, although with notable differences across regions. 

The Evaluation of CAP measures applied to the sugar sector46 indicated that the 2006 
sugar  reform  significantly  accelerated  the  restructuring  process  of  the  sector. 
Improvements  in  yields  accelerated  as  did  the  concentration  of  production  in  larger 
farms.  Although  the  overall  objectives  of  the  reform47  have  been  achieved,  the 
management of the system by quota and reference price remain complex.  

The  evaluation  of  CAP  reform  measures  applied  to  the  dairy  sector,48  showed  dairy 
policy  contributed  to  a  falling  structural  excess  of  supply  from  2004  onwards.  The 
total  cost  of  the  dairy  support  policy  declined  whilst  the  market  balance.  Producer 

44 
45 
46 
47 

48 

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/information/evaluations/impact_evaluation_en.cfm#2 
http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/income/index_en.htm 
http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/sugar-2011/index_en.htm  
Restructuring  of  sugar  sector,  market  stabilisation  and  enhancing  market  orientation, 
availability of sugar supplies. 
http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/evaluation/market-and-income-reports/dairy-sector-2011_en.htm 

EN 

12 

   EN

 
                                                 
income levels were maintained during the time covered by the evaluation data and the 
interests  of  producers  in  production  flexibility  and  expansion  were  satisfied.  The 
reform entailed more administrative burden and exposure to price risk. The evaluation 
recommended  the  introduction  of  more  flexible  instruments  to  respond  to  world 
market developments. 

The evaluation of CAP reform measures applied to the sheep and goat sector showed 
that  the  reform  facilitated  an  increase  in  productivity,  although  the  overall 
competitiveness of the sector was not improved. Payments granted in Italy and Greece 
in  the  framework  of  assistance  to  sectors  with  special  problems  were  low  and  had 
little impact. In the sheep meat sector, support offered through the rural development 
programmes  is  considered  critical  to  maintaining  the  sector.  In  addition,  coupled 
support provides environmental and social benefits in some regions and is necessary 
for maintaining production in sensitive regions. 

The  evaluation  of  promotion  and  information  actions  for  agricultural  products49 
reports  that  multi-country  activities  or  campaigns  in  third  countries  would  be  less 
likely without EU funding. While stakeholders are enthusiastic about information and 
promotion  programmes  which  have  contributed  to  improving  the  image  and  raising 
awareness  of  the  quality  and  the  specific  production  methods  of  EU  agricultural 
products,  there  is  a  need  to  better  identify  direct  economic  impact  of  these 
programmes.  

The  evaluation  of  the  exceptional  market  support  measures  in  the  poultry  and  egg 
sector  indicated  that  the  common  EU  approach  to  tackle  strong  market  disturbances 
(such as plummeting demand and prices caused by a lack of consumer confidence due 
to  Avian  Flu)  provided  an  adequate  response.  Although  the  measures  could  not 
stabilize the market in the short term due to their long preparation time, they ensured 
that  a  substantial  part  of  the  severe  income  losses  could  be  compensated  within  a 
reasonable  time.  The  evaluation  concluded  that  the  Commission  should  develop 
instruments to deal with such crises in consumer confidence that can be used swiftly 
to stabilize the market.  

Evaluation  results  have  fed  into  the  Commission's  October  2011  CAP  reform 
proposals, for example in relation to the proposals for further decoupling and in the 
design  of  the  rural  development  policy  framework.  In  future,  monitoring  and 
evaluation  is  planned  to  be  brought  under  a  common  framework  to  measure  the 
performance of the CAP as a whole within Europe 2020. To this end, a process has 
started to develop a common set of indicators linked to the policy objectives.  

Maritime Affairs and Fisheries 

The  Interim  evaluation  (study)  of  the  European  Fisheries  Fund  (2007-2013)50 
concluded that the management and control systems for the Fund had met with start-
up  problems,  but  are  now  working  satisfactorily.  The  shift  towards  one  single 
operational programme, while beneficial at EU level, has increased the management 

49 
50 

http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/promotion/index_en.htm  
http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/documentation/studies/eff_interim_evaluation_en.pdf 
Approximate budget of EUR 4.3 billion 

EN 

13 

   EN

 
                                                 
costs  for  most  Member  States.  Better  audit  and  control  methods  have  lowered 
financial  risks,  but  the  administrative  burden  remains  too  high  for  small  Member 
States  particularly  the  new  Member  States.  Monitoring  and  evaluation  frameworks 
focused on output rather than impacts and lacked a common definition of the units to 
be  measured.  Furthermore,  indicators  were  not  used  for  reporting  nor  verified 
systematically.  

These findings were taken into account in the proposal for the new Fund for the EU 
maritime  and  fisheries  policies  (2014-2020).  Main  changes  include  a  major 
simplification  and  alignment  of  different  administrative  rules  and  procedures  on 
financial decisions, reporting, monitoring and evaluation; stronger links with the key 
objectives of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) reform through the introduction of 
conditionality  rules,  closer  co-ordination  with  other  funds  as  well  as  an  improved 
monitoring  and  evaluation  system  based  on  common  indicators  across  the  Member 
States. 

Heading 3a - Freedom, Security and Justice 

Home 

The Report of the Commission and the Mid-Term Evaluation of the External Borders 
Fund51 found that, despite start-up difficulties, the Fund was delivering in line with its 
objectives to channel EU aid to boost investments at borders and in consulates in the 
interest  of  the  Schengen  area  as  a  whole.  Investments  in  national  communication 
systems for border control and in the Schengen Information System II improved the 
safety  of  EU  external  borders.  In  addition,  investments  for  the  set–up  of  the  Visa 
Information  System  improved  the  visa  handling  process  Despite  the  overall 
contribution of the Fund to a better border management and use of new technologies, 
Member  states  have  questioned  the  effectiveness  and  efficiency  of  some  of  the 
projects. 

The Report of the Commission and the Mid-Term Evaluation of the European Return 
Fund  (2008-2013)  showed  that  the  Fund  has  contributed  to  developing  and 
consolidating  return  management  practices  in  many  Member  States.  For  example,  it 
contributed to: shortening the length of stay in reception and/or detention centres and 
increased numbers of third-country nationals opting for voluntary return. As a result, 
this population benefited from better treatment than they would have encountered had 
they been forcibly removed. 

The Report of the Commission and the Mid-Term Evaluation of the European Fund 
for the Integration of third-country nationals (2008-2013) found that, in spite of start-
up  difficulties,  the  majority  of  Member  States  expected  to  complete  the  planned 
actions  and  meet  the  objectives  set.  By  targeting  specific  measures  or  groups  not 
normally within the scope of mainstream funding instruments, the Fund demonstrated 
genuine  added  value.  In  several  Member  States,  the  Fund  supported  the  design  of  a 
comprehensive  policy  framework  and  provided  resources  for  its  implementation. 
However,  the  administrative  workload  associated  with  the  programmes  should  be 
reduced. 

51 

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52011DC0857:EN:NOT 

EN 

14 

   EN

 
                                                 
The Mid-Term Evaluation of the Framework Programme Security and Safeguarding 
Liberties  (2007-2013)52  concluded  that  the  Programme  is  effective  in  its  pan-
European  dimension  and  in  supporting  a  wide  range  of  activities.  Rather  heavy 
administrative  application  procedures  may  have  had  a  negative  impact  on  project 
implementation. The added value of the EU was nevertheless assessed as high and the 
overall  implementation  of  the  programme  was  considered  reasonably  successful.For 
the years 2014-2020, the Commission has proposed that the Home Affairs funds and 
programmes should be reduced from six to two: The Asylum and Migration Fund and 
The Internal Security Fund. Other evaluation results were taken into account in these 
Commission proposals.  

Justice 

The interim evaluation53 of the Civil Justice Programme54 showed that the objectives 
were  highly  relevant  in  supporting  European  justice  policy.  The  activities  financed 
help civil society organisations and Member States to make an effective contribution 
to the formulation and smooth implementation of EU law. In addition, the programme 
was  considered  to  be  efficiently  managed,  despite  limited  human  resources.  The 
interim  evaluation  suggested  a  merge  of  the  Civil  Justice  and  the  Criminal  Justice 
Programme in the new Multiannual Financial Framework.  

The  interim  evaluation  of  the  Criminal  Justice  Programme  55confirmed  that  the 
supported  actions  tackle  important  problems  and  complement  national  measures. 
However, it also identified the need to increase the effectiveness of funding through 
better priority setting, targeting increased European added value, improving publicity 
and simplifying implementation.  

The  interim  evaluation56  of  the  Daphne  III  Programme57  concluded  that  the 
programme  is  highly  relevant  to  the  problems  it  was  designed  to  address,  although 
links between the programme and policy development could be strengthened. There is 
room  for  improvement  to  promote  EU-wide  partnerships  and  to  ensure  a  balanced 
geographic spread of lead organisations. The financial resources to implement actions 
were  assessed  as  allowing  high  quality  projects  to  be  funded,  while  the  ratio  of 
success in project selection was ensuring significant competition among projects. The 
dissemination  of  the  results  could  be  improved.  The  interim  evaluation  of  the 
Fundamental Rights and Citizenship Programme58 indicated that, while it is too early 
to  draw  conclusions  on  impacts  due  to  the  limited  number  of  finalised  projects,  the 
type  of  projects  funded  were  all  well-suited  to  the  objectives  and  priorities  of  the 
programme.  A  wider  European  dimension  balanced  participation  of  organisations 
from EU Member States and dissemination of results are areas for improvement. 

52 
Composed of the programmes "Prevention and Fight against Crime (ISEC)” and “Prevention, 
Preparedness and Consequence Management of Terrorism and other Security Related Risks (CIPS)".  
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0351:FIN:EN:PDF 
Approximate budget of EUR 109 million 
Approximate budget of EUR 199 million 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0254:FIN:EN:PDF  
Approximate budget of EUR 116 million 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0249:FIN:EN:PDF. 
Approximate budget of EUR 93 million 

EN 

15 

   EN

 
                                                 
The  interim  evaluation59  of  the  Drug  Prevention  and  Information  Programme 
(DPIP)60 could not draw conclusions on effectiveness as few projects were completed. 
Difficulties  were  being  encountered  involving  vulnerable  groups  and  in  ensuring 
long-term  value  added  of  projects.  The  need  for  additional  financial  resources  was 
identified  as  was  the  need  to  strengthen  the  synergies  between  the  various  financial 
instruments  supporting  the  objectives  of  the  EU  Drugs  Strategy.  The  evaluation 
recommended  improved  cooperation  with  other  programmes,  the  Public  Health 
Programme in particular, to avoid duplication and to allow potential beneficiaries to 
target their applications more efficiently. 

Heading 3b - Citizenship 

Communication 

The interim evaluation of Euranet61 showed that the existence of the network has led 
to  an  increased  coverage  of  EU  affairs  and  enriched  editorial  value.  Increased 
production  and  broadcasting  of  EU  news  and  programmes  is  unlikely  to  be 
sustainable without this funding. The evaluation on the other hand pointed to issues, 
such as the uneven extent of coverage of EU affairs as a share of overall production, 
the  uneven  representation  of  different  language  groups  in  the  participating  partners 
and the slow development of the network, especially in terms of expanding language 
coverage. In the follow-up on these issues seven new radio stations have added four 
languages across five countries and a stronger production focus on EU issues has been 
introduced. The design of the next phase of the project has been adapted according to 
the main conclusions of the evaluation. 

Health and Consumer Protection 

The  ex-post  evaluation  of  the  Public  Health  programme  for  2003-200862  concluded 
that even if,  as the  first  programme in  the field of public health at EU level, it may 
have been desirable to fund a broad spectrum of activities, a more targeted effort in 
selected  areas  was  of  crucial  importance  for  the  next  generation  of  the  programme. 
The evaluation called for a strengthened focus on European added-value, both through 
choice of priority areas in annual work programmes and in application decisions.  

Similarly  the  mid-term  evaluation  of  the  successor  programme63  concluded  that  it 
should be much more focused on priorities and concentrate financial support to bring 
the  largest  EU  added-value.  In  terms  of  organisation  and  management,  it  was 
confirmed  that  a  process  is  in  place  to  determine  priorities  in  the  Annual  Work 
Programmes  and  to  ensure  their  alignment  with  the  overall  objectives  of  the  PHP. 
However,  this  process  is  not  considered  as  particularly  clear  or  consistent.  PHP 
actions  generally  correspond  to  the  objectives  of  the  programme,  but  it  is  still  too 

59 

http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/Result.do?T1=V5&T2=2011&T3=246&RechType=RECH_naturel&Submit=Se
arch 
Approximate budget of EUR 21 million 
The European radio network 
Approximate budget of EUR 312 million 

60 
61 
62 
http://ec.europa.eu/health/programme/docs/ex_post_evaluation_en.pdf  
63 

http://ec.europa.eu/health/programme/docs/mthp_final_report_oct2011_en.pdf 

EN 

16 

   EN

 
                                                 
early to assess results and impacts. The majority of actions are seen to have had EU 
wide  effects  and  most  actions  would  not  have  taken  place,  or  would  have  been 
undertaken  with  a  less  ambitious  scope,  in  the  absence  of  PHP  funding.  The  case 
study assessment showed that EU added-value appeared to feature most prominently 
in  the  areas  of  “promotion  of  best  practices”  and  “networking”.  On  efficiency, 
economies of scale were expected in most actions, although the ways to measure this 
have  not  been  clearly  set  out.  The  outsourcing  of  management  to  the  EAHC  was 
identified as having resulted in a significant improvement in delivery.  

The new Programme on Health aims to focus on fewer actions, of proven EU added-
value, that deliver concrete results, and respond to identified needs or gaps. The new 
programme  also  seeks  to  improve  the  way  Member  States  cooperate  in  the  area  of 
health and to provide leverage for reform of national health policies. 

Taxation and Customs Union 

The Mid-term Evaluation of the Fiscalis Programme64 concluded that the programme 
had made a positive contribution to improving the functioning of taxation systems in 
the internal market and is relevant to the challenges faced by national authorities. It 
concluded that the programme offers high EU added-value: many activities necessary 
to achieve progress in taxation cooperation would not have happened at all, or would 
have only happened much later or at a higher cost and with less optimal results, if the 
cooperation framework of the programme had not existed. The overall conclusion was 
that Fiscalis offers good value for money.  

The  evaluation  nonetheless  indicated  that  the  programme's  effectiveness  was  more 
limited in terms of increasing understanding of EU law and in the fight against fraud. 
It also recommended that a results-based monitoring and evaluation system be set-up. 
Results  of  the  programme  should  be  better  disseminated  and  programme  activities 
could benefit from the involvement of a larger community of stakeholders.  

The  Mid-term  Evaluation  of  the  Customs  Programme  highlighted  the  programme's 
effective  contribution  to  the  functioning  of  the  internal  market.  The  programme 
demonstrated EU added-value supporting activities that would not have taken place, 
or  would  have  been  significantly  more  resource  or  time-intensive,  without  EU 
coordination  and  financial  support.  It  facilitated 
increased  co-operation  and 
coordination  between  national  customs  administrations,  thus  enhancing  exchange  of 
information and good practices.  

The  efficiency  of  the  Joint  actions  under  the  Programme  were  rated  as  high  while 
there  has  been  a  much  lower  level  of  co-operation  with  other  public  and  private 
bodies  to  improve  security  and  fight  against  fraud.  The  contribution  to  trade 
facilitation with third countries was not highly rated. The evaluation pointed out that 
further efficiency gains could have been achieved by better disseminating results and 
broadening  the  involvement  of  and  support  to  the  candidate  and  potential  candidate 
countries. 

64 
http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/resources/documents/common/publications/studies/fiscalis2013_

Approximate budget of EUR 157 million 

mid_term_report_en.pdf 

EN 

17 

   EN

 
                                                 
Education and Culture 

The Interim Evaluation  65 of the Youth in Action Programme (YiA)66 concluded that 
the  programme  is  successfully  achieving  its  objectives  thus  far,  actively  targeting 
young  people  with  fewer  opportunities.  YiA  contributes  to  the  achievement  of  EU 
Youth policy objectives and has fostered continued youth participation in events after 
YiA, work for NGOs and increased mobility. The activities that YiA supports would 
likely not find funding elsewhere. YiA has a  high absorption rate. The management 
costs  appeared  relatively  high,  but  justified  by  the  nature  of  the  Programme.  The 
allocation  of  the  budget  was  appropriate.  Nevertheless,  youth  organisations  and 
National  Agencies  both  continued  to  experience  a  relatively  high  administrative 
burden  even  though  management  tools  had  been  considerably  improved.  There  was 
high participant satisfaction, comparing positively with youth programmes organised 
in Member States, and the implementation structures were considered efficient.  

Heading 4 - EU as a Global Player 

Development and External relations 
The  two  pilot  evaluations  on  budget  support  in  Tunisia67  and  Mali68  concluded  that 
Budget Support is an effective tool in countries where the government is committed to 
robust  development  policies.  In  Tunisia,  Budget  Support  contributed  to  significant 
economic  growth,  private  sector  development  but  should  have  better  addressed 
poverty  reduction.  In  Mali,  it  contributed  to  some  strong  positive  outcomes  in 
education  and  health.  Budget  Support  is  complementary  to  other  forms  of  aid, 
especially  for  capacity-building.  It  cannot  determine  major  policy  changes  but  can 
provide  additional  support  for  policy  implementation.  Its  impact  is  greater  when 
linked to wider political and economic partnerships. 
The thematic evaluation69 EU support for employment and social inclusion in partner 
countries (ESI)70 concluded that, although ESI is a key priority in development policy, 
there was little mainstreaming into development programmes and there was a lack of 
ESI-related  indicators  in  programme  design.  Few  interventions  outside  vocational 
education  and  training  focused  explicitly  on  employment  creation.  The  new 
instrument  for  development  cooperation  (2014-20)  responds  to  the  need  to  target 
more human development through its Global Public Goods and Challenges thematic 
programme,  including  health,  education,  gender  equality,  employment,  skills,  social 
protection and social inclusion as well as economic development-related aspects such 
as growth, jobs, trade and private sector engagement. 

The  evaluation71  of  support  to  Conflict  Prevention  and  Peace-building  (CPPB)72 
concluded  that  the  EU  has  significantly  increased  its  focus,  strengthened  its  policy 
framework  and  developed  a  wide  range  of  financial  and  non-financial  instruments. 

65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 

http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/evalreports/youth/2011/interimreport_en.pdf 
Approximate budget of EUR 885 million 
http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/how/evaluation/evaluation_reports/2011/1286_docs_en.htm 
http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/how/evaluation/evaluation_reports/2011/1290_docs_en.htm 
http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/how/evaluation/evaluation_reports/2011/1296_docs_en.htm  
Approximate budget of EUR 7,9 billion 
http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/how/evaluation/evaluation_reports/2011/1291_docs_en.htm 
Approximate budget of EUR 7,7 billion over 2001-2010 

EN 

18 

   EN

 
                                                 
The  Commission  provided  value  added  in  terms  of  neutrality,  reliability  (continued 
presence), critical financial mass, ability to draw on a wide array of instruments, long-
term experience and credibility in terms of promoting democracy, peace and human 
rights.  However,  the  conceptual  orientations  at  policy  level  have  not  always  been 
appropriate  at  operational  level.  The  EU  should  consolidate  and  further  develop  its 
support  for  CPPB  and  ensure  that  its  financial  support  is  sufficiently  complemented 
and leveraged by non-financial support. 

The evaluation73 of EC Cooperation with overseas countries and territories (OCTs)74 
concluded  that  EU  support  has  been  consistent  with  the  EU  policy  objectives  of 
promoting  the  economic  and  social  development  and  bringing  them  economically 
closer  to  the  EU.  Regarding  trade,  the  EU  preference  regime  did  not  sufficiently 
counterbalance  the  constraints  on  economic  diversification.  The  involvement  of  the 
OCTs in regional programmes was minimised by isolation from regional networking, 
high  participation  costs  and  sometimes  by  language  barriers.  Few  results  have  been 
achieved on climate change and disaster crisis management.  

The evaluation of  the crisis response and preparedness components  of  the  European 
Union’s  Instrument  for  Stability  (IfS)75  concluded  that  the  IfS  has  significantly 
contributed  to  enhancing  the  overall  relevance,  effectiveness  and  efficiency  of  EU 
crisis  response  and  preparedness  actions  and  that  the  IfS  makes  also  a  significant 
contribution to the coherence of the EU peace, security and development architecture 
– and to global peace and stability. Critical to its contributions is the IfS demonstrated 
capacity to provide quick and timely responses in situations of crisis. 

Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection 

The  evaluations  concluded  in  2011  showed  that  the  Commission's  activities: 
addressed  major  health  risks,  lowering  mortality  rates  improving  disease  control  for 
Burmese  refugees  in  Cambodia;  provided  a  relevant  and  effective  response  to  the 
cholera  epidemic  in  Zimbabwe;  provided  relevant  and  appropriate  multi-sectoral 
programmes in Uganda; and contributed actively to the overall European response to 
the Haitian earthquake. .The evaluations in Haiti and Zimbabwe highlighted the need 
to  define  earlier  in  the  interventions  the  necessary  links  between  relief  with 
rehabilitation  and  development  (LRRD).  This  finding  confirms 
the  current 
Commission  proposals  in  Humanitarian  Aid,  by  consistently  mainstreaming  and 
strengthening LRRD in humanitarian interventions. 

Finally,  the  Evaluation  of  the  Civil  Protection  Mechanism  and  the  CP  Financial 
Instrument  2007-200976  has  shown  that  both  components  have  substantially 
contributed to developing further European cooperation and coordination. 

Enlargement 

An  evaluation  to  support  the  preparation  of  pre-accession  financial  instruments 
(IPA)77  beyond  2013  at  sector,  country  and  regional  level,  confirmed  the  overall 

73 
74 
75 
76 

http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/how/evaluation/evaluation_reports/2011/1294_docs_en.htm 
Approximate budget of EUR 286 million over 1999-2009 
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/secretariat_general/evaluation/search/search.do 
Approximate budget of EUR 190 million for the 2007-2013 period. 

EN 

19 

   EN

 
                                                 
relevance ensured by IPA assistance. The evaluation also concluded that the economic 
and wider benefits of enlargement would more than offset the cost of a new financial 
instrument and that the EU instrument would enable the realisation of European added 
value, linking financial support to progress with political criteria, enabling the EU to 
act  as  a  catalyst  for  supranational  and  interregional  cooperation,  also  acting  as  a 
broker  to  bring  in  the  expertise  of  different  administrations  and  agencies  within  the 
EU (e.g. twinning). 

The  evaluation  also  confirms  the  existence  of  a  strong  rationale  for  the  future  pre-
accession  financial  instrument,  which  would  usefully  benefit  from  improved 
coherence between policy dialogue and financial cooperation, a programming process 
focused  on  sectoral  approaches,  multi-annual  programming,  greater  involvement  of 
beneficiaries and stakeholders in all stages as well as the introduction of performance 
incentives 

3. 

CONCLUSIONS 

Evaluation results in this Report generally indicate that objectives of various financial 
programmes have been met and EU value added demonstrated. However, the Report 
draws  mainly  on  interim  evaluations  which  have  a  strong  operational  focus  and  are 
not  conclusive  concerning  final  results  or  impacts.  Lessons  have  been  drawn  from 
experience  and  indications  are  given  of  possible  areas  for  improvement.  Where 
possible  this  report  has  identified  recommended  remedial  action  that  has  influenced 
follow-on  programmes.  Generally  the  report  points to the need for a  stronger focus, 
linking results to objectives and for increased attention to coherence and consistency 
across actions.  

The  Commission  wishes  to  define  more  clearly  how  to  improve  this  report  in 
discussion with the Discharge authority. The Commission also notes the request of the 
Court of Auditors for the report to be produced earlier in the year. 

Looking to the future, the Report will be designed to show whether EU programmes 
are on track and to identify results and impacts as they become available. In order to 
achieve this goal, a strong and consistent framework needs to be established to ensure 
monitoring of progress throughout the life of the programmes.  

77 

Approximate budget of EUR 11,5 billion over the 2007-2013 period 

EN 

20 

   EN