COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Evaluation of the PERICLES programme Final rapport June 2013 Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the evaluation of the Programme for exchange, assistance and training for the protection of the euro against counterfeiting ('Pericles' Programme)
Date: 2013-08-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU programme, European Anti-fraud Office, counterfeiting, cross-border cooperation, euro, exchange of information, prevention of delinquency, project evaluation













EUR-Lex - 52013SC0304 - EN











|



52013SC0304

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Evaluation of the PERICLES programme Final rapport June 2013 Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the evaluation of the Programme for exchange, assistance and training for the protection of the euro against counterfeiting ('Pericles' Programme)









European Anti-Fraud
Office
Internal
Audit Capability and
Evaluation
Ref.
Ares(2013)2101030 - 13/06/2013
 European Anti-Fraud Office 
Evaluation of the PERICLES programme
Final Report
June 2013
European Anti-Fraud Office
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY                                                                                            4
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT                                                                                    7
1
- INTRODUCTION                                                                                      7
1.1   The
protection of the euro                                                                     7
1.2   The
PERICLES programme                                                                      8
1.3   The
evaluation of the Pericles programme                                                 9
1.4   Previous evaluations of the PERICLES
programme                                      10
2
- THE OBJECTIVES
AND INTERVENTION
LOGIC
OF THE PERICLES                      11
PROGRAMME
3
- EVALAUTION OF THE RELEVANCE, EFFICIENTCY AND EFFECTIVENESS             13
OF THE PERICLES PROGRAMME
3.1   Relevance                                                                                         15
3.2   European
and overall added value of the programme                                 24
3.3   Efficiency                                                                                          26
3.4   Effectiveness                                                                                     35
3.5   Prospects for
sustainability                                                                   44
4
– CONCLUSSIONS                                                                                    45
Annexes:
Annex
I:    Programme's intervention logic
Annex
II:  Methodology
Annex
III: Evaluation matrix
Annex
IV: Replies to the questionnaire to competent authorities
in the MS, the ECB and
Europol
Annex
V:   Replies to the questionnaire
to competent authorities in third
countries
Annex VI: Replies to the questionnaire to participants in programme's activities
LIST OF ACRONYMS
CTW                     Activities
financed by the programme which
combine conference, training and workshop
CNAC                Coins National Analysis Centre
EC                   European
Commission
ECB                  European
Central Bank
ECEG                Euro Counterfeit Expert
Group
EQ                   Evaluation
Question
ETSC                European Technical and Scientific
Centre
EU                   European
Union
EUROJUST         European Union's
Judicial Cooperation Unit
EUROPOL           European
Police
Office
MS/EU MS         Member
States of the European Union
NAC                 National
Analysis Centre NCO    National Central Office OLAF European Anti-fraud Office USA                       United
States of America VAT   Value Added Tax
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The protection
of the euro
Euro banknotes and coins were first introduced in 2002 for 12
Member States of the European Union (MS). Currently, the euro is the single currency shared by the 17 Member
States of the euro area in use for 330 million people in this area. It is also used
in a
large scale for international trading
transactions and serves
as an important reserve
currency for third countries.
Counterfeiting of currencies remains a concern throughout the European
Union. Counterfeits  decrease  the 
acceptability  of  notes  and  coins  and  harm  citizens  and businesses
that are not reimbursed for counterfeits even if received in good faith. For
the euro, its use in 17 MS and its worldwide importance means that it is also open to the risk of counterfeiting on a transnational
scale.
The Pericles
programme
The  Pericles
 programme  ("the  programme")
 was  established  by
 Council  Decision
2001/923/EC of 17 December
2001 for a four years period (1st January 2002 to 31
December 2005) and subsequently extended
until 31 December 2013. The programme budget is Euro 1 million per year. The programme is implemented and coordinated by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), on behalf of the Commission, and the
MS. This coordination should take account
of other measures undertaken at
MS and European level, in
particular by the European
Central Bank (ECB) and European Police
Office (Europol).
The overall objective of the programme is to protect the euro
against counterfeiting, with
particular attention to transnational and multidisciplinary aspects and promoting convergence among MS.
The specific objectives of
the programme are: raising awareness, providing high level training, encouraging cooperation, and promoting exchanges of information, experiences and good practices of staff concerned in the EU and third countries. The main target groups for the programme
are police forces,
intelligence personnel, representatives of national central
banks, mints,  judicial 
officers,  commercial banks and other relevant
private  sector  organisations.  To  achieve  its  specific
 objectives,  the  main
 activities
supported by the programme are: training,
networking and dissemination activities, information and staff exchanges and technical assistance (including studies and teaching
sources).
The evaluation of the programme
The evaluation covered by
this report is mandated by
Council Decision 2001/923/EC, as
amended by Council Decision 2006/849/EC. As requested by the Council Decision,
the evaluation has focussed on the relevance, efficiency and effectiveness of the programme. The prospects for sustainability of the results achieved
have also been assessed.
The evaluation has not assessed the
overall relevance of the programme (whether
the programme should be continued after 2013) as this was assessed
in the context of the mid-term evaluation performed by the
Commission and the impact assessment which
supported the Commission's proposal for the
continuation of the programme
during the period 2014/20201  (the "Pericles 2020"). Nevertheless, the evaluation has assessed the
1 Impact assessment (Commission Working Paper SEC(2011)
1615 final) which supported the Commission's proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing an exchange, assistance and training programme for the protection of the euro against counterfeiting (the 'Pericles 2020'
programme)
European and overall added value of the
programme and its complementarity and
coherence with other
existing activities
at
MS and European level.
Overall performance of the programme
The programme provides
a clear European added value. The specific objectives of the
programme are highly relevant to the achievement of its overall
objective. The activities financed by the programme and the target groups involved are highly relevant
to achieve
its  specific  objectives.  The
 transnational
 and  multidisciplinary
 dimensions  of  the programme activities also represent a clear added value of the programme compared to
activities carried out at MS and European level. Overall,
the efficiency of the
programme is satisfactory
and the programme has been highly effective in contributing to the
achievement of its specific objectives. The evaluation has identified some potential
improvements which could enhance the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the programme.
Relevance
The specific objectives of the programme
are highly relevant
to the achievement
of its overall objective of protecting the euro against counterfeiting.
The target groups and activities financed by
the programme are also, in general, highly relevant to the specific
objectives and the programme resources have been used mainly to finance the activities with the highest relevance and for the most relevant target groups.
European and
overall added value of the
programme
The euro is the single
currency shared by the 17 Member States of the euro area. It is also
used at a large scale in international trading transactions and serves as an important
reserve currency for third
countries. The protection of the euro against counterfeiting is
clearly therefore of European interest
which
goes beyond the interest of individual
MS.
Addressing the threats posed by criminal groups
involved in the production and/or distribution of counterfeit euro and operating
in different MS and
third countries requires the cooperation among the
competent authorities in the MS and with
their counterparts in third countries. The programme
facilitates this
cooperation by providing technical and
operational training, networking,
dissemination and exchange activities to the staff of
relevant competent authorities in the MS and third countries and, by so doing, it provides a clear European added value.
The evaluation also showed that the activities implemented by
a competent authority in one MS
also address the needs of other
competent authorities in the same or other MS.
The combination of an
European/international dimension of the programme,
together with
a multidisciplinary dimension,
represents a clear added value of the programme compared
to activities carried out
at MS and European level (namely by the ECB, Europol and Eurojust). The programme
is also the only specific
programme at European level
which finances activities
on euro protection.
Efficiency
Overall, the programme's activities and outputs are
delivered at a reasonable cost and correspond to the priorities and needs identified, although there is some potential
to improve efficiency.
The  complementarity
 and  coherence  of  the  programme
 activities  are  in  general satisfactory.  However,
these and other efficiency aspects are not always clearly
presented and reported.
The meetings of the
Euro Counterfeiting Experts
Group (ECEG) provide an adequate mechanism for coordinating and steering the programme. The evaluation has identified some potential improvements
which could facilitate the role of the ECEG
for coordinating and steering the programme.
Effectiveness
The specific objectives of the programme are being
achieved satisfactorily. Overall, the programme has been highly effective in contributing to the achievement of its
specific objectives.
Concrete results achieved with the
programme's contribution have been reported by the
competent authorities and include: satisfactory cooperation among competent authorities in the EU and with third countries, improved capacity
of competent authorities in the
EU and third countries, successful cross-border operations, and the promotion
of national structures 
and
 the
 development  of  relevant  legal  instruments 
on  euro
 protection.
Intangible effects deriving from networking, motivation of officials and facilitating mutual trust among officials
of competent authorities are important
contributions of the
programme.
The activities financed
by the programme have a clear transnational and multidisciplinary dimension. The programme has also contributed to the promotion of convergence
among the MS on euro protection, mainly by providing
high level training, which is one of
the specific objectives of the programme. It has also contributed by facilitating the exchange of information and best
practices improving the
understanding
of the
various situations in
the MS, and the consequences of different levels of protection resulting
from different criminal law systems. The role
of the programme in promoting convergence beyond these areas is more uneven.
Overall,
 the  complementarity
 and 
coherence  of  the  programme  activities 
with 
other existing measures in MS, and at European level, are satisfactory. The existing coordination
and cooperation mechanisms are adequate to achieve the overall objective of the programme. Nevertheless, while the existing planning process
has, in general ensured coordination and flexibility to address new threats
and priorities, a multi-annual strategy for the programme with a clearly defined timeframe
is not in place and the current annual reporting does not provide sufficient information
on the results achieved by the
programme.
Prospects for
sustainability
The sustainability of the
results achieved will depend significantly on the possibility to continue financing similar activities to maintain the existing
level of cooperation among the competent authorities, a continuous training of the staff concerned and responding to new threats and needs (new counterfeits,
new modus operandi of criminal
groups, new MS or third countries affected by counterfeiting, new euro notes
issued by the ECB as from
2013, etc.).
The evaluation showed that
the continuation of
the activities
currently implemented by the
MS with the programme
support would be at risk without
financing at EU level.
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT
1 - INTRODUCTION
1.1 – The
protection of the euro
Euro banknotes
and coins were first introduced in 2002 for 12 EU MS. Currently, the euro
is the single currency shared by the 17 Member States of the euro
area in use for 330 million people in this
area. It is also used
at
a large scale in international trading
transactions and serves as an
important reserve currency for third
countries.
Counterfeiting of currencies remains a concern throughout the European
Union. Counterfeits  decrease  the 
acceptability  of  notes  and  coins  and  harm  citizens  and businesses
that are not reimbursed for counterfeits even if received in good faith. For
the euro, its worldwide importance means that it is also open to the risk of counterfeiting on a
transnational scale.
Table 1: Counterfeit euro bank notes
   Year || Number of counterfeit bank notes detected in circulation2 
 2002 || 167,000 
 2003 || 542,000 
 2004 || 594,000 
 2005 || 579,000 
 2006 || 565,000 
 2007 || 561,000 
 2008 || 666,000 
 2009 || 860,000 
 2010 || 751,000 
 2011 || 606,000 
 2012 || 531,000 
At
European level, responsibilities of preventing
and fighting counterfeiting
are shared between the European Commission, the European Central
Bank, Europol and Eurojust. The Commission prepares legislative initiatives.
The European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF),
on behalf of the Commission,
organises and finances training and technical assistance to the Member States and manages
the European Technical
and
Scientific Centre
(ETSC), the centre for technical analysis
of new types of counterfeit coins.
The 
European  Central  Bank  (ECB)  performs 
a  technical  analysis  of  new 
types  of counterfeit euro banknotes, stores the technical and statistical data on counterfeit
banknotes and coins in a central database
and disseminates them to all
those involved in combating  counterfeiting.
 Europol  supports  law  enforcement
 services  in  the  Member States, and third countries having an operational/strategic agreement
(e.g. certain South American countries). This support seeks to prevent and combat euro
counterfeiting by facilitating the exchange
of
information, providing operational and
strategic analysis, financial support to cross-border operations, and technical and on the spot operational
2 Source: ECB
support. For
third countries not having a strategic or operational agreement,
Europol also provides support, normally
through MS liaison officers. Eurojust facilitates investigations and
prosecutions between
competent authorities in Member States, as well
as the execution of international mutual legal assistance requests and provides financial support to Joint Investigation Teams.
The number of counterfeit euro banknotes detected in circulation since 2002
has been relatively
 stable  with  a  peak  during
 the  period  2008-2010.  A  total  of
 531,000  of counterfeit euro banknotes were withdrawn from
circulation in 2012.
The 20 and 50 euro denomination are the most frequently counterfeited banknotes representing almost 80% of the total counterfeit euro
banknotes.
The number of counterfeit euro coins removed from circulation increased
by 17% to
184,000 in 2012.
According to the ETCS/OLAF, this increase could
be attributed to the efforts of the MS in implementing the regulation concerning
authentication of euro coins.
Table 2: Counterfeit euro coins
   Year || Counterfeit euro coins detected in circulation3 
 2002 || 2 300 
 2003 || 32 800 
 2004 || 74 500 
 2005 || 100 500 
 2006 || 163 800 
 2007 || 211 100 
 2008 || 195 900 
 2009 || 172 100 
 2010 || 185 800 
 2011 || 157 500 
 2012 || 184 000 
The 2-euro denomination remains by far the most affected
by this criminal activity, representing almost 2 out of every 3 counterfeit euro
coins detected4.
1.2 – The
Pericles programme
The  Pericles  programme  ("the
 programme")  was  established
 by  Council  Decision
2001/923/EC of 17 December
2001 for a four years period (1st January 2002 to 31
December 2005). This Decision
was amended by two Council Decisions: 2006/75/EC of 30
January 2006 and 2006/849/EC
of 20 November 2006. The latter Decision
extended the duration of the programme until 31 December
2013. The programme budget is Euro 1
million per
year.
3 Source: ETSC/OLAF
4 Source "Euro coin counterfeiting in 2012" press release (http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-
105_en.htm)
The  objectives  of  the
 programme  are  established  by
 article  2  of  Council  Decision
2011/923/EC. Its overall objective is to protect the euro against
counterfeiting. The Decision provides that the programme "shall
take account of transnational
and multidisciplinary aspects" and should
"concentrate on promoting convergence of the substance of measures so as to guarantee equivalent levels of protection on the basis of consideration of best practice
while also respecting the distinct traditions of each Member State".
As per article 5 of Council
Decision 2001/923/EC, the programme shall
be implemented and coordinated by the
Commission and the Member States of the
European Union (EU MS). This coordination should take account
of measures undertaken elsewhere, in particular by the European Central
Bank
(ECB) and Europol.
Activities
financed under the programme are implemented either
directly by the Commission (OLAF) or by the competent authorities in the MS, both in MS in the euro area and
in
MS which are
not part
of
the euro area. Beneficiary authorities in the MS implementing
the programme should
co-finance at least 20% of
the
total eligible
costs.
Activities can take place both inside and outside of the EU and the
cost of participation of relevant target groups from third
countries in these activities is eligible for co-financing from the programme.
Within the
Commission, Unit D5 in OLAF (HERCULES, PERICLES and Euro protection) is
responsible for the management and implementation
of the programme.
The Euro Counterfeiting Experts Group (ECEG), which includes representatives from the competent national authorities, the ECB and
Europol, plays an important
role to define the priorities for euro counterfeiting and to discuss different policy areas related to the protection of the euro. In practice, the ECEG
also provides steering and guidance
on the activities  to  be  financed  by  the  Pericles  programme. 
The  results  of  the  programme
activities are presented to the
ECEG. The ECEG meets three times per year. Eurojust
and Interpol are also invited to participate as observers.
More information
about the role played by the ECEG is provided in EQ 4.
1.3 The evaluation of the Pericles programme
The evaluation covered by this report is requested by Council Decision
2001/923/EC, as
amended by Council Decision 2006/849/EC, which provides that,
by 30 June 2013, the
Commission should send to the European Parliament and
the Council a report, which shall
be independent of the programme
manager, evaluating the relevance, efficiency and effectiveness of the programme
and a communication on whether the
programme should be continued and
adapted, accompanied by an
appropriate proposal.
The  evaluation  has  been
 performed  by  the  Internal  Audit  Capability
 and  Evaluation function of OLAF assisted
by a Steering Group which also ensured the quality control of the
evaluation. The steering group
included representatives from the European Central
Bank (Anti-Counterfeiting Section) and the following European Commission services: OLAF D5 (Hercules, Pericles and euro protection) OLAF R2 (Budget), Secretariat General C1
(Evaluation and
simplification) and DG Justice B.2
(Criminal Law).
The tasks of the steering
group have included: endorsing
the Terms of Reference of the evaluation; endorsing
the inception report for the
evaluation, providing comments
on the draft report,
ensuring the overall quality control of
the evaluation and providing general guidance and assistance
to the evaluator.
Objectives of
the evaluation
As established by Council
Decision 2001/923/EC, the overall
objective of the evaluation has been to assess the relevance, efficiency and effectiveness of the programme. Some aspects of sustainability
have also been assessed.
The specific objectives of the evaluation are:
1.  Reporting to the European Parliament, the Council and other relevant stakeholders
on the relevance, efficiency, effectiveness of the programme.
2.  Supporting decision
making, namely on potential areas for improvement identified
during the evaluation.
Scope of the evaluation
The evaluation covered the
activities programmed and implemented
from 2002 to the first call for proposals of 2012,
but with special focus on activities implemented
since 2006 (date of the first extension of the
programme).
The  evaluation  has
 covered
 the  different  types  of
 activities  financed
 under
 the programme, namely:
 training and dissemination
activities (including workshops,
meetings and  seminars),  information 
and  staff  exchanges,  technical  assistance,  studies  and teaching sources. A sample of
activities was selected by the evaluator for desk review and
to support interviews with OLAF D5, OLAF R2
(Budget) and competent national
authorities which implemented these activities. Another sample
of activities was selected to send questionnaires to the participants in these
activities5.
1.4 – Previous evaluations of the Pericles
programme
A first evaluation of the Pericles programme was carried out by the OLAF's Internal
Audit
Capability and Evaluation
function in 2004 following a similar
request of Council Decision
2001/923/EC. This
evaluation was carried at a very
early stage of implementation of the
programme and covered activities which took place between 1st January 2002 and March
2004. The evaluation concluded that in general the programme
had contributed or was
contributing
to achieve the
specific objectives of the programme
and provided several
operational recommendations
to improve efficiency and effectiveness. During the course of
this evaluation, OLAF D5 reported that
the
recommendations have in general been
implemented although a formal action plan
for implementation was
not prepared.
The Commission also undertook
a "Mid-term evaluation 2006-2010" of the programme in
20116. This evaluation was
mainly based on the replies to a questionnaire sent to the competent national authorities. The replies to the questionnaire provided relevant input to
identify areas for improvement and to determine whether the programme
should continue
beyond 2013. This evaluation served to
support the preparation of an impact
assessment on the continuation of the programme
beyond 2013. Based on this impact
assessment, the proposal for Pericles 2014-2020 is currently being discussed
in the trilogue European Parliament-Council-Commission.
5 The details of the samples size and selection criteria applied are provided in Annex II (Methodology)
6 The Mid-term evaluation is attached to the impact
assessment (Commission Working Paper SEC(2011)
1615 final) which supported the Commission's proposal for a Regulation of
the
European Parliament and of
the Council
establishing
an exchange, assistance
and training programme for the protection of the euro against
counterfeiting (the 'Pericles 2020' programme)
2 – THE OBJECTIVES
AND INTERVENTION
LOGIC
OF THE PERICLES PROGRAMME
As  part  of  the  preparatory  work  for  this  evaluation,  the  evaluator  assessed  the intervention logic of the programme,
including its different level of objectives, type of activities, target groups and decision making mechanisms.
This work permitted the definition
of the methodology for the evaluation, including drafting
the questionnaires for different groups of stakeholders. The
methodology was included in the inception report
for the evaluation which was formally
endorsed by the steering group. Annex I provides
an outline of the intervention logic of the programme.
The  objectives
 of  the  programme  as  established  by
 article  2  of  Council
 Decision
2011/923/EC are:
Overall objective:
To protect the
euro against counterfeiting,
with particular focus on:
• Transnational
and
multidisciplinary aspects, and
• promoting
convergence of the substance of measures
so as to guarantee equivalent levels of protection
on the basis of consideration of best practice while
also respecting the distinct traditions
of each Member State.
Specific objectives:
a)  raising awareness
of the staff concerned of the EU dimension of the new currency
(also as a reserve
currency and
a currency for international
transactions);
b)  acting as a catalyst
to encourage closer cooperation between
the structures and staff
concerned, the development of a
climate of mutual trust and satisfactory
knowledge, inter alia of methods of action and difficulties, by promoting various appropriate measures
such as placements, specialist workshops
or
the involvement of guest speakers in national training and staff exchanges;
c)  promoting convergence of high-level training activities for trainers in ways which
are compatible with national operational strategies;
d)  expanding general knowledge, in particular of relevant EU and international law and instruments;
e) disseminating the results achieved, as part of the exchange of information,
experience and good practices.
When assessing
relevance, efficiency and effectiveness of the programme, the evaluator has taken the
following approach:
• The specific objective
of expanding general knowledge
has been considered as part of the specific objective of raising
awareness of staff concerned;
• while expanding
general public
awareness
is not a specific objective of the
programme, the effects of programme activities in expanding general
public
awareness have also been discussed
with stakeholders and the questionnaire sent to competent
authorities
in the EU have included a question on this topic. The answers
provided some indication on the
programme's spillovers in expanding general public awareness of counterfeiting;
• disseminating the results
achieved has been considered in the context of exchange of information, experience and best practice.
Taking into
account the above-mentioned methodological considerations, the specific objectives can be summarised as follows:
a)  raising
awareness of the staff concerned;
b)  acting as a catalyst
to encourage closer cooperation between
the structures and staff
concerned, the development of a
climate of mutual trust and satisfactory
knowledge;
c)  promoting convergence of high-level training activities;
d)  exchange
of information, experience
and good practices;
The types of activities to achieve these objectives are described in article 3 of Council
Decision 2001/923/EC and include:
• Training and
dissemination activities
(including workshops,
meetings and seminars);
• information and staff
exchanges;
• technical   assistance   (including   studies,   teaching   sources,   computer   support applications
such as
software and other technical support instruments).
Article 3
also
provides that financial support for
cooperation in cross-border
operations can be provided when such support is not available
from other European institutions and
bodies. To date, this type of support
has been co-financed by the programme only once.
Article 4 of Council
Decision 2001/923/EC
provides that,
in addition to the Commission
contribution, other parties should be invited
to contribute to
the
attainment of the objectives of the programme, including national central banks, the European Central Bank, Europol,  Interpol,
 the  European  Technical 
and 
Scientific 
Centre  (ETSC)  and  other specialised bodies. The contribution
of these stakeholders is actually key to achieving the overall objective of the programme of protecting
the euro against counterfeiting. In this regard, when evaluating the effectiveness of the programme, the evaluator
has focussed on the
specific objectives of the programme as described above and to what extent
the programme has contributed to the achievement of these objectives.
The evaluation has also assessed the added value of the programme
as compared to other existing instruments.
Coordination with other existing instruments has also been assessed to evaluate the efficiency  and  effectiveness
 of  the
 programme.  As  per  article
 5  of
 Council  Decision
2001/923/EC, the programme shall be implemented and coordinated by the Commission and the EU Member
States. Coordination should take account of measures
undertaken
elsewhere, in particular by the ECB and Europol. The coordination namely takes place in
the context of Euro Counterfeiting Experts Group (ECEG), which includes representatives of competent national authorities in the EU MS, the ECB and Europol. Interpol and
Eurojust are also often invited to attend
the meetings of the ECEG.
As per article
7 of
Council Decision 2001/923/EC, the
programme is open to participants
from third countries.
3 – EVALUATION OF THE RELEVANCE, EFFICIENTCY
AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THE
PERICLES PROGRAMME
The evaluation has focussed on the relevance, efficiency and effectiveness. Prospects for sustainability have also been evaluated. The European added value and general added value  of  the  programme 
have  been  analysed  as  part  of  the  relevance
 (EQ3).  The coherence of the programme has been assessed in the context of the added value of the
programme     as  compared  to  other
 existing  instruments
 (EQ3),  the  coordination mechanisms (EQ4) and the complementarity
of the programme with other existing
measures at MS and European level
(EQ8).
The evaluation questions (EQ) are: Relevance:
EQ1.
To what extent are the specific objectives
of the programme relevant to achieve its overall objective?
EQ2. To what extent are the programme activities and target groups relevant
to achieve its specific
objectives?
EQ3. To what extent does the
programme provide European added value? Efficiency:
EQ4.
To what extent do the management, coordination (with ECB, Europol and Member States) and administrative structures currently in place ensure an economic and efficient use of
the programme resources?
EQ5. To which extent are the activities and outputs of the programme delivered at a reasonable cost?
Effectiveness:
EQ6. To what extent have the specific objectives
of the programme been achieved?
EQ7. To what extent have the activities financed under the programme contributed to achieve its specific objectives?
EQ8. To what extent
do the coordination and cooperation mechanisms in place ensure consistency and complementarity
with other existing measures (in particular those implemented by the ECB and Europol) with the view to achieve the overall
objective of protecting
the euro against counterfeiting?
EQ9. To what  extent have transnational  and  multidisciplinary
 aspects and promoting
convergence among EU-MS been
sufficiently taken into account
by
the programme?
Sustainability:
EQ10.To what extent are the results achieved
(or likely will be) sustainable?
The DG BUDG’s guide7  “Evaluating EU activities – a practical
guide for the Commission Services” has provided the overall methodology
guidance for this evaluation. On the basis
of
this guide, the evaluator
developed a specific methodology for this evaluation. The
7 Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/secretariat_general/evaluation/docs/eval_activities_en.pdf
methodology was included in the inception report and was formally endorsed by the steering
group.
The main sources of information used
by the evaluator have been:
• Examination of
programme documentation and other relevant information;
• questionnaire to competent authorities in the
EU MS, the ECB and
Europol;
• questionnaire to a sample of authorities in third countries having participated in the
programme activities;
• questionnaires
to participants in a sample of programme activities; and
• interviews with key stakeholders (a sample of competent authorities in the MS, the
ECB, Europol, Eurojust and OLAF).
The replies to
questionnaires, particularly the
questionnaire sent to competent authorities in
the MS, the ECB and Europol, have provided an important
input to the evaluation. A total of 34 competent authorities replied to the questionnaire (32 replies from 23 different MS, 1 reply from the ECB and 1 reply from Europol). 17 out of the 32 competent
authorities
in
the MS which have replied to
the questionnaire have implemented
programme activities. 5 of these competent national
authorities
have
implemented more
than 6 activities, 2 competent
authorities have implemented from 4 to 6 activities and 10 competent authorities have implement from 1 to
3 activities. The details of the replies to this
questionnaire
are provided in annex IV.
The replies
to the questionnaire have provided an overall indication on the
relevance, efficiency, effectiveness and sustainability of the programme. This
information has been complemented with personal and/or telephone interviews with the ECB, Europol, Eurojust and a
sample of competent authorities in the
MS. Finally, the analysis has been completed
with the examination of relevant documentation8  and the replies to the questionnaires
sent to competent authorities in third
countries and participants in a sample of
programme activities.
The details of the replies
to these questionnaires are provided in annex V and annex VI.
Where the
comparison of the difference sources of information has
resulted
in
significant variations regarding the relevance, efficiency,
effectiveness or
sustainability of the programme, these variations are reported
together with the different
views expressed by stakeholders.
When
 reporting
 the  replies  to  the  questionnaires,
 the  percentage  of  respondents
expressing different opinions have been
calculated without including those competent
authorities or participants which did not express
an opinion. In general, the number of non-opinion received is considered low and as
not substantially affecting
the results and
performance       reported  by  the  respondents.
 Nevertheless,  for  some
 questions,  a significantly high number of non-opinion replies have been recorded.
A high level of
non- replies has been interpreted by the evaluator as
an indication of uneven results and/or performance.
The methodology
for this evaluation is
explained in detail in annex II (Methodology)
and annex III (Evaluation Matrix).
The evaluation matrix provides relevant information on the
analysis done and the different sources of information used to answer each evaluation
question.
8 The details of the documentation reviewed, including the number of activities and the selection criteria applied are
provided in Annex II (Methodology)
The following sections provide the results
of the evaluation for each evaluation
criteria and question.
3.1 - Relevance
The overall relevance of the programme (whether
the programme should be continued
after 2013) has been assessed in the context of the mid-term evaluation performed by the
Commission and the impact assessment which supported the Commission's
proposal for the continuation of the programme during the period
2014/20209  (the "Pericles 2020"). Therefore, a specific question on the overall relevance
of the programme has not been included for this evaluation. Nevertheless,
the evaluation has addressed the European added value of the programme (EQ3) and also the prospects for sustainability of the
results achieved (EQ10).
The Terms of Reference
for this evaluation included three questions related to relevance. These questions were intended to evaluate the relevance of the
programme at four levels:
• The relevance of the specific
objectives to achieve the overall objective of protecting
the euro against counterfeiting;
• the relevance
of the activities financed by the programme
to achieve its specific objectives;
• the relevance of the target groups to achieve its specific objectives;
• the European added value of the programme and the added value of the programme
compared to other financial instruments.
The relevance of the specific
objectives is addressed
by evaluation question (EQ) 1, and
the relevance of activities and target groups
by
EQ 2. EQ 3 refers to
the European added value of the programme
and the added value of the programme
compared to other existing
financial instruments
at MS
and EU level.
EQ 1: To what extent are the specific objectives of the programme relevant to
achieve its overall objective?
The  specific  objectives
 of  the
 programme  are  highly 
relevant  to  achieve  its  overall
objective of protecting the euro against counterfeiting. The evaluation has
not revealed more areas to be covered
by the existing specific objectives.
The
overall objective of the programme as per Council Decision 2001/923/EC is to protect the euro against counterfeiting, with particular focus on: (a) Transnational and multidisciplinary aspects, and
(b) promoting convergence among EU-MS to
guarantee equivalent level of protection.
The specific objectives of the programme are presented in
section 2 of this report.
The replies from the competent national authorities in the MS, the
ECB and Europol to the
questionnaire reflect an overall high relevance of the specific objectives. Exchange of information, experience and good practices is the specific objective which presents the highest level
of
relevance.
9 The Mid-term evaluation is attached to the impact assessment (Commission Working Paper SEC(2011)
1615 final) which supported the Commission's proposal for a Regulation of
the
European Parliament and of
the Council establishing
an exchange, assistance
and training programme for the protection of the euro against
counterfeiting (the 'Pericles 2020'
programme)
Interviews with a sample of MS, the ECB and the Europol and examination of documentation by the evaluator
have also confirmed the opinions
expressed by competent authorities
in the
questionnaire.
No  specific  formal  research  studies  have  been  identified  during  the  course  of  this evaluation which could provide additional relevant input as regards the relevance
of the specific objectives. Examination of the minutes of the ECEG's meeting
has not revealed any important concern which
could
question the relevance of the specific objectives.
Article 7 Council
Decision 2001/923/EC explicitly refers to international cooperation with EU accession countries and other third
countries. The evaluation has showed
that cooperation with third countries is one area where important results have been achieved
in terms of the specific objectives of the programme.
Cooperation with third
countries is therefore also highly relevant.
The replies to the questionnaire sent to competent national authorities in the MS, ECB and
Europol are summarised below:
Relevance of raising awareness of the staff concerned
79% (26 respondents) of the competent authorities which expressed their opinion (33 respondents) considered as high or very high the relevance of this specific
objective and
21% (7 respondents) as positive/fair. No respondent considered the specific objective of no or of limited relevance and 1 competent authority did not express an opinion.
Relevance of acting as
a catalyst to encourage closer
cooperation
79% (26 respondents) of the competent authorities which expressed their opinion (33 respondents) considered as high or very high the relevance of this specific
objective and
21% (7 respondents) as positive/fair. No respondent considered this specific objective of
no or limited relevance and 1 competent authority did
not express an opinion.
Relevance of promoting
convergence of high-level
training
The
questionnaire did not include a
specific question on converge of training but on the overall relevance
of promoting convergence. 70% (23 respondents) of the competent authorities which
expressed
their opinion (33
respondents) considered as high or
very high the relevance of promoting
convergence among the MS to
guarantee an equivalent level
of protection and 27% (9 respondents) as
positive/fair. 1 respondent considered convergence of limited relevance and 1 competent authority
did not express an opinion.
Relevance of exchange of information,
experience and good practices
This specific
objective presents the highest relevance. 85% (29 respondents) of the competent authorities considered as high or very high
the relevance of this
specific objective and 15%
(5 respondents) as positive/fair. No respondent considered the specific objective of no or of limited
relevance and all competent authorities
expressed an opinion.
EQ 2: To what extent are the programme activities and target groups relevant to
achieve its specific objectives?
The target groups and activities financed by the programme are in general highly relevant
to the achievement of its specific objectives. Training and dissemination/networking activities are the most relevant activities. Staff exchanges
and teaching sources are also highly relevant and the relevance of studies is positive.
Around 95% of the programme resources have been allocated to the activities
with highest relevance (training, dissemination/networking and
staff exchanges). The relevance
of computer support
applications such as software,
so far not financed by the programme, and support to cross-border operations, so far
very infrequently financed by the programme, is more uneven due the existence of other sources which fund
these activities. The programme is most relevant for police forces which also represent the target group most involved in the implementation
 of  the 
programme  activities  both
 as  organisers
 and  as  participants.
Judicial authorities and national
central banks are also highly relevant and both target groups
participate in most
programme activities, although the evaluation findings suggest
that there may be room to increase
the participation of judicial
authorities. Private sector, namely financial/banking sector, is
also a relevant target group particularly for
the MS which are not part of the euro area and third countries where training at national level is
not always provided by national
authorities.
The evaluation has
assessed the relevance of activities
and target groups at three levels:
a)  To what extent the activities and target groups foreseen
in Council Decision
2001/923/EC are relevant
to achieve the specific
objectives of the programme;
b)
 to
what extent the programme resources have been allocated
to the most relevant activities
and target groups; and
c)  the involvement of the different target groups in the implementation of the
activities.
Relevance of activities
The types of activities to achieve the specific objectives of the programme
are described in article 3 of Council Decision
2001/923/EC and can be
summarised as follows:
• Training activities;
• Dissemination     and
 networking  activities   (including   workshops,  meetings   and
seminars);
•
 Information and staff exchanges;
• Technical   assistance  (including   studies,   teaching   sources,   computer   support applications
and
other
technical support instruments);
• Financial support
for cooperation in cross-border operations when such support
is not available from other
European institutions and bodies.
Based on the replies
to the questionnaires to
competent authorities and participants in
programme activities, training and dissemination/networking are the most relevant activities. Staff exchanges and teaching sources are also highly relevant. The relevance of studies  is  clearly  positive 
while  the  relevance  of  computer  support  applications  and support
to cross-border operations, although positive, is more uneven due the existence
of other sources which are funding these activities.
The "Mid-term evaluation 2006-2010" undertaken by the
Commission identified that financing by the programme of specialised equipment to be used by third
countries for the
protection of the euro, which is not currently eligible for financing, would be relevant. The financing by the programme
of
specialised equipment has been
included in the Commission's proposal for Pericles 202010 to
respond to specific needs of some
third countries in Latin America. During the course of this evaluation, the evaluator discussed the relevance of this type of activity with some
stakeholders. Based on these discussions,
the activity would be relevant to achieve the
overall and specific objectives of programme and it is also used by
the USA to support the protection of the US Dollar in the countries of
the region. However, it was also underlined that the resources
of the programme are limited and the value-for-money of financing theses activates, and
coordination with other
existing sources of funding such as
Europol, should be carefully assessed when
specific activities
of this type are considered
for financing under the
programme in the future.
The analysis of the use of the programme resources allocated to the different type of activities  (Table
 3  and
 Chart  1)  showed  that
 around  9.4%  of  resources  have  been
allocated to conferences, 42% to activities
which include different combinations of conferences, training and workshops (CTW),
30% to training and workshops (WS), 13% to staff exchanges, 5% for studies and teaching sources, and less that 1% to others (expert visits and the support to one cross border operation). These figures show that
around 95% of the programme
resources have been used for the most
relevant activities
(training, networking/dissemination and staff exchanges).
Table 3: Type of activities 2002/201211 (1st call)
   Type of ac tivity ||   Number ||   Amount alloc ated 
 Conferenc es || 10 || €842,933 
 CTW || 37 || €3,764,391 
 Training/Workshops || 43 || €2,680,771 
 Staff Exc hanges || 40 || €1,160,359 
 Studies/Teac hing sourc es || 8 || €426,711 
 Other || 5 || €79,839 
 Total || 143 || €8,955,004 
10 Impact assessment (Commission Working Paper SEC(2011)
1615 final) which supported the Commission's proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing an exchange, assistance and training programme for the protection of the euro against counterfeiting (the 'Pericles 2020'
programme)
11 The table has been prepared by the evaluator using the annual activity reports prepared by OLAF D5.
Chart 1:
Number of activities and allocation of programme resources
(2002-2012 first call)
The analysis of relevance for each type
of activity, including the replies to the questionnaires, is provided below.  The analysis of the costs of the different
activities is provided in EQ4.
Relevance of training activities
The replies to the
questionnaires and interviews with
stakeholders confirmed that
training activities are highly relevant to achieve the specific objectives of raising awareness of staff
concerned and promoting convergence of high-level training. Both competent authorities and participants in the programme activities considered the training provided by
the programme as highly relevant for their work in the area
of euro
protection. 82% (28 respondents) of the competent
authorities in the EU rated the relevance
of training activities as high or very high, and 15% (5
respondents) as positive/fair. One competent
authority considered the activity of
limited relevance.
83% of the
participants in training activities considered that their participation had been
highly relevant for their work in the area of euro protection. 83% of the participants who replied to the questionnaire identified improving
their knowledge and skills in the area of euro protection against counterfeiting among their objectives when
participating in the
programme activities.
Interviews and replies to questionnaires suggest that training in euro protection is also highly relevant for staff
in competent authorities
in MS which are not part of the
euro area and third countries where training is
not always provided at national level. Further analysis in this regards is provided in the sections on efficiency and
effectiveness below.
Relevance of dissemination
and
networking activities
Dissemination
and networking activities include conferences, workshops, meetings and seminars. Dissemination and
training activities are often combined. Dissemination and networking activities are relevant to achieve all the different specific objectives of the
programme.
The replies to the questionnaires and interviews with stakeholders confirmed an overall
high relevance of dissemination and networking activities to
achieve the different specific
objectives of the programme. 79% (27 respondents) of the competent authorities in the
EU considered as high or very high the relevance
of these activities and 16% (6
respondents) as positive/fair. One competent authority
considered these activities of
limited relevance. The relevance of these activities were also confirmed by the objectives pursued by competent authorities when organising and/or participating in programme
activities. Encouraging
closer cooperation and developing a climate of mutual trust with organisations and staff concerned
in other EU countries and the exchange of information,
experiences and best practices are among the objectives pursued by more than 80% of the competent national authorities
organising and/or participating in programme
activities. Cooperation and exchanges with organisations and staff concerned in third countries is among
the objectives pursued by more than 60%
of these authorities.
The replies to the questionnaires to competent authorities in third countries and to participants also showed a high relevance of dissemination and
networking activities. 76%
of   participants   in   networking   and  
dissemination   activities  
considered   that   their
participation had been highly relevant for their
work in the area of euro protection. 64% of the participants
who replied to the questionnaire identified networking and
improving cooperation and mutual trust with their counterparts in EU countries (46% with their counterparts in third
countries) among
their
objectives when
participating in the
programme activities.
Relevance of information
and staff exchanges
Staff exchanges include visits
to the premises of competent authorities involved and often
include operational
training. Staff exchanges
promote the exchange of information, experience and best practices, as
well as enhance mutual trust among the
competent authorities participating in the
activity.
The replies to
the questionnaires and interviews
with stakeholders confirmed a high relevance of staff exchanges.
84% (27 respondents) of the competent
authorities in the EU considered as high or very high the relevance of this
activity and 16% (5 respondents) as positive/fair. No competent authority considered the activity of limited relevance and
two competent authorities did not express any
opinion.
Relevance of studies and
teaching sources
Studies and teaching sources are potentially relevant to achieve all the different specific objectives
of the programme. The replies to the questionnaires and interviews
with competent authorities suggest that teaching sources are considered by competent authorities more relevant than studies.
The replies to the questionnaire showed that 70% of respondents (23 competent
authorities) considered as high or very high the relevance of teaching sources as compared to 52% (15 competent authorities) for studies. While 1
competent authority did not
express an opinion on
the
relevance of teaching sources, 5 competent authorities did
not express an opinion on the relevance
of
studies.
Only few studies and teaching
sources have been financed
by the programme. The
examination of a sample of these activities and
interviews with stakeholders confirmed
their relevance.
Relevance of computer support applications such as
software
Computer
support applications are potentially relevant
to achieve all the different
specific objectives  of  the
 programme.  The  replies  to  the
 questionnaire  sent  to
 competent
authorities in the
EU showed that computer support application is considered a relevant activity although with
some mixed results.  From the 27 competent
authorities which
expressed  an  opinion,  63%  (17  respondents)  considered
 as  high  or
 very
 high
 the relevance  of  this
 activity  and 
26%  (6  respondents)  as
 positive/fair.  3  competent authorities considered the activity of limited relevance and 7 competent
authorities did not express an
opinion.
Computer support applications have not been financed by the programme. Interviews with
competent authorities showed that software
applications are already provided
by Europol and Interpol (to support cross border operations) and by the ECB
(central data base on counterfeit banknotes).
Computer support applications such as software are
therefore potentially relevant to achieve
the specific objectives of the
programme. However, other sources are already providing
the necessary support. In this regard, the evaluation has not identified additional needs for
specific software applications which could be
co-financed by
the programme.
Relevance of support
to cross-border operations
The possibility to support cross-border operations with the programme resources was
introduced by Council Decision 2006/75/EC
of 30 January 2006 amending Council Decision
2001/923/EC. To date, this type of support has been provided only once.
The
results of the
questionnaires and interviews
with stakeholders suggest that while
support to cross-border operations is clearly relevant to support the overall objective of
protecting the euro against counterfeiting, the relevance of this support
under the programme is uneven,
particularly because support to cross
border operations is provided by Europol and Eurojust.
The replies to the questionnaire to the competent authorities in the
EU have expressed a mixed view on whether
support to these operations should
be co-financed
by
the programme. 7 out of 34 competent authorities did not express
an opinion. From those
expressing an opinion (27 competent
authorities), 63% (17
respondents) considered the relevance of this activity as high or
very high and 30% (8 respondents) as positive/fair. 2
competent authorities considered the activity
of
limited relevance.
Interviews with stakeholders
also suggest that there is not a common understanding on
how the programme
can complement other existing financing sources for cross-border
operations,  namely  from 
Europol  and  Eurojust.
 The  interviews  showed  that
 some
competent authorities support the notion that it could be useful
for the programme to provide financing for costs related to cross-border operations ineligible for financing from other sources.
These costs would include the costs related
to the participation of police or
judicial authorities third countries in preparatory meetings or the costs related to the
participation of experts, other than police or judicial authorities
(for example, experts from
national central
banks) in preparatory meetings. However, it was
revealed
during the interviews with Europol and
Eurojust that costs related to the participation of police
or judicial authorities from third countries, or other relevant
stakeholders from the EU,
related to the preparation of
cross-border operations could
potentially be financed by their institutions under certain circumstances.
The feasibility of financing these
types of activities was also discussed
with stakeholders and  assessed
 by  the
 evaluator.  The  financing
 of  cross-border
 operations  by  the programme  is  difficult  given  their  inability  to  always  be
 planned
 in
 advance. Implementation by the MS competent authorities, which requires previous examination of the Pericles evaluation committee,
would therefore not be feasible and only direct implementation by the
Commission/OLAF could render
the financing of
this type of activity
under the programme feasible.
The existing approach
that this type of support should be provided only when other sources of funding are not available seems
reasonable. However, the findings of the evaluations suggest that there is not a common understanding among
all relevant stakeholders on which
costs can be financed
by other sources of funding. So far there has
been a limited risk of overlapping as this type
of support has been financed by the
programme in one occasion and for a limited amount (€
6,600). Nevertheless, the evaluation showed the need to clarify the existing diverting views among stakeholders in order to ensure the coherence
of future programme activities with other existing sources of
financing, namely from Europol
and Eurojust, as regards support to cross border operations.
Relevance of target groups
Article 4.1 of Council Decision 2001/923/EC provides the target groups for the activities financed by the programme. These target groups are: police forces, intelligence personnel, representatives of national
central banks and other financial intermediaries, mints, judicial officers, commercial banks and
other relevant private sector organisations (such as: chambers of commerce or comparable structures
capable to provide access to small and medium size enterprises, traders and hauliers).
The relevance of the above-mentioned target groups was evaluated in the questionnaire sent to competent authorities and complemented with
interviews and examination of relevant documentation. The replies to the questionnaire sent to
competent authorities in the EU
MS, the ECB and Europol showed a very
high relevance for police, national central banks, judicial authorities and mints (it should be noted
that 21 out the 32 competent
authorities
in the
MS
who replied to the questionnaire
are police authorities).
The
relevance of police and judicial authorities is confirmed by the nature
of their activities
and results achieved on the fight
against euro counterfeiting (cross-border operations
carried out, individuals arrested, sanctions imposed, counterfeit
euros seized, etc).
The relevance of national central
banks and mints is also clear given their role in
distributing and producing
banknotes and coins and
as central players at national level to
collect and analyse counterfeit notes
and coins. Interviews with stakeholders, including interviews with three national central banks,
and the examination of a sample
of activities have
showed that national central
banks usually participate in the activities organised by
other target groups and are also closely involved in the organisation of some of these activities.
For
the other target groups
(ministry of finance, financial/banking
private sector and other relevant private
sector organisations) the views expressed in the questionnaires are more mixed.
The interviews with stakeholders suggest that the relevance of ministries of finance as target
groups for the programme is uneven and would
vary depending on their different roles in the different EU MS. The
examination of a sample of programme activities shows
that activities implemented
by the ministries of finance are mainly
networking and awareness  raising  activities  which
 also  involved  other  target  groups  (namely  police, judicial
authorities, national central banks, and commercial banks). The examination of documentation by the evaluator
also suggest that the results
achieved by the ministries of finance on the fight
against
euro counterfeiting, and therefore their relevance for the programme activities, are more difficult to identify
compared to other target groups. It is therefore particularly important for this target group that their role and potential contribution to achieve the
programme specific objectives
is clearly presented in the proposals for programme activities.
The interviews with stakeholders suggest that the relevance of the financial/banking private sector would depend on whether training is provided at national level. For the MS
of the euro area, regular training
on euro protection is provided to the financial/banking private sector by the national central banks.
For third countries, and MS which are not
members of the euro area, the relevance of this target group would be clearer as the
competent national authorities in these countries do not have a legal requirement to play an active role in providing training on the protection of the euro in their countries. A similar analysis also applies for other
relevant private sector
organisations.
The following
paragraphs analyses the relevance on the use of programme resources based on the involvement
of the different target groups in the implementation of the programme activities
both as organisers and participants.
Regarding the use of programme
resources by the various target groups (Chart 2), 85% of the programme
resources implemented by the competent national
authorities in the MS are
implemented by police authorities, 8% by ministries of finance, 6% by National Analysis Centers,
Coins National Analysis
Centers and National Central
Offices and less than 1% by national central banks.
Chart 2:
Implementation of activities per target
group 2002-2012 first call (funds allocated).
Ministry o f Finance
8.4%
Nationa Central Bank
0.4%
NAC/CNAC/NCO
5.7%
Police
85.3%
Chart 3:
Profile of participants in programme activities 2006-2011
Regarding the profile of participants in the programme
activities, during the period 2006-
2011 (Chart 3), 68% of participants were police forces, 9% staff from national
central
banks, 6% judicial authorities, 6% financial sector, 3% ministry of finance and 6% others.
Participants are therefore mainly
police forces. Representatives of
judicial authorities and central banks
generally participate in all activities,
although not always
on
staff exchanges activities or technical
trainings. The review
of a
sample of activities suggests that the private financial/banking sector
has mainly participated in activities organised outside the
EU. Other participants include staff from
the
embassies of MS in the countries
where activities take place and staff from EU institutions and bodies (ECB, Europol, Eurojust and
the  Commission).  Interpol  and  the
 US  secret  service  (which  is
 competent  for  the protection of the US Dollar) also participate
in
the activities.
The examination of relevant
documentation showed that
the high participation of police in the programme activities is mainly explained by the fact that a
significant part of the
activities are training activities which are most relevant for police forces (identification of counterfeit notes, investigative techniques, etc.) or activities to promote cooperation and exchanges among police forces. Police
also participate in the programme activities as organisers, facilitators and trainers, and this also explains
the high participation of this target group.
Regarding national
central banks, they mostly participate as facilitators or trainers. As
regards judicial authorities, their relatively low participation in the
programme activities compared to police would be
partly explained because there are very few activities specifically targeted to this target
group and that they do not usually
participate as organisers, trainers or facilitators.
According to interviews with stakeholders, the number
of police officials
dedicated to the protection of the euro in the
MS is clearly higher than
judicial officers and this also explains
the higher participation of police
compared to judicial authorities.
The interviews with stakeholders have not provided a conclusive view as
to whether the participation of judicial authorities
should be increased. Nevertheless, as discussed in EQ9, a potential
to increase their involvement
in
the programme activities may
exists.
3.2   European and
overall added value of the programme
EQ3: To what extent does the programme provide European added
value?
The protection of the euro as a common currency for 17 EU MS and as an international
and reserve currency has a clear European
interest which goes beyond the
interest of individual MS. The fight against euro counterfeiting requires cooperation at European and international levels.
The programme finances activities which facilitate this cooperation. The combination
of an European/international dimension of the programme together with a multidisciplinary dimension
represents a clear
added value of the programme compared to
activities carried
out by the MS and other EU institutions or bodies. The programme
also provides added value in terms of enhancing bilateral contacts, promoting mutual trust
and as a motivational instrument.
The protection of the euro against counterfeiting has a clear European/international
dimension: the euro is used as a common currency
by
17 EU MS and it is also largely used
internationally as a second currency
and serves as reserve
currency for third countries.
The worldwide importance of the
euro means that it is particularly open to
the risk of counterfeiting
on a transnational scale and the fight against
euro counterfeiting
requires therefore cooperation at European and international level.
The
programme co-finances activities involving relevant competent authorities in the EU and third countries. These activities are intended
mainly to provide relevant training, improve cooperation, exchanges of information and best practices among competent
national authorities and their staff
in
different MS and
third
countries.
According  to  reports  from
 the  EC12   and  Europol13   and  interviews
 with
 competent authorities  in  the
 MS,  Europol  and  Eurojust,
 criminal  groups  involved  in  euro
counterfeiting often operate at a European and
international
level. Counterfeit euros are
often distributed not only on the MS where
they are produced but also in other MS.
Criminal groups operating in
third countries (EU neighbourhood countries in
the Western Balkans, Mediterranean countries and Eastern Europe), are also involved in the distribution/production of euros produced/distributed
in the EU.
Another area
of particular risk is
Latin America where counterfeit
euros are produced by criminal
groups for their later distribution in the
EU as well as in the
Latin America region.
This situation entails
a risk for the euro,
not only because of the export of counterfeit
euro into the EU, but also because the distribution of counterfeit euros in third countries undermines the
confidence in the
euro
as an international currency.
Addressing threats from criminal
groups from third countries on the production
and/or distribution of counterfeit euro requires the cooperation between the MS and the third countries affected by euro counterfeiting. It also requires that the relevant
authorities
in the third countries involved
have access to technical and operational training on the
detection of counterfeit
euro
as well as on investigative
techniques. It
also requires raising
awareness
among the relevant authorities in third countries (namely police, judicial
authorities and central banks).
Technical and operational training, networking
and awareness raising activities
are the main activities financed by the programme
in third countries. The benefits of this support in terms of increased protection of the euro clearly provide
a European added value which goes
beyond the interest of individual MS.
The European added value of the programme has also been confirmed by the replies to the
questionnaire sent to the competent authorities in the EU MS, the ECB and Europol.
74% (23 respondents)
of the competent authorities
which expressed their opinion (31 respondents) considered as high or very high the European added value of the programme
and 23% (7
respondents) as positive/fair. 1 competent authority
considered the European added value as insufficient and 3 authorities
did not express an opinion.
The questionnaire also included questions on the existing national
strategies on euro protection.  Out  of
 the  32  competent
 authorities  in  the  MS
 who
 replied  to
 the
questionnaire, 18 (15 of them from the euro area) declared that they have a national strategy in place. Regarding their
profile, 12 of these authorities are police, 4 national central banks and 2 others.
The target groups for these national strategies are national
stakeholders and, to a
certain extent, include a
multidisciplinary dimension. For the police authorities, the main target group of the national programmes are the police forces (100%) in their countries. Around 40%
of the police national
strategies are also addressed
to the financial/banking private sector and to the national
central banks, one third to other private sector (such as
chambers of commerce and industry
and other comparable structures) and one fourth to the judicial authorities. Regarding the national
strategies of the national
central banks which replied to the questionnaire, the main target groups are
the staff of the banking/financial
private sector and the general
public.
12 Impact assessment (Commission Working
Paper SEC(2011)
1615 final) which supported the Commission's proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing an exchange, assistance and training programme for the protection of the euro against counterfeiting (the 'Pericles 2020'
programme) Impact
assessment (Commission Staff
Working Paper SWD(2013) 19 final).accompanying the Commission's
proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of the euro and other
currencies against counterfeiting by criminal law.
13 Europol organised Crime Threat Assessments (OCTA 2011 and 2013).
The added value of the programme
as compared to activities undertaken by the
MS stems
therefore mainly from
its transnational dimension, at two
levels: (a) cooperation between the
MS, and (b) cooperation between the MS
and third countries.
A transnational dimension is also provided by activities carried out by the ECB (to national
central banks), Europol
(training, technical and operational support
and financial support
to cross-border operations) and
Eurojust (financial support to Joint Investigation Teams). The added value of the programme
with respect to activities undertaken by other EU bodies stems from its multidisciplinary
dimension and
the focus on activities at European
level which are not financed by other
existing sources.
Additionally, several national competent authorities interviewed have stressed that the program activities provide a clear
added value in terms of
further enhancing cross-border cooperation (as compared to other existing tools) by facilitating direct bilateral contacts and
promoting a climate of mutual trust between the staff of the competent authorities in the MS and between
the staff in the
MS and third countries. Several national competent authorities also underlined
that the participation in programme activities is an important motivational instrument for staff of competent authorities in
both the EU and third countries.
The implementation modality which combines
the implementation of activities by the
Commission and MS is shown to be an
important strength of
the programme. The implementation of activities by MS allows competent national authorities to identify and address new threats and emerging
needs, while ensuring the management of the
programme at the European level. This also allows the programme to benefit from the strengths of the different MS in their
relations with
third
countries. At the same time, the implementation by the Commission provides
flexibility to rapidly define and implement activities and to complement the activities implemented
by MS.
The Technical Assistance
and Information Exchange instrument (TAIEX14)
managed by the
Directorate-General Enlargement of the European Commission has also funded
a few activities (namely
study visits) including themes
related to currency counterfeiting
to competent authorities from candidates and potential candidates to the EU. These activities
are coordinated with OLAF and are not frequent.
The Pericles programme is therefore the
only programme at European level specifically addressing euro
protection.
4.3   Efficiency
EQ 4: To what extent do the
management, coordination (with ECB, Europol
and Member States)
and administrative structures
currently in place
ensure an economic and efficient
use of the programme resources?
The main coordination mechanism for the programme is the Euro Counterfeiting Experts' Group (ECEG) where the competent authorities from the MS, the
ECB and Europol are represented. Overall, the ECEG
meetings provide an adequate
mechanism for coordinating and steering the programme, although the
evaluation has identified some potential
improvements which could facilitate the role of the ECEG. The administrative
structures in place provide
an adequate framework for an efficient
use
of resources, although
there is some room to further streamlining the application and reporting procedures.
The analysis
of this question has been separated into two parts:
a)  Efficiency of the management and administrative structures for the implementation of the programme,
14 http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/taiex/what-is-taiex/index_en.htm
b)  Efficiency of the role of the ECEG to steer the programme and coordinate its implementation with
other existing measures at
national and European level.
Efficiency of the management and administrative structures for the implementation of the programme
Article 12 of Council Decision 2001/923/EC provides that projects (activities) under the programme may emanate from the MS competent authorities
or from the Commission.
Approximately 25-30% of the annual budget of
the programme is
implemented directly by the Commission (OLAF D5).
These activities (workshops, seminars,
studies, teaching material,
etc) are implemented through contracts with external suppliers
procured under exiting framework contracts
managed by OLAF or other Commission
services. The rest of
the budget, around 70-75%, is implemented through grants
signed with competent authorities in the MS following calls for proposals
issued twice a year by OLAF D5. Both,
procurement and grants, are regulated
by the applicable rules for grants as established
by the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the Union15  and its rules of
implementation16 (hereafter referred as the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the Union).
With regard to grants,
competent authorities in the EU
MS
are invited to submit proposals
for activities. The proposals
are assessed by an evaluation committee in OLAF (the Pericles evaluation
 committee).  Following  the
 evaluation
 of  the  proposals,  the  evaluation committee prepares a report
with the recommended activities to be co-financed by the
programme. Once the grant agreement between OLAF,
on
behalf of the
Commission, and the competent national authority is signed, the latter is entitled to receive an advance
payment equivalent to 50%, or 70% in exceptional and duly justified circumstances, of
the grant amount. As per article 12 of Council
Decision 2001/923/EC, competent authorities in the MS may present one or, exceptionally, two projects
a year concerning workshops, meetings and seminars. Projects
in
connection with placements, exchanges
or assistance may also be
presented.
Once the
activities are implemented, competent
national authorities must
submit a technical and a financial
report to OLAF which may
ask the competent national
authorities for clarification on the information
submitted and
or additional
supporting documentation
before approving the final balance
payment.
In
order to assess the efficiency in the
selection of activities, the evaluator has reviewed
the efficiency criteria
used when selecting the activities financed
by the programme. Article 12 of Council Decision 2001/923/EC provides that the Commission
shall select projects by the
MS, and projects devised on its own
initiative, on the basis on several criteria, including the following efficiency criteria: complementarity with other
previous, current and future projects; cost-effectiveness ratio; the amount of aid requested
and whether it is commensurate
with the anticipated results.
For the activities implemented by the competent national authorities in the MS, the calls
for  proposals  issued  by
 OLAF  refer  to  the
 selection  criteria  in  Council  Decision
2001/923/EC as
part of the selection and
award criteria. The examination of relevant
documentation has also showed that several efficiency criteria
are applied by the Pericles
evaluation committee when examining the proposals from MS
(for instance whether the costs
of different inputs are
reasonable as compared to other
activities or whether some of
15 Regulation (EU, EURATOM) No 966/2012
of the European
Parliament and the Council of 25 October 2012 on
the financial rules applicable to the general budget of
the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom)
No
1605/2002.
16Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No
1268/2012 of 29 October 2012 on the rules of application of
Regulation (EU, Euratom) No
966/2012 of the European
Parliament and of the Council on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union.
the costs are actually needed for the project). The committee also assesses the eligibility
of
the activities
(transnational and multidisciplinary aspects), the
eligibility of costs proposed
and the ceilings applicable (for example
for accommodation and maintenance costs).
The examination of relevant
supporting documentation has
also showed that most projects which are submitted by the national competent authorities to
OLAF have been previously presented and, to a variable extent, discussed at the ECEG meetings. These discussions, together with bilateral
contacts between OLAF and
the competent authorities in MS, define which projects are in line with the strategy and priorities identified for the programme.
This coordination also takes into account
the
activities implemented by the Commission (OLAF).
This coordination work allows for
the identification of projects which will be submitted to the Pericles evaluation committee and which in general do not exceed,
or rarely exceed, the resources available for each call for
proposal. The examination of the minutes of the Pericles evaluation Committee has showed that proposals are rarely rejected by the committee. Those which have been rejected
have been so due to an insufficient demonstration of transnationality and/or multi-disciplinarity, but not due to
a lack of sufficient
resources.
The mechanism described
above (presentation and previous discussions of the
projects in the ECEG meetings and bilateral contacts
between OLAF and MS) facilitates the coordination of efforts among the competent authorities in the MS.
An alternative
mechanism which would encourage competent authorities in the MS
to prepare more applications which would be compared in term of their value for money could
increase the efficiency on the use
of the programme resources. However,
it would also increase the administrative  burden  for  the  national  competent  authorities 
as  higher  number  of proposals would not
be accepted. Interviews with stakeholders also suggest
that the rejection of proposals
submitted may also entail a reputation
risk for national competent
authorities concerned and may
discourage them from submitting
further proposals.
Encouraging the submission of more proposals to OLAF could increase the efficiency of the use of resources. However, the costs associated to increase the number of
proposals, and potential risks which
could derive from the rejection of proposals, may outweigh
the potential  gains.  It
 should  be  noted  that
 the  potential  efficiency
 gains  to  obtain  by increasing the number of proposals are relatively limited given the small size
of the programme.
Table 4 and Chart 4 provide
details on the number of activities implemented and the allocation of the programme
resources.  Table 4 shows that a total of 143 activities have
been financed during the period from 2002 to 2012 (first call for proposals) for a total amount committed close to € 9 million. This shows that approximately 85% of the funds available for the programme
have been committed since the inception of the programme
in 2002. The annual reports on the implementation of programme
activities show that for
the period 2007-2012, the level of commitment of funds available has been
over 90%. During the period from  2002  to 2012  (first call for proposals), around
26% of the programme resources have been implemented by the
Commission (OLAF).
As regards
the implementation
of programme activities by the competent authorities in the MS through grant agreements signed with OLAF, Chart 4 shows
that five MS (France,
Germany, Italy, Portugal
and Spain) have implemented around 86% of the budget implemented by national
competent authorities. The examination of programme documentation has showed that since 2007, the number
of competent authorities and MS which have implemented programme
activities has increased compared to the period
2002-2006, also as a consequence of the enlargement of the EU to 12 new MS in 2004
and 2007.
Table 4: Activities
implemented per MS and EC/OLAF
(2002 – 2012 first call)
 Member State || Number || Amount alloc ated 
 Belgium || 5 || €104,508 
 Estonia || 2 || €16,850 
 Finland || 1 || €37,268 
 Franc e || 10 || €710,253 
 Germany || 14 || €1,552,391 
 DE, NL,UK || 1 || €28,900 
 Greec e || 3 || €240,890 
 Hungary || 2 || €84,302 
 Italy || 33 || €1,399,523 
 Poland || 3 || €164,587 
 Portugal || 8 || €619,856 
 Romania || 2 || €117,993 
 Spain || 16 || €1,408,740 
 The Netherland || s      1 || €117,733 
   Total MS ||   101 ||   €6,603,794 
 EC/OLAF || 42 || €2,351,211 
 Grand Total || 143 || €8,955,004 
Chart 4: Allocation of
programme resources per MS (2002-2012 first call)
The interviews and the examination of the programme documentation suggest
that the size of national administrations, in particular the
staff dedicated to euro protection seems to be an important factor explaining why the largest
MS in the euro area
are those more active
in organising and implementing
programmes activities.
Trade and migration flows and the use of a common language would also
explain the involvement of some MS in the organisation and
implementation of programme activities, particularly for activities
involving third countries.
In
order to assess the reasons why some competent
authorities in the MS have not implemented programme
activities, the questionnaire sent
to these authorities included a question related to the main reasons
for not having implemented programme
activities.
The results
of this question are provided in table 5 (the 15 competent
national authorities which
had not implemented activities
were allowed to choose
more than one reason).
Table 5:
Main
reasons reported by competent
authorities in the MS
for not having
implemented programme activities
   ||   N ||   % 
 Your requirements for transitional c ooperation are c overed by your partic ipation in PERICLES ac tivities organised by other organisations. ||   9 ||   60% 
 The administrative proc edures to organise PERICLES ac tivities are not suffic iently c lear and/or transparent ||   1 ||   7% 
 The administrative burden related to the preparation of the proposals and reporting requirements ||   1 ||   7% 
 Your organisation does not have suffic ient resourc es available to c o- financ e the ac tivities ||   8 ||   53% 
 Other || 2 || 13% 
The above replies show that the
main reason for not implementing programme activities
reported by competent authorities is that
that their requirements for transnational cooperation  are  covered  
by   their   participation
 in
 activities  organised
 by  other
organisations. The lack of sufficient
resources available to co-finance the activities is
the second main reason.
The above replies show that the
activities implemented by a competent
authority in a MS
also benefit and address the needs of other competent authorities in the same and/or another MS. The replies also show that the lack of sufficient resources available to co- finance the activities is an
important hurdle for some competent authorities.
The evaluator has also assessed the objectives of a sample of activities and how efficiency aspects are presented in the proposals. The activities financed by
the programme have different types of specific objectives. In some
cases these objectives are broad (such as building institutional
capacity in euro protection in a third country). In other cases, the
objectives are more focussed (capacity
building provided through
training, information exchange and good practices) while other activities focus on maintaining the results
already achieved (for example, satisfactory cooperation between staff concerned). These specific objectives
are presented by the applicants
with variable clarity
and quality.
The proposals submitted also include information on the complementarity and coherence with previous
and other existing programme activities, as well as the expected
results. The quality and
clarity of this information varies among
the applications examined. The
proposals also include information on the criteria used
to select the participants
and countries involved and
other relevant value-for-money
criteria (for example, different alternatives considered). Nevertheless, this information
is not always sufficiently comprehensive.
In
general, interviews with national
competent authorities and OLAF D5 have
provided satisfactory explanations on the complementarity of activities
and other efficiency aspects.
Nevertheless, further efforts
in improving the definition of the specific objectives for each
activity, its complementarity and coherence with other activities financed
by the programme and value-for-money
criteria would enhance the efficiency of the programme.
In this regard, the application forms used could be revised to facilitate the presentation
and  the  assessment  by  the
 Pericles
 evaluation  committee  of  the  complementarity,
coherence and value for money (including for
example more information on the different
alternatives considered by the
applicants to organise the activity or the
cost per participant) of the activities proposed.
The evaluation has also assessed the efficiency of the administrative procedures in term of their
timeliness, administrative
burden and clarity/transparency.
The questionnaire sent
to competent authorities
in
the MS showed positive although
mixed results regarding the
efficiency of the administrative
procedures as regards timeliness, administrative burden and clarity/transparency. The main concerns expressed
by the competent authorities
in the MS which have
implemented activities are:
• The financial procedures are too rigid as some type of expenses
are not eligible (Value Added Tax, local transportation, provision of interpretation facilities, rental of premises or costs related to currency exchange);
• The financial procedures are not sufficiently clear and often change;
Regarding the Value Added Tax (VAT), the competent national authorities interviewed declared that they are not always entitled
to exemption of or reimbursement
of the VAT when the programme
activities take place in a different MS or in a third country. VAT can represent a significant cost for
competent authorities organising the activities if they are
not  entitled  to  exemption
 or  reimbursement.
 Some  national  competent  authorities declared
that the non-eligibility of VAT may put at risk the organisation
of future activities.
The rules applied
regarding the eligibility of VAT under the programme are those for grants financed from the budget of the Union as per the Financial
Regulation and therefore there is no or very limited flexibility for OLAF to decide on the eligibility of VAT. These rules
have been recently
updated by the new
Financial Regulation applicable to the budget
of the Union17.
Regarding local transportation (internal transfers),
interpretation facilities
or rental of premises, relevant provisions
are provided by article 8 of Council Decision 2001/923/EC.
The implementation of these provisions is open to interpretation as
to whether the costs associated to the provision
of these inputs should always be borne
by the MS or if the
provisions apply only to those activities organised on their territory. As per the current
application forms developed by OLAF, these costs should be borne by the competent national authorities, independently of the
location of the activity. For
several national competent authorities
interviewed, providing these inputs pose problems to organise the activities as they, or the partner competent authorities in another
MS or third country where the
activity takes place, do not always have the means to provide the local
transportation, interpretation facilities or
premises. The concerns of competent MS
authorities regarding this have already
been identified in the Mid-term evaluation 2006-
2010 performed by the Commission18 and the Commission's proposal
for an extension of the programme for the period 2014-2014
has included a proposal
to eliminate these
provisions from the
Council Decision.
The
concerns from competent authorities in
the MS regarding the clarity
of
financial procedures were also reported by the mid-term evaluation performed by the Commission.
17 Regulation (EU, EURATOM) No 966/2012 of the European
Parliament and the Council of 25 October 2012 on
the financial rules applicable to the general budget of
the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom)
No
1605/2002.
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No
1268/2012 of 29 October 2012 on the rules of application of
Regulation (EU, Euratom)
No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union.
18 The Mid-term evaluation is attached to the impact
assessment (Commission Working Paper SEC(2011)
1615 final) which supported the Commission's proposal for a Regulation of
the
European Parliament and of
the Council
establishing an exchange, assistance
and training programme for the protection of the euro against
counterfeiting (the 'Pericles 2020'
programme)
To address them, in June 2011, a specific workshop was organised by OLAF on "How to apply and report
under Pericles". Most
competent national authorities attended the workshop  and,  according  to
 their  replies  to
 the  evaluation  sheet
 distributed
 to participants, the training
was considered useful by most participants. Nevertheless, while complexity of administrative
procedures is not among the main reason reported
by competent authorities in the MS for not implementing programme
activities as reported in
Table 5 above, some competent national
authorities interviewed consider that the administrative procedures are still complex
for them. In this regards, the interviews with stakeholders and examination of relevant documentation suggest there
may be some room for further streamlining the standard
application and reporting forms in order to
facilitate the presentation of the different costs and the verification of
ceilings applicable.
Efficiency of the role of the ECEG to steer the programme and coordinate its implementation with other existing measures at MS and European
level
The main coordination mechanism
for the programme is the discussion at the ECEG meetings. Additionally, steering, at
technical level, and
high level meetings between the ECB, Europol and OLAF on the protection of the euro are also organised
(usually once a
year or every two years). The protection
of the euro is also discussed
during bilateral meetings
between Europol and OLAF and between the ECB and
OLAF.
The programme strategy
is prepared by OLAF/D5 based on the discussions during the ECEG meeting. The strategy is subsequently
presented and discussed with the
ECEG. The strategy identifies
the needs for support as well
as the priority geographical areas.
OLAF/D5 also keeps regular contacts
with the ECB, Europol
and the competent national
authorities to identify the needs for programme's assistance and the activities they plan for the
next 1-2 years. The strategy usually covers a period of one
year although it also provides some indications on the priorities for future years. However, the scope in terms
of the period of time covered by the
strategy is not clearly defined.
The examination of the minutes of the ECEG meetings and the evaluator's participation in two meetings
as observer showed that the activities which are planned to be implemented by the competent authorities in the MS and
by
OLAF are briefly presented
at the ECEG meetings. The representatives of the MS and OLAF also present their
preliminary ideas about potential actions
at the ECEG.
The replies to
the questionnaire to competent authorities in the MS, the ECB and Europol
showed positive views of the existing coordination through the ECEG meetings
to ensure an efficient use of the programme resources, although with areas for improvement. 76% (22 respondents) of the competent authorities
which expressed their opinion in the
questionnaire (29 respondents) considered as high or very high the
efficiency of the coordination mechanism and 21% (6 respondents) as positive/fair. 1 respondent considered it
as insufficient and 5 did not express an opinion. Nevertheless, 5
competent authorities replied that there is room to improve the coordination with other exiting measures at MS and European level in terms of efficiency and 16 replied that there is some room for improvement.
The interviews with
stakeholders and the comments provided
in the questionnaires, together with the
evaluator's examination of programme
documentation and participation as observer in two meetings of the ECEG, provided some indications on potential areas for
improvement.
The main potential improvement would be introducing a multi-annual
strategy with a clear scope in terms of period of time covered
(a 3-years coverage seems the most suitable
option). This multiannual strategy would provide a more comprehensive and strategic
planning and would
facilitate a more advance planning by the competent national authorities
in the MS. It would also facilitate the coordination among the programme's
activities and with other activities at European (by the ECB, Europol and Eurojust) and MS level. Stakeholders interviewed
underlined that the
multiannual
strategy should however keep
a certain level of
flexibility
to respond to new priorities or
threats.
Another potential area for improvement regards the use of the technical
reports of activities. Currently
the results of the programme activities are usually briefly presented
at the ECEG meetings and some technical
reports on the implementation of activities are
made available to the members of the ECEG
when requested. Some competent authorities considered that it would more efficient that technical reports
of activities are made available to
the members of the ECEG and
that only the
results of
the most relevant activities (or the results of a series of activities)
are presented. The time saved could be dedicated to further discussions on the planning and
coordination of the programme activities.
EQ5: To which extent are the activities and outputs
of the programme delivered at a reasonable
cost?
Overall, the activities and outputs are delivered at a
reasonable cost. The evaluation has identified some potential areas for improving efficiency. These would include
reorienting the content of some
activities towards a more
operational content and
increasing training for trainers activities.
The efficiency of activities financed by the
programme has been evaluated at two
levels:
a)  The unitary
costs (travel, accommodation, maintenance, etc);
b)
 Cost  of  different
 type
 of  activities  (depending  on
 their  nature,
 duration  and periodicity).
The questionnaire to competent authorities in the MS,
the ECB and Europol included
a question on whether they consider there is scope to save
programme resources (without involving a significant negative impact on the
overall achievements of the programme) by taking one or more the following actions: (a) Reducing the number
of training activities,
(b) reducing the number of dissemination/networking activities, (c) reducing the number of participants in training activities or (d) reducing the
number of participants
in dissemination/networking
activities.
A
majority of competent authorities replied there is not or there is only limited
scope to save programme resources
by taking any of the four measures
presented above. Few
competent authorities considered that there is scope to reduce the number of networking
activities or reducing the number
of participants in some activities. In this regard, some
competent authorities interviewed considered that the participation in the programme
activities could be limited to one or maximum two
activities per year and participant as a way to save resources and encouraging the
participation of more stakeholders. Nevertheless, while
this approach could improve the efficiency of the programme, its implementation could create a significant administrative burden and it may not be always
suitable (for example, when more than two
types of training activities are organised per year).
Another potential improvement on the efficient use of the
programme resources discussed with stakeholders would be that the costs related to travel
and accommodation of staff
and/or representatives of commercial banks and
other relevant private sector bodies
are not financed by the
programme (unless they participate as trainers).
For some stakeholders,  a high  level  training
 provided  for free should be by
 itself  a  sufficient incentive for private entities to participate in the programme
activities. This would allow
increasing the number of
training activities delivered to relevant
private sector target
groups without involving
an
increase of costs.
The questionnaire to competent authorities in the EU
MS, the ECB and Europol also included a specific question on whether they considered that more programme
resources should be dedicated
to one type of activity compared
to others. The responses
largely supported those activities which already absorb around 95% of the budget of the programme (training,
networking/dissemination
and staff exchanges).
The evaluator also
compared the costs of a sample of activities. This analysis
showed that the most costly activities are conferences. This is mainly due to the higher number of participants compared to staff exchanges or training activities. Conferences
are also often combined  with  training  and/or 
workshops  and  therefore  involve 
a  longer  duration compared to training and often require interpretation. The
duration of these combined
activities varies from 3 to 5
days. Based on interviews and the
examination of
documentation for a sample of activities, the
duration of these activities is reasonable
although some participants considered that some extra time would be preferable. Nevertheless,  interviews  showed  that
 some 
competent  authorities  consider  that
 the agenda of some activities is excessively oriented towards
general presentations. In their
view, more time should be dedicated to more operational discussions, including
work- shops and bilateral meetings, rather than general
presentations.
The examination of supporting documents also showed that interpretation costs are
significant for some activities (higher that
10%
of the total budget for some activities
reviewed). Interpretation into two or three languages
is often needed for conferences and
other activities. Nevertheless, for
some activities, there may be some room to save resources and enhancing
subsequent cooperation and exchanges
by promoting the participation of trainers, facilitators and participants who can
use a common language.
Regarding accommodation and maintenance costs, the procedures provide for the
verification that unit costs for accommodation and maintenance
are in accordance with the ceilings applicable to the EC officials as per the relevant
regulations. These ceilings
are also used for other programmes implemented
by the Commission. Regarding travel costs, the
review of a sample of activities showed that long distance flights for the activities
implemented by the MS are usually booked
in economy class.
Overall,
 the  analysis  showed  that  the
 activities  and
 outputs  of  the  programme
 are delivered at a reasonable cost.
The questionnaire to competent authorities in the EU
MS, the ECB and Europol also included a specific question on whether
they consider that there are activities which are not
currently financed
by the programme but which would provide a higher value for money compared to the activities currently financed by the programme. 6 out of 34
competent authorities replied
"yes" to this question. Comments provided in the questionnaire and interviews with competent authorities showed
that these competent authorities referred mainly to training activities at national level.
Activities at national level
are not financed by the programme because
they do not meet the transnational
requirement. Nevertheless, the
need for training at national level can be supported by the programme
by the involvement of guest speakers in national
training or by providing training for trainers, which can then be replicated at national level. The
involvement of guest speakers in national training is
specifically mentioned in article 2 of Council Decision 2001/923/EC as one the means to achieve the
specific objectives of the programme.
The programme already provides training
for trainers activities. However, the replies
to the questionnaire and interviews with some competent authorities suggest that there may
exist further need for the programme to increase training for trainers activities and/or the involvement of guest speakers in
national training.
3.4 - Effectiveness
EQ6. To  what  extent  have  the  specific  objectives
 of  the  programme
 been achieved?
Overall, the
specific objectives of the programme are being achieved satisfactorily. In general, the degree of achievement of the
specific objectives of raising awareness of the staff
concerned, high level training,
developing a climate of mutual trust and cooperation
among competent national
authorities, including effective
exchange of information, experience and good practices,
is highly satisfactory.
Nevertheless, the evaluation findings suggest that there is still a need for further training for trainers activities and/or the involvement of guest speakers in national training. A more comprehensive and results- oriented reporting could further
enhance information, experience and good practices
exchanges.
The specific objectives of the programme
are presented in section 2. The questionnaire sent to competent authorities in the MS, the
ECB and Europol, included specific questions
related to the degree of achievement of the different specific objectives. The details of the answers to
these questions are provided
below. The analysis was complemented with interviews
and
the analysis
of
relevant documentation.
Raising awareness on euro protection
of staff concerned
in the competent national
authorities
The replies to
the questionnaire to competent authorities in the MS, the ECB and Europol
showed a high level of achievement of this objective. 71% (20
respondents) of the competent authorities
which expressed their opinion (28
respondents) considered as high
or very high the degree of achievement of this objective and 25% (7
respondents) as positive/fair. 1 respondent considered that this specific objective has not been achieved
and 6 did not express an opinion.
The overall
positive results reported
by the competent authorities in the questionnaire were also supported by
the interviews and the examination of relevant documentation.
Promoting convergence of
high-level training
The questionnaire
sent to competent authorities in the MS, the ECB and Europol did not include a specific question on the
convergence of high-level training. Nevertheless, the
replies to the questions
on relevance showed that training is the activity
considered as most relevant by the competent authorities.
As presented for EQ7, competent authorities and
participants in a sample of programme
activities have also reported an overall high achievement on their knowledge of good practices on euro protection as a result of their
participation in programme activities.
Nevertheless, as reported for EQ5, some competent
authorities expressed the view that there
is still a need for high level
training of staff in some
competent national authorities.
The
questionnaire also included a
question on the overall convergence among MS. The replies to this question are presented in EQ9.
Exchange of information, experience and good practices among competent national
authorities
The replies to the questionnaire to competent authorities in the MS, the ECB and Europol
also showed an overall high level of achievement of this objective. 72% (23 respondents) of the competent authorities expressing their opinion (32 respondents)
considered the degree of achievement of this objective
as high or very high
and 22% (7 respondents) as
positive/fair. 2 respondents considered that this
specific objective was not achieved and 2
did not express an opinion.
In general, the results of the questionnaire are also supported
by the interviews and the
examination of relevant
documentation.
During the interviews, competent authorities
underlined the existence of an overall effective exchange of information, experience
and good practices with their counterparts
in
other MS.
Publishing the results achieved, as part of the exchange
of information, experience and good practices
Article 2 of the Council Decision 2001/923/EC includes among the specific
objectives of the programme
the aim to publish the results achieved, as part of the exchange of information, experience
and good practices.
The main source of information on results achieved is the technical
reports of the activities
prepared by the competent authorities and OLAF on the implementation of the activities.
These technical reports
are made available to the ECEG
when
requested. Competent national authorities are also invited
to present the results of the activities implemented to the ECEG meetings.
OLAF D5 also presents a summary
of the activities
implemented to the ECEG
meetings including information on the
profile of participants, type
of
activities and other relevant
information. OLAF D5 also prepares an annual report with the activities financed,
the beneficiaries and the amounts allocated. This report is published
on OLAF website19. However, the report does not provide information on results achieved by
the programme.
Some results
and an overall view on the implementation
of the programme were provided in   the   mid-term   evaluation   2006-10   which   supported 
 the   Commission   impact assessment20. The Pericles strategy
also provides some information on results achieved by
previous activities.
While there
exist a certain
reporting of the results achieved
by the activities financed by the
programme, the interviews with competent authorities and the evaluator's assessment of  the  existing  reporting  suggest  that  a 
more  comprehensive  and  results  oriented
reporting could further enhance information exchange, experience and good practices, as well as the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the programme.
The opportunity for a more results oriented reporting has also
been identified by the impact assessment
undertaken by the Commission as
one of the areas to be improved for
Pericles 2020.
EQ7. To  what  extent
 have  the  activities  financed  under
 the
 programme contributed to
achieve its specific objectives?
Overall, the programme has been highly effective in
raising awareness of the staff
concerned, providing high level
training, developing a climate of mutual trust, encouraging
cooperation and facilitating an effective exchange of information,
experience and good practices between the competent national authorities
in the EU and with third countries.
19 http://ec.europa.eu/anti_fraud/euro-protection/training/index_en.htm
20 Impact assessment (Commission Working Paper SEC(2011)
1615 final) which supported the Commission's proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing an exchange, assistance
and training programme for the protection of the euro against
counterfeiting (the 'Pericles 2020'
programme).
Intangible effects deriving from networking,
motivation of officials and facilitating mutual
trust among officials of competent authorities are important
contributions of the
programme. The programme could further contribute to support training needs at national
level by increasing training for trainers activities and/or the involvement of guest speakers in national training.
The three questionnaires used for this evaluation included questions intended to assess the contribution of the
programme in achieving its specific objectives. The analysis
was complemented
with interviews and the analysis of relevant documentation.
The questionnaire to competent authorities in the MS, the ECB and
Europol, included two set
of questions to evaluate the effectiveness
of the programme's contribution
to the achievement of its specific objectives: (a) a set of questions for each specific objective of the programme
asking their assessment of the programme's contribution, and (b) a set of
questions to assess to which extent they have
achieved their own objectives when
organising and/or participating in the programme
activities. The questionnaires to competent  national  authorities  in  third  countries  and to
 participants  in  a sample
 of activities included questions referred to (b) only. The three questionnaires also included questions intended
to collect information on results achieved by the programme activities. The
analysis for each of the specific
objectives and results
achieved with the programme's contribution are presented below.
Programme's contribution in
raising awareness on euro protection of staff concerned in the competent
national authorities
The replies to the questionnaire sent to competent
authorities in the MS, the ECB
and Europol showed a high contribution of the programme
in achieving this objective although
a significant number of competent authorities (11) did not express an opinion on the overall programme's contribution. 83% (19
respondents) of the competent authorities which expressed their
opinion (23 respondents) considered as high or very high the
overall  contribution  of  the
 programme  in  achieving
 this  objective  and
 17%  (4 respondents)   as   positive/fair.   No  
respondent   considered   that  
the   programme's contribution was not
positive. The replies also showed that the highest contribution to
this specific objective was provided
by networking/dissemination, staff exchanges
and training activities.
For the 22 competent
authorities who identified this objective as one of the objectives pursued when participating in the
programme activities, 16 reported a high or very high achievement, 4 a positive achievement, 1 an insufficient achievement and 1
did not express an opinion.
The
replies to the questionnaire sent to participants in a sample of programme
activities also showed overall positive results regarding the programme contribution
to achieve this objective:
84% of the 64 participants which
replied to the questionnaire expressed
a high or very high degree of achievement of this
objective through their participation in the programme activities and 16% a positive/fair achievement. No respondent
expressed insufficient achievement or no opinion.
Programme's  contribution  in  promoting
 exchange  of  information 
and  good  practices among competent
national authorities
The questionnaire to competent authorities in the MS, the ECB and Europol shows an overall high contribution of the programme in achieving this
objective. 81% (21 respondents) of the competent authorities which expressed their opinion (26 respondents)
considered as high or
very high the contribution of the
programme in achieving this
objective and 15% (4 respondents) as positive/fair. One respondent considered that the programme's contribution was insufficient and 8 did not express an opinion. The activities
which   most   clearly   contributed   to   the   achievement   of 
 this   objective   were networking/dissemination,
training and staff exchanges.
The replies to
the questions on the specific objectives
pursued when participating
in the programme activities show that the programme's contribution has
been more evident in terms of cooperation and exchanges with other MS compared
to cooperation with third countries. For the 27 competent authorities who identified exchange of information, experience and good  practices with organisations
in other MS as one of the objectives
pursued, 23 reported a high or very high achievement, 3 a positive
achievement and 1 an
insufficient achievement. For the 19 competent authorities who identified exchange of
information, experience and good practices
with organisations in third countries as one of the objectives pursued, 8 reported a high or very high
achievement, 8 a positive achievement and 3 an insufficient
achievement.
Similar results were
obtained through the replies to a
similar question for competent authorities who had identified closer cooperation and developing a climate
of mutual trust with organisations and staff concerned in other MS and third countries
among the objectives pursued when
participating in the programme
activities.
Positive results regarding
the programme's achievement of
this objective were also reported by the participants in a sample of programme activities who replied to the
questionnaire. 87% of the 64 respondents
expressed
a high or very high satisfaction in terms of knowledge of good practices
on euro protection as a result of their participation in programme activities and 11% expressed a fair
satisfaction. On a related
question, 81% of respondents considered that they have gained a high level of knowledge to contribute to protection of the euro
and 15% a fair level. Only two respondents reported
an insufficient level
of
knowledge to contribute to
the protection of the euro in their fields.
The participants in a sample of programme
activities were also asked about the degree of achievement of their personal objectives when participating in the programme
activities. The degree
of satisfaction reported is highly positive in terms of improved
cooperation, increased mutual trust and satisfactory
exchange of information and best practices.
Compared to the results of the
questionnaire to competent authorities
in
the EU presented
above, the level of satisfaction of respondents in terms of improved cooperation and mutual trust is slightly higher with staff from competent authorities in third countries
(83% expressed high level of satisfaction)
than with staff
from competent authorities in other MS (76% expressed high
level of satisfaction).
The
review of a sample of activities showed that competent authorities usually pay particular attention to promote
networking and exchanges during the duration of the
activities (for example, lunches and dinners are often used to promote networking). Several competent authorities interviewed
underlined the importance of networking and exchanges
to promote a climate of mutual trust.
Programme's
contribution in promoting convergence
of high-level training
The questionnaire sent to competent authorities in MS, the ECB and Europol
did not include a specific question on the programme's contribution to the promotion of
convergence of high level training. A question on the contribution of the programme to achieve overall convergence was included in the questionnaire and the results are presented in EQ9. In this section, the analysis is focussed on the
contribution of the programme in promoting
convergence of high level training, a specific objective of the programme.
The results reported by competent authorities in MS in terms of sufficient knowledge and skills
to participate/contribute to euro protection activities and ability to cooperate with their counterparts in other countries in
the context of cross border cooperation (the details are provided in the section "results achieved with the programme's contribution"
in the
last  section  of  this
 evaluation
 question)  show  a  clear
 programme's  contribution  in
providing high level training. The interviews with competent authorities also confirmed
the contribution of the programme in providing convergence of high level training.
Nevertheless, the evaluation
findings suggest that the programme contribution could be
reinforced by increasing training for
trainers activities and/or the involvement of guest speakers in
national training.
The results reported by a sample of participants also
showed that the programme has provided high level
training to staff in the competent
national authorities and therefore
clearly contributed to achieve this specific objective. In general, the
participants in training activities have assessed it both
as of
high quality and highly
relevant for their work on the protection of the euro.
Programme's
contribution in increasing general public awareness
As explained for EQ1,
promoting general public awareness
is not a specific objective of the programme. Activities to raise general public awareness
are mainly organised at European
level
by
the ECB and at the national level
mainly by central national banks and in some cases
also by the police.
Nevertheless,
the questionnaire sent to the competent
authorities in the MS, the
ECB and Europol included a question on
the
topic. The replies
to the questionnaire
show that the potential of the programme to increase general public awareness is uneven. 14 out of the
34 competent authorities did not express an
opinion and among those competent authorities expressing an opinion, the views varied widely: 7 authorities considered as high or very high the
contribution of the programme in achieving
this objective, 7 as positive/fair and 6 considered
that the programme's contribution was limited.
The examination of a sample of activities and interviews with stakeholders suggests
that the contribution of the programme in raising general public awareness would stem from
the coverage of some programme
activities by the media, particularly dissemination and networking activities like conferences. The coverage by the media does not involve
significant extra cost
for the activity and may have a
high impact on general public
awareness. The review of a sample of technical reports
showed some examples where the
competent authorities reported on the coverage by media of conferences financed by the programme. The
involvement of participants in activities which increase general
public awareness on euro protection in their countries may also have a potential impact on increasing general public awareness. In this
regard, 23% of the
participants who replied to the
questionnaire declared that,
following their participation in the programme activities, they have
been involved
in
actions to increase
the general public awareness on euro
protection in their country.
The
possibility to define programme activities
directly targeted at the
general public was discussed with stakeholders. There is an overall common view among the stakeholders
interviewed that a major constraint to finance
this type of activities is the expected high
cost of activities such as advertising
and/or information campaign in the media (newspapers, TV, radio, etc.) which would absorb a significant amount of the programme resources.  Another
 constraint  would  be
 the  difficulty
 to  define  activities
 with
 a transnational dimension.
Results achieved with the programme's contribution
The questionnaires to competent authorities and participants also included questions to assess
the specific results of the programme. The replies to the
question regarding the extent to which the organisation of and/or participation in programme activities has
helped their organisation gain a sufficient knowledge and skills to participate/contribute to euro protection activities, showed that 80% of the competent authorities in the MS
replying (30 national competent
authorities) considered the degree of achievement as high
or very high and 20% reported a fair/positive
achievement.
To  the  question  regarding  the  extent  the
 organisation  of  and/or  participation
 in programme activities has assisted a given organisation
to cooperate with counterparts
in other countries in the context
of cross-border cooperation, 77% of
the competent authorities  in  the
 MS
 which
 replied  to
 the  questionnaire  (26  national
 competent authorities, most of them
police) considered the degree of achievement as high or very
high and 23% as positive
fair.
14
out of the 21 police authorities which
replied to the questionnaire reported that they have
been involved in at least
one cross-border operation on euro protection and 9 of them in more than 5 cross-border operations. 11 of these 14 police authorities reported that organising of and/or participating in the programme activities have been a key factor
for the successful implementation of cross-border operations.
The above information
shows a clear contribution of the programme
to the achievement of
concrete results.  It needs to be noted that other factors, in particular, cooperation with and support from Europol, were underlined by national competent
authorities during the
interviews as also a key factor for the
successful implementation of cross-border operations.
Results in Latin America (particularly in Colombia, Peru
and Argentina) were presented
by the  Brigada  de  Investigación  del  Banco
 de
 España
 (BIBE)  to
 the
 ECEG 
meeting  in November 2012.  The results
reported included 58 joint operations finished, 54 of them
with results
in
terms of: individuals arrested
(122), production and finishing
centres seized (48),  distribution
 networks
 dismantled  (9) 
and  counterfeit  currency  seized  (Euro  30 million, US Dollar 33 million). Other results reported were the establishment of a support structure
in Colombia and the
creation of a National Central Office in Peru.
BIBE underlined
that the programme have provided a necessary contribution to the
achievement of the above-mentioned results
in Latin America. According
to BIBE, such results would have not been
achieved without the programme's support. Cooperation with
and support from Europol was
also underlined by BIBE as also
necessary for the achievement of these results. The above-mentioned results also show that counterfeiting
of
euro and US Dollars are often linked
(22
out of the above 54 operations completed with results were mixed euro/US dollar operations)
and the importance of coordinating efforts with the US Secret Service.
According to BIBE, the programme has been a very important tool
to facilitate cooperation with the US Secret Service in Latin America as well as with
the competent national
authorities in the region who have
also significantly contributed to
the achievement of the above
results.
Information on results
achieved where the programme's contribution has been relevant was also collected through the questionnaire sent to
competent authorities in third countries and participants in a sample of
programme activities.
The 8 competent
authorities from third countries (5 from the Western
Balkans countries, 1 from
Turkey, 1 from Brazil and
1 from
Peru) which replied to the questionnaire (6 police and 2 national
central banks) reported a high achievement in terms of their overall
awareness on euro protection, knowledge of best practices on euro protection, sufficient knowledge and skills to
participate/contribute to euro
protection activities and
ability to cooperate with their counterparts in other
countries in the context
of cross-border operations. Table 5 provides information on the number of competent
authorities
in
third countries which have reported to having been
involved in
different actions on euro protection as a result
of their participation in programme activities.
Table 6: Results reported by competent authorities in
3rd countries
   ||   N ||   % 
 Dissemination/training ac tivities within your organisation on euro protec tion. ||   6 ||   75% 
 Dissemination/training ac tivities in your c ountry but outside your organisation on euro protec tion. ||   5 ||   63% 
 Ac tivities to inc rease the general public ' awareness in your c ountry on euro protec tion. ||   3 ||   38% 
 Partic ipation in c ross- borders operations investigations on euro protec tion. ||   4 ||   50% 
 Setting/appointing a permanent c ontac t on euro protec tion within your organisation. ||   4 ||   50% 
 Setting a spec ialised struc ture on euro protec tion within your organisation ||   2 ||   25% 
 Development of relevant legal instruments on protec tion of the euro (for example, introduc tion of asset c onfisc ation, international c ooperation agreements, etc .) ||   5 ||   63% 
 Other || 1 || 13% 
 No spec ific ac tion || 0 || 0% 
Table 7: Results
reported by participants
   || All || EU || Non-EU 
 N || % || N || % || N || % 
 Dissemination/training ac tivities within your organisation || 36 || 56% || 9 || 41% || 27 || 64% 
 Dissemination/training ac tivities in your c ountry but outside your organisation ||   19 ||   30% ||   8 ||   36% ||   11 ||   26% 
 Ac tivities to inc rease the general public ' awareness in your c ountry on euro protec tion ||   15 ||   23% ||   3 ||   14% ||   12 ||   29% 
 Partic ipation in c ross-borders operations/investigations on protec tion of the euro against c ounterfeiting ||   15 ||   23% ||   7 ||   32% ||   8 ||   19% 
 Setting/appointing a permanent c ontac t on euro protec tion within your organisation ||   23 ||   36% ||   10 ||   45% ||   13 ||   31% 
 Setting a spec ialised struc ture on euro protec tion within your organisation ||   17 ||   27% ||   6 ||   27% ||   11 ||   26% 
 Development of relevant legal instruments on protec tion of the euro (for example, introduc tion of asset c onfisc ation, international c ooperation agreements, etc ) ||   11 ||   17% ||   3 ||   14% ||   8 ||   19% 
Regarding participants in
programme activities
(Table 7), 64 participants (22 from EU MS and 42 from third countries) replied to the following question: "as a result of your
participation in the PERICLES
activities, have you been involved in one or more of the following actions?".
Table 6 provides information on
the number of participants and percentages which replied that they have
participated in the
different actions.
8.    To what extent do the coordination and
cooperation mechanisms in
place ensure consistency and complementarity with other existing measures (in particular
those implemented by the ECB and Europol) with the view to achieve the overall objective of protecting the
euro against counterfeiting?
Overall, the coordination and cooperation mechanisms are adequate to ensure complementarity and coherence with other existing
measures at European and MS level,
although the evaluation has identified some
potential areas for improvement.
The analysis made for
EQ4 regarding the role of the ECEG
to steer the programme and coordinate its implementation with other existing measures at MS and European level is also valid
for this evaluation question. The
overall conclusion regarding the role of the ECEG revealed that the meetings
of the ECEG provide an adequate
mechanism for coordinating and
steering the programme, although there
is some potential
to improve coordination. The areas
for improvement are discussed in EQ4. These areas,
when they are also relevant
to improve the overall effectiveness
of the programme, are also reported below.
Regarding the complementarity with other existing measures, the replies of competent
authorities in the MS, the ECB and Europol to the questionnaire showed a satisfactory
level of complementarity but with
some areas for improvement. 67% (20 respondents) of the competent authorities which expressed
their opinion in the questionnaire (30 respondents) considered the complementarity as high or very
high and 33% (10
respondents) as positive/fair. 4 competent authorities did not express an opinion.
Nevertheless, on a related question
on whether they consider that coordination and
complementarity could be improved, 7 competent authorities replied that there is
room for improvement and 18
indicated that there is some
room for improvement.
The interviews with the stakeholders and the examination of programme documentation provided relevant information on potential
areas for improvement. These areas
are:
• A multi-annual strategy
for Pericles as discussed in the efficiency section could
further enhance the effectiveness of the programme
in contributing to achieve the
overall objective of protecting the euro against counterfeiting. The multi-annual strategy should however
keep a certain level of flexibility
to respond to new priorities or threats;
• an improved definition of the specific objectives of each activity, its complementarity
to previous activities and those undertaken by others,
as discussed in the efficiency
section, would also enhance
complementarity and coherence;
• some  competent
 authorities  would  prefer  that
 the  technical
 reports  are  made available to them rather than presenting the results of individual activities during the
ECEG meetings. This would
allow more time to discuss priorities and
strategic planning;
• a more results oriented
and comprehensive reporting
of the results achieved by the
programme as discussed in EQ6
would also facilitate coordination, complementarity and coherence with other activities.
9.   To what extent have transnational
and multidisciplinary aspects and
promoting convergence among EU MS been sufficiently taken into account by the programme?
The activities
financed by the programme have
a clear transnational and multidisciplinary dimensions. The programme has
contributed to the promotion of
convergence among the
MS,  namely  by  providing  high  level  training,  which 
is  a  specific  objective  of  the programme. The programme
has also contributed to convergence by facilitating the understanding of the different
situations in the MS, including
levels of protection resulting from different criminal law systems. The role of the programme
in promoting convergence beyond these areas is more uneven. A targeted involvement in the programme activities of  judicial  authorities  could
 potentially  increase
 the  programme's  contribution  in
supporting convergence on
euro protection.
The Council Decision
2011/923/EC provides that the programme "shall take account of transnational
and multidisciplinary aspects" and should "concentrate on
promoting convergence of the substance of measures so
as to guarantee equivalent
levels of protection on the basis of
consideration of best practice while also respecting the distinct traditions
of each Member State".
The
transnational and multidisciplinary aspects
of the programme have been analysed
to a certain extent in EQ3 in the context
of the added value of the programme compared to other
existing measures at MS and
European level. The transnational
and multidisciplinary dimension of the activities is among the criteria required
in the call for proposals
issued by OLAF and is assessed by the Pericles
evaluation committee for each activity as a minimum requirement. The
examination of the supporting
documentation for a sample of activities and  minutes
 of  the 
committee  has  confirmed
 that  the  activities  financed  by
 the programme have a transnational and
multidisciplinary dimension.
Regarding the contribution of the programme to promote
convergence among MS, the questionnaire to competent
authorities in the
MS, the ECB and
Europol included questions
on the contribution of the different
programme activities in promoting convergence among the MS and an equivalent level of
protection. The replies suggest
that networking/dissemination activities (21 out
of 34
competent authorities considered the contribution as high or very high and 9 as positive) and training
activities (21 out of 34 competent authorities considered the contribution as high or
very high and 5 as positive) have clearly contributed to promote convergence. A positive
contribution to convergence was
also reported by competent authorities for information
and staff exchanges and teaching sources.
Interviews with stakeholders also suggest that the programme
has clearly contributed to promote convergence among MS mainly by providing
high level training
to staff in the
competent national authorities and by contributing to awareness
raising and facilitating
the exchange of information and good practices which have contributed
to the understanding of the various situations in the MS and the
consequences of different
levels of protection. Nevertheless, interviews with stakeholders and the high number of no opinion replies
(10 out of 34) to the question on
the overall contribution of the programme to  promote
 convergence  suggest  that  the
 role
 of  the
 programme  in  promoting convergence beyond these areas is more uneven.
Interviews with stakeholders and the examination of relevant documentation21  showed that the existence of differing criminal law legislation relating to money counterfeiting is one of the main areas to be addressed
in order to achieve convergence and an equivalent
21 Impact assessment performed by the Commission accompanying the proposal for a Directive of the European
Parliament and of the Council on the protection of the euro and other currencies against counterfeiting by criminal law. Commission Staff Working Paper SWD(2013) 19 final.
level  of  protection
 among  the  MS.  In  this 
regard,  a  targeted  involvement  in  the
programme activities of judicial
authorities could potentially
further increase the programme's contribution in supporting convergence
on euro protection across MS.
3.5 – Prospects
for sustainability
10.   To what extent are the results achieved
(or likely to be) sustainable?
The sustainability of the results achieved will significantly depend on
the possibility to continue financing similar activities which would allow maintaining
the existing level of cooperation among the competent authorities and a continuous training of the staff concerned as well as to respond to new threats and needs. The evaluation showed that the
continuation of the
activities currently implemented by the MS with
the programme support would be at risk without financing at EU level.
For the majority of the 34 competent authorities which replied to the questionnaire,
the sustainability of the results achieved by the programme
will be highly dependent on the continuation of the programme activities, especially training, dissemination/networking and staff exchanges activities.
Interviews with stakeholders
and review of relevant documentation also showed that training and cooperation needs evolve (new counterfeits,
new modus operandi of criminal groups,
new MS or third countries affected
by euro counterfeiting, new euro notes issued by
the ECB as from 2013, etc). Therefore,
there is a need to provide continuous and
updated support. According to some competent authorities interviewed, turnover of staff concerned in the competent authorities (particularly in third countries) also represents a risk for sustainability and requires continuous training and cooperation. To address this
risk, competent authorities interviewed agreed that it is
important that the programme promote the participation of staff concerned who will most probably continue
working on the area of euro protection.
The
questionnaire sent to the competent
authorities in the MS, the ECB and Europol also included a question on whether
the competent authorities in the MS would continue to organise activities with a transnational dimension for the protection
of the euro if funding
from the programme would not be available in the future. 9 out 17 competent national authorities that have implemented activities declared
that they would not (or probably not) continue to implement activities mainly
due to lack of national resources. Some
of these competent authorities also replied
that there is not a clear added value
for their organisation to spend their own national resources on activities with an European and/or
an
international dimension.
The interviews with
competent authorities have
also showed that it would
be
difficult for
them to justify the
financing of activities with a transnational dimension from their own budget, particularly in the current context of budgetary
contains in many
MS.
4 - CONCLUSIONS
The evaluation has assessed the relevance, efficiency and effectiveness of the programme
and the prospects for sustainability of the results
achieved.
The overall relevance of the programme (whether
the programme should be continued
after 2013) has been assessed in the context of the mid-term evaluation performed by the
Commission and the impact assessment which supported the Commission's
proposal for the continuation of the programme during the period 2014/202022  (the "Pericles 2020").
Therefore, the evaluation has not assessed the overall relevance of the programme. Nevertheless, this
evaluation has assessed the European and overall added value of the
programme and its
complementarity and
coherence with other existing
activities.
Overall performance of the programme
The programme
provides a clear European
added value. The specific objectives of the
programme are highly relevant to the achievement of its overall
objective. The activities financed by the programme
and the target groups involved are both highly relevant to the achievement of its specific
objectives. The transnational and multidisciplinary dimensions of  the  programme  activities
 also  represent  a  clear  added 
value  of  the  programme compared to
activities carried out at MS and European level. Overall,
the efficiency of the programme is satisfactory and the
programme has been highly effective in contributing to the achievement of its
specific objectives. The evaluation has identified some potential improvements
which could enhance the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the programme.
Relevance
The specific objectives of the programme
are highly relevant
to the achievement
of its overall objective of protecting the euro against counterfeiting. The evaluation has not revealed areas which are not currently covered by the
existing specific objectives.
The
 activities  financed  by  the  programme
 are
 in
 general  highly  relevant
 to  the achievement  of  its  specific  objectives.  Training
 and  dissemination
 and  networking activities are the most
relevant activities. Staff exchanges and teaching sources are also highly relevant. Around 95% of the programme resources have been allocated to the
activities with the highest relevance. Computer support
applications such as software and support to cross-border operations are also eligible for financing from the programme. Nevertheless, other sources of funding at EU
level are available to finance
these type of activities. This explains why to date, the
programme has not financed computer
support applications and why the programme has provided support to cross-border operations
only once. The evaluation has not identified further needs for computer support applications.
As regards support to cross-border operations, the evaluation has not identified significant unmet needs. However, a common understanding
among
all relevant
stakeholders
on whether certain costs related to the support
to cross-border operations may be financed by other existing sources
of funding does not exist.
The target groups of the programme
are also highly relevant. The
most relevant target group is
police which is also the target group
most involved in the
programme activities both as organisers and participants. Judicial authorities and national central banks are also highly relevant and both target groups participate in most programme activities although
22 The Mid-term evaluation is attached to the impact assessment (Commission Working Paper SEC(2011)
1615 final) which supported the Commission's proposal for a Regulation of
the
European Parliament and of
the Council establishing
an exchange, assistance
and training programme for the protection of the euro against
counterfeiting (the 'Pericles 2020'
programme)
the evaluation findings suggest that increasing the involvement of the judicial authorities
could be desirable. Private sector, namely the financial/banking sector, is also a relevant
target group, particularly in MS which are not part of the euro area and third countries where training
at national level is not always
provided by national
authorities.
European and overall added value of the programme
The euro is the single currency
shared by the 17 Member States of the euro area in use for
330 million people in this area. It
is also used at a large scale in international trading transactions  and  serves
 as  an
 important  reserve  currency  for  third
 countries.  The protection of the euro against counterfeiting
is therefore clearly of European
interest which goes beyond the interest of individual MS.
Addressing the threats from criminal groups involved in the production and/or distribution
of counterfeit euro operation in different EU member states and third countries requires the cooperation among the
competent authorities in the MS and with
their counterparts in the  third
 countries.  The
 programme
 co-finances
 activities  which  involve
 relevant
competent authorities in the EU and third countries
and these activities are intended mainly to provide relevant training, improve
cooperation, information exchange
and
to promote best practices
among competent national authorities and their staff. It may
therefore be concluded that the
activities financed by the programme have a clear
European added value.
The combination of an European/international dimension of the programme together with
a multidisciplinary dimension,
represents a clear added value of the programme compared
to activities carried out by the MS and other EU institutions or bodies (namely by the ECB, Europol and Eurojust). The
programme is the only specific
programme at European level which finances activities on
euro protection. The programme
also provides added value in terms
of further enhancing
cross-border cooperation by facilitating
bilateral contacts, mutual trust and motivation of staff of relevant competent authorities in the MS
and third countries.
An important strength of the
programme is its implementation modality which combines
the implementation of activities by the Commission and the MS. The implementation
of activities by MS allows competent
national authorities to identify and address new threats
and emerging needs, while ensuring
the management of the programme at the European level. This also allows the programme to benefit from the strengths of the different MS in
their relations with third countries. At the same
time, the implementation by the Commission provides flexibility
to rapidly define and
implement activities and
to complement the activities implemented
by MS.
The evaluation has also showed that the activities implemented by a competent authority
in one MS also address the needs of competent authorities in the same and other MS
regarding euro protection.
Efficiency
Overall, the programme's activities and outputs are
delivered at a reasonable cost and respond to the priorities and needs to be addressed,
although there is
some potential to improve efficiency.
In general, the complementarity and
coherence
of the programme activities
are satisfactory, although these and other
efficiency aspects are not always clearly presented and reported. In this regard, the procedures could be further streamlined to facilitate
the presentation  and
 reporting  of
 the  value  for  money  and
 to  better  illustrate  the
complementarity and coherence
of activities with other activities previously financed by the programme.
The meetings of the
Euro Counterfeit Experts Group
(ECEG) provide an adequate mechanism for coordinating and steering the programme. The evaluation has identified some potential improvements
which could facilitate the role of the ECEG
for coordinating and steering the programme. In particular, a multi-annual strategy with a clearly defined timeframe and a more results oriented reporting as discussed in the effectiveness section below.
Effectiveness
The specific
objectives of the programme are being
achieved satisfactorily. Overall, the programme has been highly effective in contributing to the achievement of its
specific objectives, namely
raising awareness of the staff concerned, providing
high level training, developing a climate of mutual trust, encouraging cooperation, and facilitating an effective
exchange of information, experience and best practices between the
competent national authorities both
in the EU and with third
countries. Nevertheless, the evaluation findings
suggest that the programme
could further contribute to address
training needs at
national level by increasing training for trainers activities and/or the involvement of guest speakers in national training.
Among the concrete
results achieved with the programme's contribution which have
been reported by competent
authorities during the course of this evaluation are: a satisfactory cooperation among competent authorities in the EU and with third countries, improved
capacity of competent national
authorities in the EU and third countries, successful cross- border operations, the promotion of
national structures and the development of relevant
legal instruments on euro protection. Intangible
effects deriving from networking, motivation of officials
and facilitating mutual trust
among officials of competent authorities are important contribution of the
programme.
The evaluation results suggest that the programme may have also
contributed to the expansion of general
public
awareness
on
the protection of the euro,
which is not among the specific objectives of the programme,
although this contribution is difficult
to assess. This contribution would stem from spillovers of some programme activities, namely
conferences, where the media cover the events or when participants are involved in general
public awareness actions in
their countries following
their participation in training, dissemination or other programme
activities.
The
activities financed by the programme have
clear transnational and
multidisciplinary dimensions. The programme has also contributed to the promotion of convergence among
the MS on euro protection, mainly by providing high level training, which is
one of the specific objectives
of the programme. It has also
contributed in other areas, namely by
facilitating the exchange of information and best practices
which have contributed to the
understanding of the various situations in the MS and the consequences of different levels of protection resulting
from different criminal law systems. Nevertheless, the role of the
programme in promoting convergence beyond these areas is more uneven. In this
regard, a targeted involvement in the programme activities of judicial authorities could potentially
increase the programme's contribution in supporting convergence on euro protection across MS.
Overall,  the 
complementarity  and  coherence 
of  the  programme  activities  with  other existing measures at MS and European
level are satisfactory. The existing coordination and cooperation mechanisms are in general
adequate to achieve
the overall objective of the
programme of protecting the euro against
counterfeiting, although with some areas
for improvement. In particular, while the existing planning process
has in general ensured
coordination and flexibility to address new threats and priorities, a multi-annual strategy for the programme with a clearly defined timeframe
is not in place
and the existing annual
reporting does not provide
sufficient information on the results achieved by the programme. A multi-annual strategy
for the programme would contribute to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of the programme towards achieving the overall objective of
protection of the euro against counterfeiting. The multi-annual strategy should however
keep a certain
level of flexibility to respond to new priorities or threats.
 A
more results oriented reporting on the contribution of the programme activities to the achievement of its specific objectives, both at programme
level and for individual activities, would also
contribute to further enhance its
efficiency
and effectiveness.
Prospects for sustainability
The
sustainability of the results achieved will depend significantly on the possibility to continue financing similar activities to maintain the existing
level of cooperation among the competent authorities and a continuous training of
the staff concerned as well as to respond to new threats and needs (new counterfeits, new modus operandi of criminal
groups, new MS or third countries
affected by counterfeiting,
new euro notes issued
by the ECB as from 2013, etc).
Turnover of staff concerned
in the competent authorities (particularly in third
countries) also represents a risk for sustainability.
The evaluation
showed that the continuation of the activities currently implemented by the
MS with the programme
support would be at risk without
financing at EU level.
Annex I
PERICLES programme – Intervention logic
What we control …                                       Influence directly
Influence
indirectly
Programming
Activities
Outputs
Results
Impact
CD 2001/923/EC
Target groups
Specific objectives        Overall objective
Call for proposals
Proposals (MS,EC) Ev.
Committee
ECEG
Training Workshops Meetings Seminars
Staff exchanges
Technical assistance
Financial sup to
C-B operations
Staff trained
Networking
Studies
Brochures IT tools
Meetings C-B
operations
Awareness raising
Closer cooperation
Convergence high level
training
Knowledge of EC &
international law
Information &
good practice exchange
Protecting
the EURO against
counterfeiting
Transnational &
multidisciplinary
MS convergence
MS/ECB/Europol/Eurojust activities
External Factors
Evaluation of the Pericles programme – Annex I
Annex II
Methodology
The DG BUDG’s
guide1  “Evaluating EU activities – a practical guide for the Commission
Services” has provided the overall methodology guidance for this evaluation.
Evaluation criteria
The DG
BUDG’s evaluation guide provides the
following definitions:
Relevance: The extent to which an intervention’s objectives are pertinent to needs, problems and issues to be
addressed.
Coherence:  The  extent  to
 which
 the  intervention
 logic  is  not
 contradictory/  the intervention does not contradict other interventions with
similar objectives.
Economy:      The extent
to which resources are available
in due time, in appropriate
quantity and quality at the best
price.
Effectiveness: The extent to which objectives set are achieved.
Efficiency:     The extent the desired effects are achieved at a reasonable cost. Sustainability: The extent to which positive
effects are likely to last after an intervention
has terminated
The  evaluation
 has  focussed  on  relevance,  efficiency  and  effectiveness  aspects  as required
by article 13 of Council Decision2001/923/EC. The
following clarifications should be
taken into consideration regarding the evaluation criteria:
•   The overall
relevance of the programme
(whether the programme should be continued after 2013) had been assessed in the context of the mid-term
evaluation performed by OLAF D5 and a formal proposal
for the continuation of the programme had already been submitted by the Commission before the inception of this evaluation.
Therefore, a specific question on the overall relevance
of the programme has not been included for this evaluation. Nevertheless, the evaluation has addressed the European
and overall added value of the programme compared to other existing measures at MS
and European level;
•    some aspects of economy (namely the extent
that activities are made available in due time and best price) have been assessed as
part of efficiency;
•    the coherence of the programme
has been analysed in the context of the added value of the programme
compared to other existing instruments (EQ3), the existing
coordination mechanisms (EQ4) and the
complementarity of the programme with other existing measures at MS and
European level (EQ8);
•    when assessing effectiveness, the focus has been on the specific
objectives where the
degree of achievement can be attributed (at least to a reasonable extent)
to the programme;
1 Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/secretariat_general/evaluation/docs/eval_activities_en.pdf
•  contribution of the programme to achieve the overall
objective has been a qualitative assessment which took account of
the size of the programme budgeted and
measures undertaken elsewhere, in particular by the European Central Bank (ECB) and Europol, and
other
external
factors which may affect the overall objective. Specially, the
evaluation has focussed on the
coordination mechanisms and
complementarity with other existing
measures at MS and European level;
•  the evaluation has also reported on results achieved with the programme's
contribution;
•    some elements of sustainability (namely whether the
results achieved are likely
to be sustainable)  have also been assessed.
Methodology to answer
the evaluation questions
Annex III provides the evaluation matrix with the judgement criteria,
indicators/tools and sources
of information used to answer each evaluation question.
The
main tools and sources of information used to answer the evaluation questions were:
•      Examination of
programme documentation and other relevant information;
•      A questionnaire addressed to competent
authorities in the EU MS, the ECB and
Europol;
•  a questionnaire to authorities
in third countries having participated in
the programme activities;
•      a questionnaire
to participants in a
sample of programme activities;
•      interviews with
some competent authorities and stakeholders.
The
evaluator also participated in two meetings of
the ECEG as observer (14 November
2012
and 13 March 2013). During the first meeting, the evaluator presented the evaluation to the members of the ECEG. During
the second meeting the evaluator
presented the results of the questionnaire
sent to competent authorities
in
the EU MS,
the ECB and
Europol and the results of the questionnaire
sent to competent authorities in
third countries.
As part of the preparation phase for the evaluation, the
evaluator also attended the first day of one of the activities co-financed
by
the programme (the 10th Euro South-East
Conference which took place in Budapest, Hungary, from 21-25 October 2012)
Examination of programme documentation and
other
relevant information
The
documentation examined has included:
•   Legal
documents;
•   management and
administrative procedures and guidelines;
•   calls
for proposals;
•   a
sample of minutes of the evaluation committee;
•   a
sample of minutes of the ECEG
meeting;
•   budget statistics;
•   statistics
on costs of actions, number of participants, etc.
•   official
reports from the ECB, Europol and the EC.
•   A sample of technical
and financial reports of activities implemented.
The sample included
18 activities implemented by the MS and 3 implemented
by OLAF.
For the minutes of the Pericles evaluation Committee, the evaluator examined those minutes where the above-mentioned proposals selected had been discussed. Nevertheless, the review included the entire minutes,
not only the assessment by the committee of these activities. For the Minutes of the ECEG, the
evaluator examined the minutes of the meetings
held in 2011 and 2012 and a sample of meetings held during
the previous years.
The evaluation has not
covered legality or
regularity aspects of grants management, financial reporting
or payments.
Questionnaire
to competent authorities in the MS,
the ECB and Europol
The replies to
the questionnaire are provided in annex IV. The questionnaire included
questions related to all the evaluation questions. The questionnaire has provided relevant input to
answer all the evaluation questions
which have been complemented
with the replies to the other
questionnaires, interviews with stakeholders and examination of relevant documentation.
The questionnaire was addressed to:
•  The competent national authorities in the EU-MS which are eligible to implement
actions financed by the programme (namely those referred to in Article 2 of Council Regulation 1338/2001);
• Other
parties which are not included in the above categories, which should contribute to the attainment of
the programme objectives
as per article 4.2 of Council Decision 2001/923/EC, namely the ECB and Europol.
A total of 34 competent authorities replied to the questionnaire, including the ECB and
Europol. From the 32 responses
received from national competent
authorities in the MS,
22 were from MS which are part of the euro
area and 10 from MS which are not part of
the euro area. Regarding their profile, 21 were police authorities, 8 national central banks
and 5 others. The highest number of responses was received from Italy (5),
Belgium (2), Finland (2), Germany (2), Portugal (2)
and Spain (2). Replies were received
from a total of 23 MS (13 MS from the euro area and 10 from MS which are not part of the euro area).
Questionnaires
to authorities in third countries
The replies to this questionnaire are provided in annex V. The questionnaire has provided relevant input regarding
relevance (EQ2) and effectiveness
(EQ7,
particularly on the
results achieved) of the programme.
The questionnaire was sent to a sample of authorities in third countries which co-
organised and/or participated in programme activities. The
sample mainly included authorities who regularly participate in annual regional events. The questionnaire was sent
to competent authorities in the Western Balkans (Albania, BiH, Croatia, the former
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia),
Turkey and Latin America
(Brazil, Colombia and Peru).
8 competent authorities replied
to this questionnaire: 5 from the Western Balkans,
1 from Turkey and 2 from Latin
America.
Questionnaires
to participants in a sample of programme activities
The replies to the questionnaire to participants in the programme activities are provided in annex
VI.
The replies provided relevant input regarding
relevance (namely EQ
2)
and effectiveness (namely
EQ7 on the results achieved
by the programme). 87 responses
were received, 64 from participants, 10
from organisers/co-organisers and 13 from trainers. The replies reported in annex VI include the replies from the 64 participants only.
The sample included
a total of 15 activities organised
during the period 2007-2012
and were selected
according to the following criteria:
•      Recurrent activities
deployed in an annual
or bi-annual basis were selected;
•      Budgetary relevance of the activities financed (a mix of high and low value activities);
•      Activities implemented by at least 5 different Member States. The sample included
11 activities implemented
by France, Germany, Italy, Portugal
and Spain;
•      Coverage of activities implemented by the Commission. The sample included
4 activities implemented
by OLAF D5;
•      Only  activities  implemented
 during
 the  last  5  years  were
 selected  (it  was considered
unlikely that feedback would be receive from older activities);
•      Coverage  of  different
 types
 of  activities  (training,
 dissemination/networking
activities and staff exchanges).
Interviews with stakeholders
The
following groups of
interviews took place:
•      OLAF's staff in charge of the management and implementation of the programme
(namely
OLAF D5 and R2) and the ETCS;
•   The ECB,
Europol and Eurojust. The role of Interpol on euro protection was discussed with the competent authorities and stakeholders interviewed;
•    A sample of competent authorities. The sample included
the competent authorities in the
five MS which have
been most active in the
implementation of
the programme (France, Germany, Italy, Portugal
and Spain) and 4 MS which have not (or only in limited occasions) implemented programme activities (2 MS from the euro area
 and
2 MS which are not part of
the euro area);
ANNEX III
Evaluation Matrix
 Evaluation Question || Judgement criteria || Tools/Indicators of achievement || Sources of information 
 1.       To what extent the specific objectives of the programme are relevant to achieve its overall objective? || JC1.1: Competent authorities' (in the MS, the ECB, Europol and Eurojust) perception on the relevance of specific objectives to achieve the overall objective of the programme   JC 1.2: What available reports by the MS, the EC, the ECB, Europol and other external sources of information report on the relevance of the specific objectives || •               Replies from competent authorities in the MS, the ECB and Europol to the questionnaire   •               Results of interviews with a sample of competent authorities in the MS, the ECB, Europol and Eurojust   •               Existing evidence and/or research || •  Art 2 of Council Decision 2001/923/EC   •  Questionnaire to competent authorities in the EU- MS, the ECB and Europol   •              Interviews with stakeholders (competent authorities in MS, Europol, Eurojust and relevant services in the Commission)   •              Studies, research work   •              Minutes of the Steering Group and High level meetings on the protection of the Euro (ECB, Europol and OLAF)   •              Minutes of the ECEG meetings 
 2.       To what extent the programme activities and target groups are relevant to achieve its specific objectives? || JC 2.1: Competent authorities' (in the MS, the ECB, Europol and Eurojust) perception on the relevance of activities foreseen in Council Decision 2001/923/EC to achieve the specific objectives   JC 2.2: What available studies and reports by the EC, the ECB, Europol, Interpol and other external sources of information report on the relevance of the activities foreseen in Council Decision 2001/923/EC to achieve the specific objectives   JC 2.3: The procedures to manage and implement the programme ensure that activities financed are relevant as per Council Decision 2001/923/EC and reflect the policy priorities (as agreed by relevant policy bodies, such as the ECEG)   JC 2.4: The activities financed by the programme are relevant as per Council Decision 2001/923/EC and (assessment by the evaluator)   JC 2.5: The opinion of participants in programme activities on the relevance of these activities || •        Replies from competent authorities in the MS, the ECB and Europol to the questionnaire   •        Results of interviews with a sample of competent authorities in the MS, the ECB, Europol and Eurojust   •        The administrative and selection procedures provide clear criteria to ensure the relevance of actions financed   •               The examination of a sample of activities confirms that administrative and selection procedures are applied   •               Policy priorities are reflected in the selection of activities   •               Replies from participants to the questionnaire for a sample of activities   •               Replies from participants to evaluation forms || •        Art 3 of Council Decision 2001/923/EC   •       Questionnaire to competent authorities in the EU- MS, the ECB and Europol   •       Interviews with stakeholders.   •        Questionnaire to participants in a sample of activities.   •               Participants' evaluation forms   •               Minutes of the ECEG meetings   •               Minutes of the Steering Group and High level meetings on the protection of the Euro (ECB, Europol and OLAF)   •        Administrative procedures, guidelines, call for proposals and Pericles evaluation committee minutes   •        Supporting documentation for a sample of activities financed by the programme (proposals, activity reports, etc.) 
 3.        To what extent the programme provides European added value? || JC 3.1: Competent authorities' (in the MS, the ECB, Europol and Eurojust) perception on the European added value of the programme   JC 3.2: Stakeholders perception on whether alternative management options would be more suitable   JC 3.3 Evaluator's assessment of the added value of the programme activities as compared to other existing measures at MS and European level || •        Replies from competent authorities in the MS, the ECB and Europol to the questionnaire   •       Results of interviews with a sample of competent authorities in the MS, the ECB, Europol and Eurojust || •        Questionnaire to competent authorities in the EU- MS, the ECB and Europol   •        Interviews with stakeholders   •        Minutes of the ECEG meetings   •        Minutes of the Steering Group and High level meetings on the protection of the Euro (ECB, Europol and OLAF) 
 4.       To what extent the management, coordination (with ECB, Europol and EU Member States) and administrative structures currently in place ensure an economic and efficient use of the programme resources? || JC 4.1: Competent authorities' (in the MS, the ECB, Europol and Eurojust) perception on the performance of management, administrative and coordination mechanisms to promote an economic and efficient use of resource   JC 4.2 Coordination mechanisms involving the key stakeholders are in place and functioning to avoid overlapping with activities financed by other existing programmes/measures   JC 4.3 The procedures to manage and implementing the programme avoid overlapping among activities financed by the programme   JC 4.4 The procedures to manage and implementing the programme promote activities with best value for money || •        Replies from competent authorities in the MS, the ECB and Europol to the questionnaire   •    Results of interviews with a sample of competent authorities in the MS, the ECB, Europol and Eurojust   •    The administrative and selection procedures take into account value-for money and other efficiency criteria.   •     The administrative and selection procedures include the assessment of the coherence and complementarity of activities.   •     Examination of a sample of activities confirms that relevant assessment criteria are applied.   •     Complementary and coherence among activities and value-for- money and other efficiency criteria are provided in the proposals for activities and the activity reports || •               Questionnaire to competent authorities in the EU- MS, the ECB and Europol   •        Interviews with stakeholders   •        Minutes of the ECEG meetings   •        Minutes of the Steering Group and High level meetings on the protection of the Euro (ECB, Europol and OLAF)   •        Administrative procedures, guidelines, call for proposals and minutes of the Pericles evaluation committee   •        Supporting documentation for a sample of activities financed by the programme (proposals, activity reports, etc.) 
 5.       To what extent the activities and outputs of the programme are delivered at a reasonable cost? || JC 5.1: Competent authorities' (in the MS, the ECB, Europol and Eurojust) perception on potential savings in the costs of activities   JC 5.2: The unit costs for training and networking activities are provided at a reasonable cost as compared to similar activities financed under other programmes   JC 5.3: The duration and periodicity of activities is reasonable for the objectives pursued || •        Replies from competent authorities in the MS, the ECB and Europol to the questionnaire   •        Results of interviews with a sample of EU-MS, the ECB, Europol and Interpol   •        Unit costs for accommodation, travelling, daily allowances, etc. are in accordance with applicable EC ceilings.   •        Comparison of unit costs for different activities financed by the programme || •        Questionnaire to competent authorities in the EU- MS, the ECB and Europol   •       Interviews with stakeholders   •        Administrative procedures, guidelines, call for proposals and Pericles evaluation committee minutes   •        Supporting documentation for a sample of activities financed by the programme (proposals, activity reports, etc.) 
 6.       To what extent the specific objectives of the programme have been achieved? || JC 6.1: Competent authorities' (in the MS, the ECB, Europol and Eurojust) perception on the achievement of the specific objectives of the programme   JC 6.2 What the EC reports on the degree of achievement of the specific objectives   JC 6.3 What available studies by third parties (including the ECB and Europol) report on the achievement of the specific objectives of the programme || •        Replies from competent authorities in the MS, the ECB and Europol to the questionnaire   •        Results of interviews with a sample of EU-MS, the ECB, Europol and Eurojust   •        Available reports and/or official studies on the achievement of the specific objectives || •        Questionnaire to competent authorities in the EU- MS, the ECB and Europol   •        Interviews with stakeholders   •        Minutes of the ECEG meetings   •        Minutes of the Steering Group and High level meetings on the protection of the Euro (ECB, Europol and OLAF)   •               Official reports from the EC (including mid-term evaluation and the impact assessment)   •               Official reports form the ECB, Europol and other third parties 
 7.       To what extent activities financed under the programme have contributed to achieve its specific objectives? || JC 7.1: Competent authorities' (in the MS, the ECB, Europol and Eurojust) perception on the contribution of activities financed under the programme to achieve the specific objectives of the programme   JC 7.2: To what extent activity reports provide evidence on the contribution of activities to achieve the specific objectives   JC 7.3 Replies from competent authorities in third countries on how their participation in programme activities has contributed to achieve the specific objectives   JC 7.4 Replies from participants in the programmes activities on how activities have contributed to achieve the specific objectives || •        Replies from competent authorities in the MS, the ECB and Europol to the questionnaire   •        Results of interviews with a sample of EU-MS, the ECB, Europol and Interpol   •               Results achieved are reported in the activity reports   •              Replies from competent authorities in third countries   •              Replies from participants in a sample of activities   •              Dissemination activities (such as internal training, conferences at national level, etc) are organised following participation in programme activities || •              Questionnaire to competent authorities in the EU- MS, the ECB and Europol   •              Interviews with stakeholders   •       Minutes of the ECEG meetings   •       Minutes of the Steering Group and High level meetings on the protection of the Euro (ECB, Europol and OLAF)   •       Questionnaire to competent authorities in third countries   •              Questionnaire to participants in a sample of activities   •              Activity reports submitted by MS to OLAF for a sample of activities   •              Activity reports prepared by the EC/OLAF   •              Other reports from EC/MS on the results achieved 
 8.       To what extent the coordination and cooperation mechanisms in place ensure consistency and complementarity with other existing measures (in particular those implemented by the ECB and Europol) to achieve the overall objective of protecting the euro against counterfeiting? || JC 8.1: Evolution of euro counterfeiting as per official data from the ECB and ETSC   JC 8.2: Competent authorities' (in the MS, the ECB, Europol and Eurojust) perception on the achievement of the overall objective of protecting the euro against counterfeiting   JC 8.3: Competent authorities' (in the MS, the ECB, Europol and Eurojust) perception on the contribution of the programme to achieve overall objective of protecting the euro against counterfeiting   JC 8.4: Competent authorities' (in the MS, the ECB, Europol and Eurojust) perception on the consistency and complementarity of the programme activities with other existing measures   JC 8.5: Coordination mechanisms involving the key competent authorities/stakeholders are in place and functioning || •       Replies from competent authorities in the MS, the ECB and Europol to the questionnaire   •        Results of interviews with a sample of EU-MS, the ECB, Europol and Eurujust   •        Role of the ECEG in ensuring coordination and complementarity   •        Available reports and/or official studies on the achievement of the overall objective of protecting the euro against counterfeiting || •        Questionnaire to competent authorities in the EU- MS, the ECB and Europol   •       Interviews with key stakeholders   •        Minutes of the Pericles evaluation committee   •              Minutes of the ECEG meetings   •              Minutes of the Steering Group and High level meetings on the protection of the Euro (ECB, Europol and OLAF)   •        Activity reports prepared by the EC/OLAF   •        Official reports from ECB, Europol and the EC 
 9.       To what extent transnational and multidisciplinary aspects and promoting convergence among EU-MS have been sufficiently taken into account by the programme? || JC 9.1 Competent authorities' (in the MS, the ECB, Europol and Eurojust) perception on the extent the programme has taken into consideration multidisciplinary aspects and promoting convergence among EU MS   JC 9.2 To want extent available statistics, studies and other relevant sources of information shows that transnational and multidisciplinary aspects and promoting convergence have been taken into consideration || •        Replies from competent authorities in the MS, the ECB and Europol to the questionnaire   •        Results of interviews with a sample of MS, the ECB, Europol and Eurojust   •        Transnational and multidisciplinary aspects and promoting convergence are considered when assessing proposals. || •       Questionnaire to competent authorities in the EU- MS, the ECB and Europol   •       Interviews with stakeholders   •        Minutes of the Pericles evaluation committee   •        Minutes of the ECEG meetings   •        Minutes of the Steering Group and High level meetings on the protection of the Euro (ECB, Europol and OLAF)   •        Official reports from ECB, Europol and the EC 
 10.     To what extent the results achieved are (or likely will be) sustainable? || JC 10.1 Competent authorities' (in the MS, the ECB, Europol and Eurojust) perception on whether the results achieved are expected to  last if funding for PERICLES activities would not be available in the future   JC 10.2 MS competent authorities' replies on whether they would continue activities without support from the programme   JC 10.3 Evaluator assessment on whether alternative funding sources are/would be available   JC.10.4 Participants in the programmes activities are using/continue to use the expertise and networking gained as a result of their participation in the programme activities || •        Replies from competent authorities in the MS, the ECB and Europol to the questionnaire   •        Results of interviews with a sample of EU-MS, the ECB, Europol and Eurojust   •              Participants in the programme activities continue to work in relevant areas in their public administrations for a certain time after participating in the activities || •      Questionnaire to competent authorities in the EU- MS, the ECB and Europol   •       Interviews with stakeholders   •        Questionnaire to participants in a sample of activities   •              Minutes of the ECEG meetings   •        Minutes of the Steering Group and High level meetings on the protection of the Euro (ECB, Europol and OLAF)   •       Official reports from ECB, Europol and the EC 
Annex IV
Replies to the questionnaire to competent authorities in the MS, the ECB and Europol
The
questionnaire was sent to all competent national authorities
designated by the Member States as referred to
in Article 2.b of Council Regulation 1338/2001, the
European Central Bank and Europol.
In several
questions competent authorities were invited to express their degree of
agreement, assessment of the performance or satisfaction
with different options.
The following guidelines were provided to mark the different
options:
•         Mark
0 to express lack of performance/satisfaction/relevance/agreement;
•          mark from 1 to 4 to express different levels
of
insufficient
performance/satisfaction/relevance/agreement;
•          mark from 5 to 7 to express different levels of overall positive performance/satisfaction/relevance/agreement;
•          mark from 8
to 9 to express a clear high
performance/satisfaction/relevance/agreement;
•         mark
10 to express the highest performance/satisfaction/relevance/agreement;
•          mark n/o (no
opinion) if you consider that
you do not have sufficient knowledge
or information to answer one question.
REPLIES TO THE
QUESTIONNAIRE
PART A
- PROFILE OF RESPONDENTS All respondents (34)
   MS ||   N 
 Austria || 0 
 Belgium || 2 
 Bulgaria || 1 
 Cyprus || 1 
 Czec h Republic || 1 
 Denmark || 1 
 Estonia || 1 
 Finland || 2 
 Franc e || 1 
 Germany || 2 
 Greec e || 0 
 Hungary || 1 
 Ireland || 0 
 Italy || 5 
 Latvia || 1 
 Lithuania || 1 
 Luxembourg || 0 
 Malta || 1 
 Netherlands || 1 
 Poland || 1 
 Portugal || 2 
 Romania || 1 
 Slovakia || 1 
 Slovenia || 1 
 Spain || 2 
 Sweden || 1 
 United Kingdom || 1 
   EU Institution/body/agenc y ||   N 
 European Central Bank || 1 
 Europol || 1 
PART B - GENERAL QUESTIONS
1 - Measures at national level
(excluding PERICLES activities)
1.1. Does your organisation have a
strategy and action plan for the training of staff and
other preventative measures to protect the Euro against
counterfeiting?
YES (18
competent authorities
in
the MS)
NO (14 competent
authorities in the MS)
1.2. When was
this strategy/action plan established?
1.3. What is the budget for this strategy/action plan? (18 competent authorities in the
MS)
   ||   N 
 > € 1,000,000/year || 0 
 > € 300,000 and < € 1,000,000 || 1 
 > € 100,000 and < € 300,000 || 1 
 < € 100,000/year || 16 
1.4. What are
the target groups for the strategy/action
plan? (18 competent authorities in the MS)
   || All || Polic e || NCB 
 N || % || N || % || N || % 
 Polic e || 14 || 78% || 12 || 100% || 1 || 25% 
 Judic iary/prosec utor authorities || 5 || 28% || 3 || 25% || 1 || 25% 
 Ministry of Financ e || 3 || 17% || 1 || 8% || 0 || 0% 
 National Central Bank || 7 || 39% || 5 || 42% || 1 || 25% 
 Mints || 3 || 17% || 2 || 17% || 0 || 0% 
 Financ ial/banking private sec tor || 10 || 56% || 5 || 42% || 4 || 100% 
 Other private sec tor || 8 || 44% || 4 || 33% || 2 || 50% 
 Other || 4 || 22% || 0 || 0% || 3 || 75% 
1. 5.
What
are the specific activities
involved in your plan? (18 competent authorities in the MS)
   || All || Polic e || NCB 
 N || % || N || % || N || % 
 Training ac tivities || 17 || 94% || 11 || 92% || 4 || 100% 
 Dissemination ac tivities (inc luding workshops, meetings and seminars), ||   13 ||   72% ||   8 ||   67% ||   3 ||   75% 
 Information and staff exc hanges, || 6 || 33% || 4 || 33% || 1 || 25% 
 Studies and teac hing sourc es (manuals, guides, etc ) || 11 || 61% || 6 || 50% || 3 || 75% 
 Computer support applic ations || 7 || 39% || 4 || 33% || 2 || 50% 
 Cross- border operations || 6 || 33% || 5 || 42% || 0 || 0% 
 Other || 2 || 11% || 1 || 8% || 1 || 25% 
2 - PERICLES
activities (Period: 2002- first call
for proposals 2012)
2.1 Has your
organisation implemented
any PERICLES activity?
   ||   N 
 No || 17 
 1 - 3 ac tivities || 10 
 4 - 6 ac tivities || 2 
 More than 6 ac tivities || 5 
Profile of national competent authorities
which have implemented
activities (17 competent
authorities)
If NO, what is/are
the main reason/s? (the table includes only the
replies from the 15 competent authorities in the
MS
which have not
implemented activities)
   ||   N ||   % 
 Your requirements for transitional c ooperation are c overed by your partic ipation in PERICLES ac tivities organised by other organisations. ||   9 ||   60% 
 The administrative proc edures to organise PERICLES ac tivities are not suffic iently c lear and/or transparent ||   1 ||   7% 
 The administrative burden related to the preparation of the proposals and reporting requirements ||   1 ||   7% 
 Your organisation does not have suffic ient resourc es available to c o- financ e the ac tivities ||   8 ||   53% 
 Other || 2 || 13% 
If YES,
which were the main objective/s pursued by your organisation when proposing
and implementing programme activities? (please chose all relevant answers)
   || N || % 
 Raising awareness of the staff c onc erned in your organisation; || 8 || 47% 
 Raising awareness of staff c onc erned in other EU Member States; || 8 || 47% 
 Raising awareness of staff c onc erned in third c ountries; || 9 || 53% 
 Enc ouraging c loser c ooperation and to develop a c limate of mutual trust with organisations and staff c onc erned in other EU c ountries; ||   15 ||   88% 
 Enc ouraging c loser c ooperation and to develop a c limate of mutual trust with organisations and staff c onc erned in third c ountries; ||   12 ||   71% 
 Promoting c onvergenc e and equivalent level of protec tion of the euro ac ross EU Member States; ||   10 ||   59% 
 Expanding general public awareness on euro c ounterfeiting; || 5 || 29% 
 Exc hange of information, experienc e and best prac tic es with organisations in other EU MS; ||   14 ||   82% 
 Exc hange of information, experienc e and best prac tic es with organisations in third c ountries; ||   12 ||   71% 
 To respond to training needs for staff c onc erned in other MS; || 6 || 35% 
 To respond to training needs for staff c onc erned in third c ountries; || 8 || 47% 
 Other || 0 || 0% 
(This part
is relevant for Effectiveness) To which extent do you consider that your organisation
has achieved the above objectives by organising PERICLES
activities (0 not
satisfactory at all, 10: most satisfactory)?
Raising awareness of the
staff concerned in your organisation;
Raising
awareness of staff concerned in other EU Member States;
Raising
awareness of staff concerned in third countries;
Encouraging closer cooperation and to develop a climate
of mutual trust with organisations and
staff concerned in other EU
Member States;
Encouraging closer cooperation and to develop a climate
of mutual trust with organisations and staff concerned
in third countries;
Promoting convergence and equivalent
level of protection of the euro
across EU MS;
Exchange of
information, experience and
best practices with organisations in other EU Member States;
Exchange of
information, experience and
best practices with organisations in third countries;
To respond to training needs for staff concerned in other
EU countries;
To respond
to training needs for staff concerned in third
countries;

Expanding general
public awareness on euro counterfeiting
2.2 Has your
organisation participated in PERICLES activities (other than those implemented by your
organisation)?
   ||   N 
 Yes || 31 
 No || 3 
Which type of activities?
   ||   N ||   % 
 In training ac tivities. || 25 || 81% 
 In dissemination/networking ac tivities inc luding workshops, meetings and seminars. ||   26 ||   84% 
 In information and staff exc hanges. || 19 || 61% 
If NO,
what
is the main reason/s?
   ||   N 
 You are not aware of PERICLES ac tivities || 0 
 Suffic ient training on euro protec tion is provided by organisations from your own c ountry ||   0 
   Your organisation is not involved in c ross-border c ooperation on euro protec tion with other MS and third c ountries ||   1 
   Your organisation has no staff dedic ated to euro protec tion ||   2 
 Other || 0 
If YES,
which were the main objectives pursued by your organisation when participating
in PERICLES activities
organised by other organisations?
(Please chose all relevant answers)
   ||   N ||   % 
   Raising awareness of the staff c onc erned in your organisation; ||   22 ||   71% 
   Closer c ooperation and to develop a c limate of mutual trust with organisations and staff c onc erned in other EU Member States; ||   30 ||   97% 
   Closer c ooperation and to develop a c limate of mutual trust with organisations staff and staff c onc erned in third c ountries; ||   20 ||   65% 
 Ac hieving equivalent level of euro protec tion as c ompared to other EU Member States; ||   17 ||   55% 
 Expanding general public awareness on euro c ounterfeiting in your country; ||   6 ||   19% 
   Exc hange of information, experienc e and best prac tic es with organisations in other EU Member States; ||   27 ||   87% 
 Exc hange of information, experienc e and best prac tic es with organisations in third c ountries; ||   19 ||   61% 
   Responding to training needs for staff c onc erned in your organisation. ||   15 ||   48% 
 Other || 0 || 0% 
(This part
is relevant for Effectiveness) To which extent do you consider that your organisation
has achieved the above objectives
by participating in PERICLES
activities (0 not satisfactory at all, 10: most satisfactory)?
Raising
awareness of the staff concerned in
your organisation;
Closer
cooperation and to develop a climate of mutual trust with organisations and staff
concerned in other EU MS;
Closer cooperation and to develop a climate of mutual trust
with organisations staff and staff concerned in third countries;
Achieving
equivalent level of euro protection as compared to other EU MS;
Exchange of information, experience and best practices
with organisations in other MS;
Exchange of
information, experience and
best practices with organisations in third countries;
Responding to
training needs for staff
concerned in your organisation.
Expanding general
public awareness on euro counterfeiting in your
country
PART C - QUESTIONS ON THE PERFORMANCE OF THE PERCILES PROGRAMME
Relevance
3 - To what extent do you consider the following
specific objectives
of
the programme relevant to achieve
the overall objective of protecting the euro against counterfeiting (0: not relevant at all, 10:
most relevant)? Please
mark each activity.
Raising awareness of the staff concerned       A catalyst mechanism
to encourage closer cooperation and to develop a climate of mutual trust and satisfactory knowledge
Promoting convergence and equivalent
level of protection across EU MS
Exchange of
information, experience and
best practices
Relevance (Cont.)
4 - To what extent do you consider
the following programme activities relevant to achieve
the specific objectives
of
the programme listed in question 3 (0:
not relevant
at all, 10: most relevant)? Please mark each activity.
Training
activities                                       Dissemination/networking
activities
Information and staff exchanges                   Studies
Teaching sources                                       Computer
support applications
Financial
support cross-border operations
Relevance (Cont.)
5 - To what
extent
do
you consider the following target groups (as per article 4.1 of Council Decision
2001/923/EC) are relevant to achieve
the overall objective of protecting the euro against counterfeiting (0: not relevant at all, 10: most relevant)? Please mark each activity.
Police                                                      Judicial authorities
Ministry
of Finance                                     National Central Bank
Mints                                                       Financial/banking
private sector

Other
private sector
European added value
6 - To what extent do you consider that the PERICLES programme provides European
added value as compared to Member
States activities in achieving the overall objective of
protecting the euro against counterfeiting (0:
not relevant at all, 10:
most relevant)?
All                                                           Euro
area (22 replies)
Efficiency
7 - To what extent do you consider that the existing coordination mechanism (namely in the
Euro Counterfeiting Group of Experts
where OLAF, the EU Member
States, the ECB and Europol are
represented) is adequate to ensure an economic and efficient
use of the programme resources (0:
not adequate at all, 10: most adequate)?
All (34 replies)                                           Euro
area
8 - To what extent do you consider that the
administrative procedures in place are satisfactory to ensure an economic and efficient use
of the programme resources
(0: no satisfactory at all, 10: most satisfactory)? Especially
as regards (only the replies
from the
17 competent authorities
which have implemented
activities are
included):
Balance between the
administrative burden for national administrations and the results achieved
Timeliness of the administrative procedures
Clarity/transparency of the administrative
procedures
Overall
Efficiency (Cont.)
9 – Do you
consider that there is scope to save programme resources (without
involving a significant negative
impact on the overall achievements of the programme) if one
or more of the following
measures are taken (0: not agree at all, 10: totally
agree):
Reducing the
number of training activities       Reducing the
number of dissemination/networking
activities
Reducing the number of participants in training
activities
Reducing
the number of participants in dissemination/networking
activities
Efficiency (Cont.)
10 – Do you
consider that, as compared to the current distribution of resources
among activities, more programme resources
should be dedicated to (0: no agree
at all, 10: totally agree)?
Training
activities                                       Dissemination/networking
activities
Information and staff exchanges                   Studies
Teaching sources
(manuals, guides, etc)        Computer support applications
Financial
support for cross-border operations
Efficiency (Cont.)
11 – Do you think that there are activities which
are not financed by the
programme but which would provide higher value
for money as compared
to the activities currently financed by
PERICLES?
12
– Do you think
there is room to improve the coordination with other
existing measures on the protection of the euro against counterfeiting (particularly those implemented by UE Member States, the ECB and Europol) which would
result in a more
efficient use of the programme resources?
Effectiveness
13.1 - To what extent do you consider that the
specific programme objective of raising awareness on euro protection
of the staff concerned in your
organisation has been achieved
(0: not satisfactory at all, 10: most satisfactory)?
All (34 replies)                                           Euro
area MS (22 replies)
13.2 - To what extent do you consider that the
participation in the following
activities
co- financed by the
programme have contributed
to raise awareness of the staff concerned in your organisation (0: no
contribution, 10: great
contribution)? Please
mark each activity.
Overall                                                     Training
Dissemination
(including workshops,
meetings and seminars)
Information and staff exchanges
Studies                                                    Teaching sources
Effectiveness (Cont.)
14.1 To what extent do you consider that the objective
of promoting convergence and equivalent
level of protection across the EU MS
has been achieved? (0:
not satisfactory at all, 10: most satisfactory)
All (34 replies)                                           Euro
area MS (22 replies)
14.2 - To what extent do you consider that the
following programme activities have contributed to promote convergence and equivalent level of protection
across EU MS (0: no contribution , 10: most
contribution)? Please mark each
activity.
Overall                                                     Training
Dissemination
(including workshops,
meetings and seminars)
Information and staff exchanges
Studies                                                    Teaching sources
Effectiveness (Cont.)
15 - To what extent do you
consider
that the following programme activities have contributed to expanding general public' awareness on
euro counterfeiting (0: no contribution,
10: great contribution)?
Please mark each activity.
Overall                                                       Training
Dissemination
(including workshops,
meetings and seminars)
Information and staff exchanges
Studies                                                     
 Teaching sources
16.1
To what extent do you consider
that the specific programme objective
of facilitating an adequate exchange of information, experiences and good practices of staff
concerned in your organisation with
staff in other
 MS has been achieved (0: not satisfactory
at all,
10: most satisfactory)?
All (34
replies)                                            Euro area MS (22 replies)
Effectiveness (Cont.)
16.2 - To what extent do you consider that the
following programme activities have contributed to achieve
the specific programme objective of facilitating
an
adequate exchange of information, experiences
and good practices of staff concerned in your organisation
with staff in other  EU  MS (0: no contribution,
10: great contribution)?
Please mark each activity.
Overall                                                     Training
Dissemination
(including workshops,
meetings and seminars)
Information and staff exchanges
Studies                                                    Teaching sources
Effectiveness (Cont.)
16.3 - To what extent do you consider that the
following programme activities have contributed to facilitate an adequate exchange of information, experiences and good practices of staff concerned in your organisation with
staff in third countries (0: no
contribution, 10 most contribution)?
Please mark each activity.
Overall                                                     Training
Dissemination
(including workshops,
meetings and seminars)
Information and staff exchanges
Studies                                                    Teaching sources
Effectiveness (Cont.)
17 – Overall, through the
organisation of/participation
in
programme activities, what would be the degree of achievement of the following objectives in your organisation
(0: no achievement, 10 completely
achieved)
a.       Sufficient knowledge
and skills to participate/contribute to euro protection activities
All (34 replies)                                           Euro
area (22 replies)
Have implemented activities (17 replies)         Police
(21 replies)
b.       Ability to cooperate
with your counterparts in
other
countries in the context of
cross border cooperation.
All (34 replies)                                           Euro
area (22 replies)
Have implemented activities (17 replies)         Police
(21 replies)
Effectiveness (Cont.)
18.1 - To what extent do you consider that the
organisation of and/or
participation in PERICLES activities have
been a key factor in
the successful implementation
of cross- border/international operations (0: not relevant at all, 10 most important
key factor)?
Police all MS (21 replies)                              Police Euro area MS (15 replies)
18.2
- For how many operations your
organisation has
been involved?.
Police all MS (21 replies)                              Police Euro area MS (15 replies)
19. To what extent do you consider that the programme has been effective in promoting activities
which are complementarity with
other existing measures (in
particular those implemented by Member States, the ECB and Europol) to achieve
the overall objective
of protecting the euro against counterfeiting
(0: not effective at
all, 10 most effective)?
All (34 replies)                                           Euro
area MS (22 replies)
20
- Do you think that the
possibility to improve coordination and
complementarity between the programme activities and other existing measures exists (particularly
those implemented by EU Member States, the ECB and Europol) which would improve the effectiveness of the PERICLES programme in achieving the overall
objective of protecting the euro
against counterfeiting?
All (34 replies)                                           Euro
area MS (22 replies)
Sustainability
21 –Should
funding from PERICLES
be not available in the
future, would your organisation
organise/continue to organise
activities with an international
dimension for the protection
of the euro?
All                                                           Euro
area (22 replies)

Competent authorities
which have implemented activities
(17 replies)
What would be
the main reason/s why
your organisation would not organise/continue to organise activities
(include all competent authorities which replied
clearly no or
likely
no):
   ||   N ||   % 
 There is not a c lear added value for your organisation to spend its own resourc es on ac tivities with an European and/or international ||   4 ||   24% 
 Your organisation does not have the resourc es available to organise suc h ac tivities ||   15 ||   88% 
 Other || 1 || 6% 
Sustainability
(Cont.)
22 - To what extent do you consider the continuation of the
following programme activities is relevant to ensure
the
sustainability of the results
reported so far (0: not relevant
at all, 10 most relevant)? Please
mark each activity.
Training
activities                                       Dissemination/networking
activities
Information and staff exchanges                   Studies
Teaching sources                                       Computer
support applications

Financial
support for cross-border cooperation
Annex V
Replies to the questionnaire for organisations in 3rd countries
co-organisers/participants in PERICLES
activities
The questionnaire
was sent to a sample of authorities
in
third countries which
co- organised and/or participated in programme activities. The questionnaire was sent to competent authorities in the Western Balkans (Albania, BiH, Croatia, the
former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia,
Montenegro, Serbia),
Turkey and Latin America
(Brazil, Colombia and
Peru).
In several
questions competent authorities were invited to express their degree of
agreement, assessment of the performance or satisfaction
with different options.
The following guidelines were provided to mark the different
options:
•         Mark
0 to express lack of performance/satisfaction/relevance/agreement;
•          mark from 1 to 4 to express different levels
of
insufficient
performance/satisfaction/relevance/agreement;
•          mark from 5 to 7 to express different levels of overall positive
performance/satisfaction/relevance/agreement;
•          mark from 8
to 9 to express clear high
performance/satisfaction/relevance/agreement;
•         mark
10 to express the highest performance/satisfaction/relevance/agreement;
•          mark n/o (no
opinion) if you consider that
you do not have sufficient knowledge
or information to answer one question.
REPLIES TO THE
QUESTIONNAIRE
PART A -
PROFILE OF RESPONDENTS
Country:
   ||   N 
 Croatia || 2 
 Montenegro || 2 
 Serbia || 1 
 Turkey || 1 
 Brazil || 1 
 Peru || 1 

Profile:
Was your office?
   ||   N 
 Partic ipant only || 2 
 Co-organiser || 6 
Is your office
currently involved in the
protection of the euro
against counterfeiting?
   ||   N 
 Yes || 7 
 No || 1 
PART B – GENERAL QUESTIONS
1 – Since 2007, in approximately how many PERICLES
activities your office has co- organised and/or participated:
   ||   N 
 Only onc e || 0 
 In 2/3 ac tivities || 1 
 In 4/5 ac tivities || 2 
 More than 5 ac tivities || 5 
2 – Since 2007, in
which type/s of PERICLES activities
your office has mostly co- organised and/or participated:
   ||   N 
 Training ac tivities on detec tion, investigation, c onfisc ation, etc . || 3 
 Dissemination/networking ac tivities (suc h as workshops, c onferenc es and meetings) to improve c ooperation, sharing best prac tices, etc. ||   3 
 Staff exc hanges || 2 
 Other || 0 
3 – Since 2007, your
office has mostly participated in:
   ||   N 
 PERICLES ac tivities organised in a regular basis (around onc e a year) by the same organisers ||   4 
 A mix of different PERICLES ac tivities organised by different organisers ||   1 
 A mix of both options above. || 3 
PART C –
PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAMME
Relevance
4 - To what
extent
do
you consider the co-organisation of/participation in PERICLES activities has been relevant for the work of your office in the area of the protection of the
euro against counterfeiting (0: no relevant at all, 10
most relevant)?
Effectiveness
5 - Which
were the main objectives pursued
by your office when
participating in
PERICLES activities? (please chose all relevant answers)
   ||   N ||   % 
 Improve the knowledge and skills on the area of protec tion of the euro against c ounterfeiting ||   6 ||   75% 
 Networking and improve c ooperation and mutual trust with your c ounterparts in other c ountries ||   7 ||   88% 
 Exc hange of information, experienc e and best prac tic es with your c ounterparts in other c ountries ||   7 ||   88% 
 Other || 0 || 0% 
Effectiveness (Cont.)
6 –Following
the participation in/co-organisation
of PERICLES activities, to which extent
are you satisfied as compared to your expectations
(not satisfactory at all, 10 most satisfactory),
particularly as regards:
Improved knowledge
and
skills on
the area of protection of the euro
against counterfeiting
Networking and improved cooperation and mutual trust
with your counterparts in other countries
Exchange of
information, experience and
best practices with organisations in third countries
Overall
7 – Through
the participation in/co-organisation of PERICLES activities, what
would
be the degree of achievement in your office
of each of the following objectives
(0: no achievement, 10 completely
achieved)
The overall awareness
on Euro protection in your office
The
knowledge of good practices on euro protection in your office
Sufficient knowledge and skills
in
your office to participate/contribute to euro protection activities
Ability
of your office to cooperate with
your counterparts in other countries in the
context of cross border cooperation
Effectiveness (Cont.)
8 –As a result
of the participation in/coordination of PERICLES
activities, has
your
office
been involved in one or
more of the following
actions?
   ||   N ||   % 
 Dissemination/training ac tivities within your organisation on euro protec tion. ||   6 ||   75% 
 Dissemination/training ac tivities in your c ountry but outside your organisation on euro protec tion. ||   5 ||   63% 
 Ac tivities to inc rease the general public ' awareness in your c ountry on euro protec tion. ||   3 ||   38% 
 Partic ipation in c ross- borders operations investigations on euro protec tion. ||   4 ||   50% 
 Setting/appointing a permanent c ontac t on euro protec tion within your organisation. ||   4 ||   50% 
 Setting a spec ialised struc ture on euro protec tion within your organisation ||   2 ||   25% 
 Development of relevant legal instruments on protec tion of the euro (for example, introduc tion of asset c onfisc ation, international c ooperation agreements, etc .) ||   5 ||   63% 
 Other || 1 || 13% 
 No spec ific ac tion || 0 || 0% 
Annex VI
Replies to the questionnaire for participants in PERICLES
activities
The
questionnaire was sent to the participants in a sample
of activities financed by the
PERICLES programme.
For several
questions participants were invited
to express their assessment
of the performance, relevance, satisfaction or achievement of different options presented. The following guidelines
were provided to mark the different options:
•         Mark
0 to express lack of performance/satisfaction/relevance/agreement;
•          mark from 1 to 4 to express different levels
of
insufficient
performance/satisfaction/relevance/agreement;
•          mark from 5 to 7 to express different levels of overall positive
performance/satisfaction/relevance/agreement;
•          mark from 8
to 9 to express clear high
performance/satisfaction/relevance/agreement;
•         mark
10 to express the highest performance/satisfaction/relevance/agreement;
•          mark n/o (no
opinion) if you consider that
you do not have sufficient knowledge
or information to answer one question.
REPLIES TO THE
QUESTIONNAIRE
PART A -
PROFILE OF RESPONDENTS Profile of the respondents:
   || N || % 
 Organiser/Co-organiser || 10 || 11% 
 Trainer || 13 || 15% 
 Partic ipant || 64 || 74% 
The results reported below refer to the 64 participants only
Country:
   || N || % 
 EU- Eurozone || 18 || 28% 
 EU- Non Eurozone || 4 || 6% 
 Total EU || 22 || 34% 
 EU c andidates and potential c andidates || 23 || 36% 
 EU neighborhood c ountries || 2 || 3% 
 Brazil || 4 || 6% 
 Latin Americ a (exc l Brazil) || 6 || 9% 
 Other || 7 || 11% 
 Total third countries || 42 || 66% 
Profile of the organisation:
   || All || EU || Non-EU 
 N || % || N || % || N || % 
 Polic e || 34 || 53% || 15 || 68% || 19 || 45% 
 Judic iary || 13 || 20% || 4 || 18% || 9 || 21% 
 NCB || 10 || 16% || 1 || 5% || 9 || 21% 
 Ministry of Financ e || 1 || 2% || 0 || 0% || 1 || 2% 
 National Mint || 0 || 0% || 0 || 0% || 0 || 0% 
 EU Institution/Body || 0 || 0% || 0 || 0% || 0 || 0% 
 Banking/Financ ial private sec tor || 4 || 6% || 1 || 5% || 3 || 7% 
 Private sec tor-other than banking/financ ial || 1 || 2% || 1 || 5% || 0 || 0% 
 Other || 1 || 2% || 0 || 0% || 1 || 2% 
Have you changed organisation since
your participation in Pericles activities?
   || All || EU || Non-EU 
 N || % || N || % || N || % 
 Yes || 6 || 9% || 2 || 9% || 4 || 10% 
 No || 58 || 91% || 20 || 91% || 38 || 90% 
PART B – GENERAL QUESTIONS
1 – Since 2007,
in approximately how many PERICLES
activities you have participated:
   || All || EU || Non-EU 
 N || % || N || % || N || % 
 Only onc e || 15 || 23% || 5 || 23% || 10 || 24% 
 2/3 ac tivities || 28 || 44% || 7 || 32% || 21 || 50% 
 4/5 ac tivities || 13 || 20% || 4 || 18% || 9 || 21% 
 More than 5 ac tivities || 8 || 13% || 6 || 27% || 2 || 5% 
2 – Since 2007, in
which type/s of PERICLES activities
you have mostly participated
(please chose
all relevant answers):
   || All || EU || Non-EU 
 N || % || N || % || N || % 
 PERICLES ac tivities organised in a regular basis (around onc e a year) by the same organisers ||   26 ||   41% ||   7 ||   32% ||   19 ||   45% 
 A mix of different PERICLES ac tivities organised by different organisers ||   21 ||   33% ||   7 ||   32% ||   14 ||   33% 
 A mix of both options above || 16 || 25% || 7 || 32% || 9 || 21% 
 Other || 1 || 2% || 1 || 5% || 0 || 0% 
3 – Since 2007, you have
mostly participated in (please chose all relevant answers):
   || All || EU || Non-EU 
 N || % || N || % || N || % 
 Training ac tivities on detec tion, investigation, confisc ation, etc ||   40 ||   63% ||   9 ||   41% ||   31 ||   74% 
 Dissemination/networking ac tivities (suc h as workshops, c onferenc es and meetings) to improve c ooperation, sharing best prac tic es, etc . ||   34 ||   53% ||   16 ||   73% ||   18 ||   43% 
 Staff exc hanges || 11 || 17% || 5 || 23% || 6 || 14% 
 Other || 2 || 3% || 0 || 0% || 2 || 5% 
PART C – PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAMME
Relevance
4
- To what extent do you consider your participation in the
PERICLES activities has
been relevant for your work in the
area of the protection of the euro against counterfeiting (0: no relevant
at
all, 10 most relevant)?
a.       Training activities
on detection, investigation, confiscation, etc
All (40 replies)
EU (9 replies)                                            
 Non-EU (31 replies)
b.       Dissemination/networking
activities
(such as workshops, conferences and meetings) to improve
cooperation, sharing best practices, etc.
All (34 replies)
EU (16 replies)                                          
 Non-EU
(18 replies)
c.       Staff
exchanges
All (11
replies)
EU (5 replies)                                            Non-EU (6
replies)
Effectiveness
5 - Which
were the main objectives you pursued
when
participating in PERICLES
activities? (please chose all
relevant answers)
   || All || EU || Non-EU 
 N || % || N || % || N || % 
 Improve your knowledge and skills on the area of protec tion of the euro against c ounterfeiting ||   53 ||   83% ||   18 ||   82% ||   35 ||   83% 
 Networking and improve c ooperation and mutual trust with your c ounterparts in EU c ountries ||   41 ||   64% ||   15 ||   68% ||   26 ||   62% 
 Networking and improve c ooperation and mutual trust with your c ounterparts in non- EU c ountries ||   30 ||   47% ||   10 ||   45% ||   20 ||   48% 
 Exc hange of information, experienc e and best prac tic es with your c ounterparts in other c ountries ||   50 ||   78% ||   18 ||   82% ||   32 ||   76% 
 Other || 1 || 2% || 0 || 0% || 1 || 2% 
6 – Following
your participation in the PERICLES
activities, to which extent are you
satisfied as compared to your expectations
 regarding (not satisfactory at all, 10
most satisfactory)
a.       Improved
knowledge and skills
on the area of protection of
the euro against counterfeiting

All (53
replies)
EU (18 replies)                                           Non EU
(35 replies)
Effectiveness (Cont.)
b.       Networking and improved
cooperation and mutual
trust with your counterparts
in
EU countries
All (41
replies)
EU (15 replies)                                           Non EU
(26 replies)
c.       Networking and improved
cooperation and mutual
trust with your counterparts
in non-EU countries
All (30
replies)
EU (10 replies)                                           Non EU (20
Replies)
Effectiveness (Cont.)
d.       Exchange of
information, experience and best
practices with organisations in
other countries

All (50 replies)
EU (18 replies)                                           Non EU (32
Replies)
7 – Through
your participation in the PERICLES
activities, what would be the
degree of achievement of each the
following objectives (0: no achievement, 10 completely
achieved)
a.       Your
overall awareness on euro protection
All
EU (22 replies)                                           Non-EU (42
Replies)
Effectiveness (Cont.)
b.       Your knowledge
of good practices on the euro protection
All
EU (22 replies)                                           Non-EU (42
Replies)
c.       Sufficient knowledge and skills
to participate/contribute
to euro protection activities
All
EU (22 replies)                                           Non-EU (42
Replies)
Effectiveness (Cont.)
d.       Ability to cooperate
with your counterparts in
other
countries in the context of
cross border operations/investigations on the protection of the
euro against counterfeiting
(Police
only).

All
police
(34 replies)
EU police (15 replies)                                  Non-EU police (19 replies)
8 – As a result
of your participation in the PERICLES activities, have you been involved in one or more of the following actions?
   || All || EU || Non-EU 
 N || % || N || % || N || % 
 Dissemination/training ac tivities within your organisation || 36 || 56% || 9 || 41% || 27 || 64% 
 Dissemination/training ac tivities in your c ountry but outside your organisation ||   19 ||   30% ||   8 ||   36% ||   11 ||   26% 
 Ac tivities to inc rease the general public ' awareness in your c ountry on euro protec tion ||   15 ||   23% ||   3 ||   14% ||   12 ||   29% 
 Partic ipation in c ross-borders operations/investigations on protec tion of the euro against c ounterfeiting ||   15 ||   23% ||   7 ||   32% ||   8 ||   19% 
 Setting/appointing a permanent c ontac t on euro protec tion within your organisation ||   23 ||   36% ||   10 ||   45% ||   13 ||   31% 
 Setting a spec ialised struc ture on euro protec tion within your organisation ||   17 ||   27% ||   6 ||   27% ||   11 ||   26% 
 Development of relevant legal instruments on protec tion of the euro (for example, introduc tion of asset c onfisc ation, international c ooperation agreements, etc ) ||   11 ||   17% ||   3 ||   14% ||   8 ||   19%