REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the evaluation of the Union's finances based on the results achieved
Date: 2015-06-26
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU budget, EU expenditure, EU programme, activity report, management of resources, multiannual financial framework

EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 26.6.2015  COM(2015) 313 final   REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the evaluation of the Union's finances based on the results achieved {SWD(2015) 124 final} {SWD(2015) 125 final}  
 
 
Table of Contents 

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS: .................................................................................................................. 3 

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 5 

Role of the Article 318 Report ................................................................................................. 5 

This year's report ..................................................................................................................... 7 

1. EUROPE 2020 AND THE ADDED VALUE OF THE EU BUDGET ....................................................... 9 

1.1 Summary account of progress towards Europe 2020 targets ........................................... 9 

1.2 Examples of how the EU budget was used to address internal and external political 

priorities ...................................................................................................................... 10 

Example 1- COMPACT FOR GROWTH AND JOBS: How the Project Bond Initiative 

helped to act as a leverage on additional financing for important 
infrastructure projects ................................................................................. 10 

Example 2 - FIGHTING EBOLA: How a coordinated EU response helped to quickly 

provide financial, organisations and humanitarian assistance to the 
Ebola epidemic in Africa .............................................................................. 11 

2. OVERVIEW OF RESULTS ACHIEVED ............................................................................................ 14 

2.1 Smart and Inclusive Growth (Budget Heading 1) ............................................................ 14 

A) COMPETITIVENESS FOR GROWTH AND JOBS (Heading 1a) ................................... 14 

B) ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND TERRITORIAL COHESION (Budget Heading 1B) .............. 20 

2.2 Sustainable Growth: natural resources (Budget Heading 2) ........................................... 27 

2.3 Security and Citizenship (Budget Heading 3) ................................................................... 31 

2.4 Global Europe (Budget Heading 4) .................................................................................. 34 

3. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................................. 39 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
List of abbreviations: 

AMIF 

CAP 

CEF 

CFSP 

CF 

CFP 

Asylum Migration and Integration Fund  

Common Agricultural Policy  

Connecting Europe Facility  

Common Foreign and Security Policy  

Cohesion Fund 

Common Fisheries Policy  

COSME   

Competitiveness of Enterprises and SMEs 

DCI 

Development Cooperation Instrument  

EAGF      

European Agricultural Guarantee Fund  

EDF 

European Development Fund 

EAFRD    

European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development  

EFF 

ESIP 

EIB 

European Fisheries Fund 

Employment and social Innovation Programme 

European Investment Bank 

EIDHR    

European for Democracy and Human Rights 

EMFF 

ENI 

ERDF 

ESF 

European Maritime and Fisheries Fund  

European Neighbourhood Instrument 

European Regional Development Fund 

European Social Fund 

ESIF         

European Structural and Investments Funds 

ESIP 

FEAD 

FP7 

Employment and Social innovation Programme 

Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived 

Seventh  Framework  Programme  for  Research,  Technological  Development  and 
Demonstration Activities (MFF 2007-2013) 

Horizon 2020  EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (MFF 2014-2020) 

IfS 

INSC 

IcSP 

INSC 

IPA 

Instrument for Stability   

Instrument for Nuclear Safety Cooperation  

Instrument contributing to Stability and Peace  

Instrument for Nuclear Safety Cooperation 

Instrument for Pre-Accession  

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ISF 

MFF 

OPs 

PAs 

PBI 

Internal Security Fund 

Multi-Annual Financial Framework  

Operational Programmes  

Partnership Agreements  

Project Bond Initiative  

UCPM 

Union Civil Protection Mechanism 

YEI 

Youth Employment Initiative 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
INTRODUCTION 

Role of the Article 318 Report  
Article 318 TFEU requires the Commission to submit to the European Parliament and the Council an 
annual evaluation report on the Union's finances based on the results achieved ('Article 318 Report' 
or 'Report'), as part of the annual discharge procedure on the implementation of the EU budget. It 
allows the European Parliament to examine performance of the EU budget in addition to the issues 
of compliance, legality and regularity of budget implementation. The latter aspects are addressed in 
the Synthesis Report of the Commission's management achievements1.  

Around  80  per  cent  of  the  EU  budget  is  operated  through  shared  management  between  the 
Commission and Member States, while 20 per cent is under direct management by the Commission. 
Member  States  are  required  to  cooperate  with  the  Commission  in  the  implementation  of  the 
programmes, and in evaluating and reporting on them. The Commission is responsible to Parliament 
implementation  of  the  EU  budget  for  which  Parliament  shall,  on  a 
and  Council  for  the 
recommendation from the Council, give a discharge to the Commission. 

Monitoring  and  evaluation  frameworks  (including  performance  objectives  and  indicators,  together 
with  evaluation  and  reporting  arrangements)  are  set  out  in  the  spending  programmes  under  the 
2014 – 2020 Multi-annual Financial Framework ('MFF') adopted by the Parliament and the Council. 
The  Commission  has  included  those  performance  objectives  and  indicators  in  addition  to  those  on 
management in the Management Plans of its Directorates-General, for reporting through the Annual 
Activity Reports. The Commission summarises and reports on the legality and regularity of spending 
and management of the implementation of the EU budget in its annual Synthesis Report  based on 
the information in the Annual Activity Reports. 

There  are  therefore  different  categories  of  information  that  contribute  to  the  annual  budget 
discharge. These include the annual accounts and a financial statement on the assets and liabilities of 
the Union, information on the legality and regularity of spending, information on progress made in 
the implementation and management of the financial programmes and information concerning the 
results achieved2.  

The  Juncker  Commission  has  indicated  that  it  will  ensure  that  "every  action  we  take  delivers 
maximum performance and value added".3 This combined with its Better Regulation policy translates 
into a strong commitment to an EU budget focused on performance. 

The Parliament and the Court of Auditors have requested that the Article 318 Report gives an annual 
update of progress made towards attaining programme objectives and the contribution made by the 
programmes  to  overall  EU  objectives.  The  Commission  has  responded  by  providing  information  on 
achievement  of  EU  policy  objectives  as  well  as  programme  objectives.  However  there  are  various 
factors that need to be taken into account in this context.  

First, the proximity of the annual discharge to the year of spending subject to the discharge limits the 
extent  to  which  up-to-date  information  on  programme  performance  can  be  provided.  This  is 
because, while it is possible to report year-on-year on money spent, on actions being taken financed 

1 See COM(2015) 279 final Synthesis of the Commission’s management achievements in 2014 of 3 June 2015. 
2 See Article 318 and 319 TFEU. 
3 Mission letters of President Juncker to the Commissioners. 
5 

 
 
 
                                                            
by  EU  money  and  on  the  most  immediate  and  direct  results  of  those  actions,  it  is  not  possible  to 
report on the broader performance of EU interventions in terms of their impact on the economy and 
society within such a short timeframe.  

As the evaluation and reporting framework of the MFF recognises, broader performance information 
only  starts  to  become  available  around  half  way  through  each  programme.  This  is  when  sufficient 
time has elapsed for money spent and actions then taken to have produced an impact. The strength 
and  sustainability  of  the  impact  of  the  actions  can  also  only  be  assessed  some  years  later,  when 
looking  at  developing  trends.  For  example,  the  provision  of  financial  support  for  re-training  of  the 
long-term  unemployed  in  one  year  can  lead  to  increased  quality  or  quantity  of  trainings  being 
available in the following year. This should lead on to better qualified persons being present on the 
jobs market perhaps the following year. The sustainable impact of those developments , in terms of 
these  people  obtaining  lasting  new  employment,  will  then  be  open  to  assessment,  on  the  basis  of 
trends identified through annual reporting, some years after that. This is why regular information is 
provided through annual reporting on the outputs and results of EU spending, while reporting on the 
overall performance of the financial interventions only starts to take place around half way through 
the seven year MFF, through interim evaluations, and is only completed in the years that follow the 
conclusion of the MFF, through the ex-post evaluations.  

Second, there are further difficulties in establishing the link between the actions taken and progress 
in achieving EU policy objectives because of the variety of external factors involved. To continue with 
the  example  of  training  for  the  unemployed,  the  multiple  factors  influencing  global  trading 
conditions and private sector decision-taking on the location of production in different parts of the 
world can all have a strong impact on employment in different countries and regions regardless of 
the quality and quantity of training provided.  

Third, account also has to be taken of the fact that EU spending only accounts for around 2 per cent 
of total public spending in the EU and one per cent of Gross National Income. While EU spending can 
and does seek to add value to national spending, to contribute to ensuring an efficient Single Market, 
to reduce regional disparities in development and income, and so on, there are limits to the influence 
of  spending  channelled  through  the  EU  financial  programmes  due  to  the  relatively  small  amounts 
involved compared to the overall public finance and market situation. All of these factors need to be 
taken into account when considering the contribution that the Report under Article 318 can make to 
the process of the annual EU budget discharge.   

The further evolution of this report needs to be seen in the context of the Commission's  continuing 
work on performance across the entire budget cycle to ensure that the best information is available 
to support allocation decisions; to reduce administrative burdens, to simplify and accelerate access 
to  EU  finance;  and  to  apply  more  cost-effective  controls.  There  is  also  a  strong  focus  on 
interinstitutional  communication  and  dialogue  on  how  to  achieve  the  best  results  and  better 
provision of information to the public. The Interinstitutional Working Group on Performance-based 
Budgeting  to  be  set  up  following  the  request  of  Parliament  should  contribute  to  a  more  common 
understanding as the basis for future decisions on the best way forward on an EU budget focused on 
results.  

6 

 
 
 
This year's report  
The Union's budget for the period 2014-2020 ('MFF 2014-2020') is divided into different categories of 
expenditure  ('budget  headings')  corresponding  to  different  areas  of  EU  activities:  (1)  Smart  and 
Inclusive  Growth;  (2)  Sustainable  Growth:  natural  resources;  (3)  Security  and  citizenship;  and  (4) 
Global Europe. The maximum funding committed for these areas is set at EUR 960 billion4 for the 7-
year period.  

In the financial year 2014, programmes under the new MFF started to be implemented5. At the same 
time,  spending  continued  for  projects  under  the  programmes  financed  by  the  previous  2007-2013 
MFF period. As indicated in last year's Article 318 Report6, reporting in 2014 will combine the early 
signals  of  progress  in  implementing  the  MFF  2014-2020  programmes  with  available  feedback  on 
results  and  impact  of  projects  financed  by  the  earlier  programmes  under  the  2007-2013  MFF.  The 
reporting is based on information in the Annual Activity Reports of the Commission's departments, 
which  combine  monitoring  data  with  evidence  from  evaluations  and  performance  audits  from  the 
European Court of Auditors. These Annual Activity Reports provide detailed information on indicators 
measuring progress made in achieving the objectives of the different EU policies. A Commission-wide 
overview  of  progress  on  key  performance  indicators  is  provided  in  the  Synthesis  Report  on  the 
Commission's management achievements for 2014.     

Ex-post  evaluations  of  main  spending  programmes  financed  under  the  MFF  2007-2013  are  not  yet 
available. Therefore, this year's report comes in an interim period between further reporting on the 
performance  of the earlier MFF and the start of spending under the new MFF. 

The Report follows up on requests by the Parliament, the Council and the Court of Auditors7 to focus 
reporting more on the contribution of the budget to Europe 2020 and on the EU added value of the 
budget.  

The Report includes a summary account on progress towards Europe 2020 targets. A key example of 
this  is  how  funds  were  mobilised  in  response  to  the  2012  initiative  of  Heads  of  State  to  give  an 
additional boost to meeting Europe 2020 targets through the "Compact for Growth and Jobs". The 
"Compact" finances initiatives to counter the economic recession. Results achieved through one of 
these initiatives, the Project Bond Initiative, have become available in 2014. The Report also includes 
examples  of  the  added  value  created  by  the  EU  budget  and  is  accompanied  by  a  Staff  Working 
Document  (SWD1)  dedicated  to  the  efficiency  and  effectiveness  of  EU  interventions  and  the 
synergies they create contributing to EU added-value. 

Finally, as in its previous edition, another Staff Working Document (SWD2) is added outlining how the 
Commission  has  implemented  the  2013  Action  Plan  for  the  Development  of  the  Article  318 
Evaluation Report.   

4 Expressed in 2011 prices. 
5 A  short  description  of  the  main  programmes  is  given  in  the  different  chapters  of  this  Report.  A  complete  overview  is  available  at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/budget/mff/programmes/index_en.cfm or in the Commission's Programme Statements of operational expenditure.  
6 COM (2014) 383 final and SWD (2014) 200 final of 26 June 2014.  
7 By  the  European  Parliament  in its  2013  discharge  resolution,  by  the  Council  in its  recommendation  for  the  2013  discharge  and  by  the 
European Court of Auditors in its 2013 annual report on the implementation of the budget. 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Structure of the Report: 

  Section 1 provides a summary account of progress made towards achieving the Europe 2020 
targets;  and  illustrates  how  the  EU  budget  was  mobilised  to  address  internal  and  external 
political  priorities.  Example  1  shows  how  the  EU  budget  leveraged  financing  for  important 
infrastructure projects through the Project Bond Initiative. Example 2 shows the added value 
of the EU budget in coordinating financial, organisational and humanitarian assistance to the 
Ebola epidemic in Africa. 

  Section 2 gives a comprehensive overview of results achieved with Union's finances for each 
of the MFF headings: It is split into two main chapters - the internal policies of the Union and 
the  Union's  external  policies.  Within  this  structure,  the  Commission  gives  account  of  the 
results  and  impacts  achieved  by  the  programmes  and  operational  aspects  linked  to  the 
performance of the programmes. 

  Section 3 summarises main findings and draws conclusions. 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1. EUROPE 2020 and the added value of the EU budget 

1.1 Summary account of progress towards Europe 2020 targets 
Europe 2020 is the European Union’s ten-year growth and jobs strategy that was launched in 2010. 
To  achieve  its  objective  of  smart,  sustainable  and  inclusive  growth,  the  strategy  relies  on  five 
headline targets on employment, research and development, climate and energy, education, and the 
fight against poverty and social exclusion, translated by each Member State into national targets. The 
MFF 2014-2020 budget is one of the EU levers contributing to the achievement of these targets. 

National governments play a primary role in delivering results. For most of the areas, national targets 
are not sufficiently ambitious to cumulatively reach the EU-level of ambition8 and the EU budget on 
its  own  representing  approximately  2%  of  overall  public  spending  in  the  EU,  is  not  sufficient  to 
overcome this shortcoming.  

The  chart  below  shows  the  progress  made  since  2008  and  the  distance  to  the  Europe  2020  key 
targets. 

Source: Eurostat publication of 2 March 2015 

Where  possible,  the  chapters  of  this  report  are  structured  around  the  Europe  2020  priorities  of 
smart,  sustainable  and  inclusive  growth  and  results  of  EU  programmes  are  linked  to  Europe  2020 
aims.  The  reported  results  under  the  different  chapters  should  be  interpreted  in  the  light  of  the 
general Europe 2020 progress described above.   

The  EU  budget  is  used  both  in  support  of  long  term  Europe  2020  targets  and  to  meet  short  term 
challenges.  The  two  examples  below  illustrate  how  EU  funding  is  being  targeted  to  respond  to 
shorter term political priorities, both in the internal and external domain. 

8  COM (2015) 100: "Final Results of the public consultation on the Europe 2020 strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth", page 
2. 

9 

 
 
 
                                                            
1.2 Examples of how the EU budget was used to address internal and external political priorities 

Example 1- COMPACT FOR GROWTH AND JOBS: How the Project Bond Initiative helped to 
act as a leverage on additional financing for important infrastructure projects 
To  give  an  additional  boost  to  the  attainment  of  Europe  2020  objectives  the  EU  Heads  of  State 
adopted the "Compact for Growth and Jobs" in June 2012. This initiative foresees several dedicated 
actions to be undertaken by Member States, the Commission and the EIB9. One of these actions was 
the launch of the pilot project 'Project Bond Initiative (PBI)' which is financed by the EIB and through 
EUR  230  million  from  the  EU  budget.  It  was  estimated  that  the  pilot  PBI  would  bring  additional 
investments  of  up  to  EUR  4.5  billion  into  pilot  projects  in  key  transport,  energy  and  broadband 
infrastructure, providing employment while also contributing to future economic growth and jobs.  

Evidence  that  became  available  in  2014  on  the  Project  Bond  Initiative  showed  that  the  initiative 
was  able  to  mobilise  additional  finance.  Out  of  the  EUR  4.5  billion,  around  2.1  billion  of  project 
capital costs have been covered through the financing facilitated by the EU/EIB credit enhancement 
of infrastructure projects across the three sectors, with up to approx. EUR 2 billion more of capital 
costs of projects in the pipeline to be covered in the near future.  

So far, financial agreements for four projects receiving contributions from the EU budget have been 
finalised: 

1.  The new Belgian A11 motorway (total project cost EUR 657.5 million): Once completed, 
the A11 will provide a direct motorway connection between the port of Zeebrugge and 
the European motorway network.  

2.  The extension of the German A7 Bordesholm-Hamburg motorway (total project cost EUR 
772  million):  The  A7  is  the  longest  motorway  in  Germany  and  one  of  most  important 
North-South  links  between  Scandinavia  and  central  Europe.  The  project  enables 
increased traffic on the motorway.  

3.  The broadband  infrastructure  (Axione)  project  in  France  (total  project  cost  EUR  189.1 
million): The credit enhancement structure provided by the EIB with the support of the 
EU budget in the form of a letter of credit, allowed the company to raise the first listed 
and rated project bond in Europe in the telecommunications sector. The project supports 
the  maintenance  and  expansion  of  a  broadband  network  in  regions  of  France  with  a 
predominantly low population density. 

4.  The  504MW  Greater  Gabbard  offshore  transmission  project  (OFTO)  in  the  UK  (total 
project costs EUR 420 million): This was the first OFTO project of sufficient size to have 
attracted the interest of capital markets. The Greater Gabbard transaction demonstrated 
the  significant  pricing  advantage  achievable  on  a  public  bond  issue  using  credit 
enhancement under PBI compared to conventional bank financing. 

The leverage achieved10 on the signed transactions to date is around nine. Compared to EIB senior 
lending,  the  subordinated  position  taken  by  the  EIB  under  the  PBI  had  a  demonstrable  catalytic 
effect  in  attracting  private  investors  to  projects.  The  EIB's  role  as  a  credit  enhancement  provider 
gave private investors assurance that the Bank will become involved at an early stage in the project 

9 The 4th edition of the Article 318 Report included information on the redeployment of Structural Funds to boost growth and jobs. 
10 Total project cost per EC Contribution committed.  

10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
procurement. This allowed the bonds issued by the respective project companies to have attractive 
risk profiles for a wide range of institutional investors. The project bond option associated with the 
PBI credit enhancement resulted in significant pricing advantages for the public authority compared 
to bank financing, which in turn delivered higher value to consumers.  

The "Compact for Growth and Jobs" also devoted a major share of the Structural Funds (now called 
European  Structural  and  Investment  Funds  –  ESI  Funds)  to  growth  enhancing  measures  such  as 
support of research and innovation, SMEs and enhancing employment. Chapter 2.1 B of this report 
provides a more detailed account on the performance of the ESI Funds in these areas, as well as on 
the investments mobilised in this regard under the new MFF.    

Example 2 - FIGHTING EBOLA: How a coordinated EU response helped to quickly provide 
financial, organisations and humanitarian assistance to the Ebola epidemic in Africa  

The  2014  Ebola  pandemic  is  an  ongoing  crisis  of  global  proportion  and  of  global  concern.  It 
concentrated in three Western African countries (Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea) and by the end of 
2014  had  claimed  some  8,800  lives  and  over  22,000  cases  of  infected  patients.  Eradicating  Ebola 
requires responses locally largely dependent on global contributions.   

As  part  of  the  larger  international  action,  the  EU  rapidly  mobilised  funds  to  fight  the  epidemic 
amounting  to  over  EUR  1.1  billion11 by  December  2014.    The  contribution  stemming  from  the  EU 
budget  amounted  to  approximately  EUR  417  million12 and  was  mobilised  across  different  Budget 
Headings as illustrated below. 

EU Budget towards Ebola (EUR 417 M) 

Humanitarian aid
IcsP

Development aid
R&D (H2020 + IMI)

16% 

33% 

4% 

47% 

The EU budget contributes to epidemic surveillance, diagnostics, treatment and medical supplies; the 
deployment  of  doctors,  nurses  and  mobile  laboratories;  training  of  health  workers  and  awareness 
rising actions. Furthermore, beyond the coordination of the answers, the EU's role was to enhance 
the capacities of third countries to answer these threats. It supported the stabilisation of the affected 
countries and is presently assisting them in their recovery. 

Throughout  the  course  of  2014,  the  European  Union  demonstrated  its  added  value  in  several 
respects:  

11 This figure includes funding from the Member States and the Commission. 
12 The  funds  included  EUR  68.5  million  in  humanitarian  funding  channelled  through  humanitarian  partner  organisations  addressing  the 
most urgent needs; EUR 194 million of development and early recovery assistance to reinforce the capacity of governments to deliver vital 
public  services;  EUR  16.5  million  through  IcSP  support  aimed  at  reducing  tensions  and  hostilities  in  the  affected  countries  and  EUR  138 
million for research under Horizon 2020 and IMI. 

11 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
  Effectiveness:  EU  action  was  the  only  way  to  deliver  rapid  and  effective  results  in  a 
coordinated manner. The EU for instance coordinated preventive actions within the EU such 
as sharing of information and best practices, trained health professionals, and maintained an 
extensive network of humanitarian field experts. 

  Efficiency:  Action  at  EU  level  offered  better  value  for  money  because  resources  and 
expertise were pooled. It was able to exploit economies of scale that resulted in added value. 
For  example,  via  Horizon  2020,  cost-effective  treatments,  vaccines  and  rapid  diagnose 
methods are being developed. 

  Synergy:  EU  action  complemented  actions  at  Member  State  level  and  brought  a  leverage 

effect in that it reduced disparities and created synergies. 

The following shows the contributions made to the overall effort from the various EU programmes. 

Personnel and Equipment 

The Ebola situation is being closely monitored through the Emergency Response Coordination Centre 
(ERCC), which serves as a response hub under authority of the EU Ebola Coordinator Commissioner, 
Christos Stylianides. The ERCC provides a coordination platform to facilitate an efficient coordination 
of European assistance. An Ebola task force has been set up meeting daily to define joint actions.  

Another critical element has been air transport for the entry and circulation of health workers and 
supplies.  With  the  support  of  the  ERCC  a  Dutch  naval  vessel  was  used  to  deliver  5,000  tons  of 
assistance from nine Member States – including ambulances, trucks, mobile hospitals and protective 
equipment. The EU also put in place a medical evacuation system for all international relief workers – 
a vital precondition for ensuring that more health workers could travel to the region.   

Research  

Following the call by the World Health Organisation (WHO)  on the international community to find 
ways to help in its fight against Ebola, the Commission mobilised financing from Horizon 2020 and in 
an unprecedentedly short timeframe managed to start research projects in October 2014. In parallel, 
the  Innovative  Medicines  Initiative  (IMI),  a  public-private  partnership  between  the  European 
Commission  and  the  pharmaceutical  industry  in  Europe,  leveraged  EUR  101  million  from  the 
pharmaceutical industry.13 

The Commission is also helping with the monitoring and tracking of the epidemic. Through the Joint 
Research  Centre,  the  EU  is  assisting  WHO  in  developing  its  Hazard  Detection  and  Risk  Assessment 
System,  which  is  being  used  to  monitor  the  ongoing  outbreak  in  the  areas  and  countries  already 
affected,  identify  any  further  spread  of  the  disease  as  early  as  possible,  and  identify  response 
measures.  

A  coordinated  research  effort  both  in  emergency  situations  and  in  the  inter-epidemic  periods  is  a 
crucial element of responding efficiently and rapidly to future infectious outbreaks. For this reason, 
the  Commission  has  taken  a  lead  in  establishing  the  Global  Research  Collaboration  for  Infectious 

13 http://ec.europa.eu/research/health/infectious-diseases/emerging-epidemics/ebola_en.html 

12 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
Disease Preparedness, which links together research funders from all continents. Its goal is to mount 
an effective research response within 48 hours of an outbreak.  

Public Health and Preparedness inside Europe  

Via  the  Health  programme,  several  laboratories  joined  forces  to  improve  diagnostic  capabilities 
through activities that included the drawing up of operational preparedness plans, the purchase of 
material  (diagnostic  kits),  the  training  of  staff  and  the  conduct  of  external  quality  assurance 
exercises. More than 220 samples were tested across the network, which also provided skilled staff 
for  similar  laboratory  activities  in  West  Africa  (Guinea,  Liberia).  This  experience  is  extremely 
important as it becomes a reference for response at European level in case of similar occurrences. 

Preparations were also made for possible Ebola cases in the EU which included designating some 50 
centres  across  the  EU  with  more  than  20,000  hospital  beds,  a  network  of  specialised  laboratories, 
ambulance  and  air  transport,  training  of  thousands  of  medical  personnel  and  publication  of 
information messages at air and sea ports and in the mass media. Moreover,  an EU mechanism for 
medical  evacuation  of  Ebola  cases  from  Africa  to  Europe  has  been  established  in  October  2014  in 
cooperation with the World Health Organisation. Under its auspices, four Ebola patients have been 
transferred to a hospital in Europe. 

Regional Preparedness 

To  support preparedness  in West  Africa  (and beyond), the Instrument  contributing  to  Stability  and 
Peace  (IcSP)  and  other  ongoing  EU  programmes  provided  assistance  –  for  example,  by  helping  to 
refurbish  and  equip  an  Ebola  treatment  unit  at  the  central  hospital  in  Cote  d’Ivoire;  helping  to 
provide a water and sanitation programme with hygiene messages in Guinea Bissau; or setting up a 
facility in Burkina Faso to support the national preparedness plan. 

Regarding  the response  to  the  Ebola  outbreak  in  general  and  the impact of  the  EU  involvement  in 
particular, a number of lessons-learned exercises have already started, both among the EU services 
and  with  Member  States,  and  at  the  level  of  the  UN  with  the  nomination  of  a  high-level  panel 
appointed by the UN Secretary General. The results of these different exercises will become available 
in 2015.    

13 

 
 
 
 
2. OVERVIEW OF RESULTS ACHIEVED   
The  following  section  provides  an  overview  of  results  achieved  in  2014  for  the  main  financial 
programmes. It is structured according to budget headings. The chapters 2.1-2.3 give account of the 
Union's internal policies and chapter 2.4 of the Union's external policies. The focus is on initial results 
as longer term results and impacts have not yet occurred. 

Each chapter is structured as follows: 

1.  A  section  on  the  2014-2020  MFF  programmes  covered  by  budget  heading,  their  financial 
coverage  and,  where  relevant,  how  they  contribute  to  the  Europe  2020  strategy.  An 
overview of early progress in implementation is given where possible; 

2.  A section on the results and impacts achieved by the programmes financed under the MFF 

2007-2013, including examples of EU added value; and 

3.  A section on the operational performance, which describes evidence of operational aspects 
of  performance  as  well  as  Commission  actions  to  improve  programme  management  and 
implementation with a view to boosting the performance of the programmes.  

2.1 Smart and Inclusive Growth (Budget Heading 1)  

A) COMPETITIVENESS FOR GROWTH AND JOBS (Heading 1a)  
In 2014, the main programmes under  heading 1a 'Competiveness for growth and jobs' (accounting  
for 95% of  committed funding) are Horizon 2020, large infrastructure projects (EGNOS and Galileo, 
ITER,  Copernicus),  the  Connecting  Europe  Facility  (CEF),  and  the  Erasmus+  programme14 funding 
education,  training,  youth  and  sport  actions.  Although  smaller  in  absolute  budgetary  terms,  the 
actions  funded  under  the  COSME  programme  are  significant  for  European  SMEs.  The  remaining 
smaller programmes account for 5% of funding and focus on specific issues that need a solution at 
European level.  

In terms of  budget  commitment appropriations, EUR 15.97  billion has been allocated to  the above 
programmes under heading 1a for 2014, which represents 12% of total 2014 EU budget for headings 
1-4. 

Programme 

Horizon 2020, Framework Programme for Research and Innovation 

Large infrastructure projects (ITER, EGNOS and Galileo, Copernicus) 

Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) 
Education, Training, Youth and Sport (Erasmus+) 

Competitiveness of enterprises and SMEs (COSME) 
Other (e.g. PSCI Customs, Fiscalis, EaSI, EGF) 

TOTAL 

Budget 2014 commitment 
appropriations (EUR 
million) 

9,023.1 

2,418.9 

1,976.2 
1,558.8 

254.1 
743.6 

15,974.7 

14 Combining all the EU's former schemes for education, training, youth and sport, including the Lifelong Learning Programme (Erasmus, 
Leonardo da Vinci, Comenius, Grundtvig), Youth in Action and five international cooperation programmes (Erasmus Mundus, Tempus, Alfa, 
Edulink and the programme for cooperation with industrialised countries). 
14 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
These main financial programmes contribute to the Europe 2020 priorities of Smart and Sustainable 
Growth.  They  support  investment  in  Europe's  future  through  a  variety  of  different  programmes 
aimed at boosting research and innovation, improving skills levels and (life-long) education, fostering 
entrepreneurship,  facilitating  the  use  of  smart  networks  and  the  digital  economy,  building 
interconnected  trans-European  networks,  investing  in  pan-European  infrastructures,  and  aiming  at 
greater energy and resource efficiency. 

The Europe 2020 headline target of increasing investment in R&D to 3% of GDP cannot be met, and 
was never intended to, by EU funding alone, given that it represents about 10% of total public R&D 
spending  predominantly  supported  by  the  Member  States.  The  EU  budget  aims  to  maximise  the 
effects  of  EU  funding  by  fostering partnerships  with  and  among  Member States  and  private sector 
organisations  through  Joint  Programming  and  public-private  partnerships  (PPPs)  and  by  creating 
leverage effects on EU funding through financial facilities under Horizon 2020, CEF, and COSME.  

The programmes under this heading are carried out through direct  management. As of  2014, their 
implementation  has  been  partly  outsourced  to  five  Executive  Agencies:  REA,  ERCEA,  EASME,  INEA, 
and EACEA.  

In 2014, implementation of all programmes under this Heading started. The 2014 calls under Horizon 
2020 already generated a lot of interest. For 79 concluded calls, 1,410 grant agreements were signed. 
In  particular,  the  demand  for  mobility  funded  under  Erasmus+  was  higher  than  expected  (about 
21,000 projects submitted in the Education and Training field and more than 11,000 for Youth) and 
for cooperation projects (some 12,000 projects submitted) the demand was very high compared with 
the budget available (with selection rates of around 15% or lower in most cases). The attractiveness 
of  the  Framework  Programme  for  Research  is  further  demonstrated  by  the  number  of  non-EU 
countries which requested to be associated with it. In the course of 2014, Horizon 2020 Association 
Agreements  have  been  signed  with  12  countries15 and  another  two  have  asked  for  association16. 
Renewals of Science and Technology Agreements with USA, Ukraine and China were also completed.  

Regarding Galileo, EGNOS and Copernicus, the challenge facing the Commission for the years 2015-
2020 is to promote the increase in the uptake and commercial exploitation by user communities and 
commercial  players17.  It  is  early  days  as  yet,  but  the  outlook  remains  positive  that  the  range  of 
services  to  be  provided  can  continue  to  expand  as  planned  and  the  commercial  take-up  of  the 
services offered will be satisfactory.  

Results and Impacts achieved 2007-2013 MFF programmes 

The  7th  Framework  Programme  for  Research,  Technological  Development  and  Demonstration 
activities (FP7) 
EU  research  policy  through  FP7  contributed  to  the  Europe  2020  headline  target  of  "increasing 
investment in R&D to 3% of GDP" (2.02% in 2013). While awaiting the results of the on-going ex-post 

15 Albania,  Bosnia  and  Herzegovina,  the  Former  Yugoslav  Republic  of  Macedonia,  Montenegro,  Serbia,  Turkey,  Iceland,  Norway,  Israel, 
Moldova, the Faroe Islands and Switzerland (Switzerland has been associated to some parts of Horizon 2020, EURATOM and ITER until 31 
December  2016  with  retroactive  effect  as  of  15  September  2014  following  the  political  agreement  reached  with  the  EU  after  the  Swiss 
referendum). 
16 Georgia and Armenia. 
17 In 2013, the annual global market for global navigation satellite products and services was valued at EUR 175 billion and it is expected to 
grow to EUR 237 billion by 2020.  

15 

 
 
 
                                                            
evaluation  work,  the  latest  available  participation  statistics  for  FP7  show  that  between  2007-2013 
487  concluded  calls  received  nearly  136,000  proposals,  involving  more  than  600,000  applicant 
organisations and individuals out of which approximately 20% were financed. The aggregate project 
cost of the retained proposals for the period 2007-2013 is EUR 64.3 billion and the corresponding EU 
financial contribution requested is EUR 45.4 billion out of the total EUR 55.5 billion available.18 

Small  and  Medium-sized  Enterprises  (SMEs)  account  for  46%  of  all 
industry  organisations 
participating  in  projects  for  the  period  2007-2013.  SME  participation  in  collaborative  research 
projects reached 17.4% (by October 2013) thereby exceeding the set target of 15%. The average EU 
contribution to SMEs participating in the FP7 for the period of 2007-2013 is EUR 259,772 per SME.  

By  December  2014,  48%  of  all  FP7  research  projects  were  completed.  They  generated  more  than 
38,600  publications  as  scientific  output  of  which  nearly  40%  were  published  in  high-impact,  peer-
reviewed journals.  

For  the  7,288  completed  FP7  projects,  a  technological  output  of  1,586  intellectual  property  rights 
applications  were  reported,  including  1,291  patent 
applications19 (81%). This relatively high percentage of 
patent  applications  serves  to  indicate  the  possible 
exploitable 
innovation  potential  of  the  research 
undertaken. 

levels  of 

researchers 

FP7  participation  also  contributed  to  sustainable 
employment 
in  Europe. 
According to a 2014 evaluation study, around 142,000 
additional  researchers  were  hired  by  the  beneficiary 
research  teams  during  the  implementation  of  FP7 
projects.  About  43%  stayed  in  their  teams  after 
project completion (which is a net retention rate of 1 
out of  2.3  hired researchers).  This  corresponds  to  an 
job  creation  of  61,000 
estimated  direct  new 
in  participating 
additional  employment  positions 
organisations  after  the  end  of  the  project.  FP 
participation  also  helped  to  increase  the  share  of 
women researchers in the beneficiary research teams 
and of international researchers.20 

"for 

John  O'Keefe 

The  2014  Nobel  Prizes  in  Medicine 
were  jointly  awarded  to  Professors 
Edvard  I.  Moser,  May-Britt  Moser 
and 
their 
discoveries  of  cells  that  constitute  a 
positioning  system 
in  the  brain". 
These  achievements  were  notably 
based  on  FP5  and  FP7  health 
collaborative 
projects. 
Edvard  Moser  and  May  Britt-Moser 
are  also  grantees  of  the  ERC  and 
were also former Marie Skłodowska-
Curie project coordinators. The 2014 
Chemistry  Nobel  Prize  winner  Prof. 
Stefan  W.  Hell  from  German  Cancer 
Research  Center  is  a  former,  1996-
1997 Marie Skłodowska-Curie fellow. 

research 

Meanwhile,  the  Marie  Skłodowska-Curie  actions  for 
the  2007-2013  period  supported  about  50,000 
researchers (including approximately 10,000 PhD candidates) of 136 different nationalities working in 
more than 81 countries.  

18 CORDA extraction date 19/05/2015. The rest of the funding was allocated to the Risk Financing Sharing Facility, ITER, Fusion programme, 
Direct actions (Joint Research Centre) and administrative expenditures. 
19 In addition, 295 patent applications are reported in the Information and Communication Technologies Programme. 
20 The  same  2014  evaluation  study  estimated  that  44%  of  the  additionally  hired  researchers  were  women.  Concerning  the  hiring  of 
international researchers, however, the research teams in the FP7 Capacities and Cooperation specific programmes were less likely to hire 
international researchers than the teams in Ideas and People. In People, more than two thirds of the additionally hired researchers came 
from  abroad,  closely  followed  by  Ideas  (62%).  In  Capacities  and  Cooperation,  however,  the  share  of  additionally  hired  international 
researchers was substantially below the FP average of 50%. 

16 

 
 
                                                            
More than one out of five FP7 projects in the 'Cooperation specific programme' includes a third 
country participant (22%), coming from 105 different third countries. The predominant research 
areas  in  which  third  country  participation  takes  place  are  in  Health;  Food,  Agriculture  & 
Biotechnology; ICT; and Environment. USA and BRIC countries constitute the top 5 participating 
third countries.  

A  2014  survey  study  undertaken  among  international  FP  participants  in  the  Cooperation 
programme of FP7 demonstrated that the advantages of FP7 international cooperation prevail 
over national funding mechanisms, because FP participation offers better: 
Access to the international research community/network; 
• 
Connection with leading minds in the field; 
• 
Reputation, position and status for participating researchers/organisations; 
• 
Leverage of available funding/extra funding; 
• 
Conditions for ensuring the establishment of international consortia. 
• 

Large infrastructure projects  
In 2014, Switzerland signed an Association Agreement with the EU and Euratom covering some parts 
of  Horizon  2020,  Euratom  research  programme  and  ITER  activities  for  the  period  2014-2020.  This 
agreement ensures therefore the participation of Switzerland in ITER activities allows Switzerland to 
be  a  full  member  of  the  European  Joint  Undertaking  for  ITER  (F4E)  in  charge  of  delivering  the  EU 
contribution to the ITER organization. 

The financial programmes supporting the European satellite navigation systems (EGNOS and Galileo) 
and the European earth observation system GMES-Copernicus continued to deliver results in 2014. 

About 65% of all existing satellite navigation receiver models are now EGNOS-enabled, meaning that 
these  receivers  can  use  the  EGNOS  message.  In  Europe,  more  than  170  EGNOS-based  landing 
approaches  are  currently  available  at  more  than  110  airports  in  15  countries,  which  allow  better 
navigation when landing at an airport with reduced visibility conditions. The Airbus A350 is the first 
large commercial aircraft providing an option to land with EGNOS. From the 750 firm orders, most of 
them contracted the EGNOS option. EGNOS is also used for inland maritime navigation in the 400km-
long Hungarian Danube stretch. A multinational gas and oil company is in the process of equipping all 
its  1500  trucks  in  Italy  and  400  trucks  outside  Italy  with  EGNOS-enabled  devices  to  monitor  the 
transport  of  hydrocarbons.  About  90%  of  high-end  combine  harvesters  currently  sold  by  a  leading 
agricultural machinery manufacturer are equipped with EGNOS-enabled receivers.  

For  Galileo,  following  corrective  measures,  the  programme  is  back  on  track  after  delays  were 
experienced.  In  August  2014,  two  Galileo  satellites  were  placed  into  an  incorrect  orbit  due  to  a 
launch anomaly. They have since been moved to an improved orbit and their test results proved  to 
be positive.  The launches of  Galileo satellites resumed in  March 2015,  keeping  the overall plan for 
the  deployment  of  the  Galileo  constellation  on-track.  Regarding  Copernicus,  Sentinel  1A  was 
launched in April 2014. Four months later, it acquired data, which has been used to map the rupture 
caused  by  the biggest  earthquake  that  has  shaken  northern  California  in 25  years. This  shows  that 
the European satellite Industry is able to operate on a global scale.  

Loan Guarantee for the trans-European transport network projects  
The "loan guarantee instrument for the trans-European transport network projects" (LGTT) is a joint 
Commission-EIB financial 
implement  TEN-T 
infrastructure projects. A Commission capital contribution of EUR 250 million leveraged total capital 

in  2008  to  accelerate  and 

instrument  created 

17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
investment of more than EUR 12 billion in the six traffic revenue-risk TEN-T transactions in France, 
Germany, Portugal, Spain and United Kingdom in the port, road and rail sectors at the end of 2014.  

Erasmus and Marie Skłodowska-Curie  
European actions in the area of mobility contributed to the Europe 2020 headline target of having "at 
least 40% of 30-34 year olds completing third level qualification" (now at 36.9%). Since the inception 
of Erasmus, the programme has encouraged the mobility of over 3 million beneficiaries. 

A study to assess the effects of mobility on the skills and employability of students was finalised in 
2014  and  concluded  that  52%  of  Erasmus  students  increased  their  "employability  skills"  due  to 
their  experience  abroad21.  These  skills  are  highly  sought-after  by  employers  who  considered 
experience abroad to be important for employability. The study found that Erasmus students are in a 
better position to find their first job and to enhance their career development22.  

COSME (Competitiveness of Enterprises and Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs) and its 
sub-programme Erasmus for Young Entrepreneurs 
European  actions  improved  the  business  environment  for  enterprises  by  helping  to  decrease  the 
time and cost to start-up a business from 5.4 working days in 2012 to 3.5 in 2014 (35% reduction) 
with an average cost of EUR 313 in 2014, down from EUR 372 in 2012 (15% reduction).   

The evaluation of the Erasmus for Young Entrepreneurs programme (EYE) demonstrated that 36.5% 
of EYE ‘would-be’ entrepreneurs started a business after the exchange. Against the background of a 
5% drop in enterprise births in Europe during 2009-2011, and a 3% decrease in the number of micro-
enterprises in 2010-2012, this is a positive and encouraging result. Other notable aspects presented 
in the evaluation study concern the relatively high survival rates of new entrepreneurs compared to 
European SME average and the ability to hire new staff: Only 79% of European start-ups survive after 
two  years  of  activity,  while  only  57%  of  them  reach  their  three-year  anniversary  while  87%  of  EYE 
New Entrepreneurs are still in business.  

Other programmes 
Performance  evidence  of  smaller  programmes  (Fiscalis,  Customs  and  Hercule)  became  available  in 
2014.  The  objectives  of  these  programmes  are  not  directly  linked  to  Europe  2020  goals,  but  they 
address specific needs related to cooperation between Member States in the fields of taxation and 
customs and the protection of the Union's financial interests. 

The  external  evaluation  of  the  Fiscalis  2013  programme  concluded  that  the  programme  provided 
Member  State  tax  administrations  with  the  means  to  effectively  exchange  information  (e.g. 
standardised  tax e-forms,  etc.). Approximately 75%  of the budget was  committed to  the operation 
and support of the IT systems supporting the exchange of information between tax administrations. 
One  example  is  the  VAT  Information  Exchange  System  (VIES)  on  the  web  system,  which  allowed  a 
saving of EUR 160 million for economic operators and national administrations. Important efficiency 

21 To produce sufficient quantitative data, the research team launched five online surveys in 2013, resulting in the participation of 56,733 
students (includes mobile students with and without Erasmus experience and non-mobile students), 18,618 alumni (83% mobile with and 
without Erasmus), 4,986 staff (academic and non-academic, mobile and non-mobile), 964 higher education institutions and 652 employers 
(of  which  55%  were  SMEs)  across  the  34  countries  participating in  the  programme.  In  total,  the  sample  for  the  study  comprises  78,891 
responses. 
22 One in three students who did an Erasmus work placement was offered a job by their host company, and about one in ten Erasmus 
students started their own company after the work placement. 

18 

 
 
 
                                                            
gains  were  delivered  as  the  programme  streamlined  and  simplified  the  exchange  of  information 
and  monitoring  thanks  to  standardisation,  digitisation  and interoperability of  means.  In terms  of 
effectiveness, Fiscalis helped to identify approximately EUR 3.26 billion of tax amount due, thereby 
directly contributing to the Union's fight against tax evasion.  

The  evaluation  of  Customs  2013  concluded  that  the  programme  contributed  significantly  to 
enhanced  safety  and  security,  the  protection  of  the  EU’s  financial  interest  and  the  facilitation  of 
trade.  The  financed  trans-European  IT  systems  allowed  for  burden  sharing  between  the  European 
Union and participating countries. Furthermore, the financed risk management systems contributed 
to the  enhanced  control  of  dangerous  goods  and  to  the  effective  identification  and  collection  of 
customs  duties.  The  Customs  Union  has  become  more  secure,  which  had  a  direct  and  positive 
impact  on  protecting  the  EU’s  financial  interests.  The  evaluation  also  found  that  the  financed 
networking  actions  were  crucial  and  helped  ensuring  the  consistent  application  of  customs 
legislation, spreading of best practices and building the trust needed for administrations to act is if 
they were one. 

The evaluations issued a number of recommendations, most of them of an operational nature (such 
as  improvements  to  the  IT  systems  and  applications).  An  action  plan  setting  out  how  these 
operational recommendations will be addressed in the course of the current programming period is 
being drawn up. 

The  evaluation  of  HERCULE  concluded  that  the  Programme  reached  its  objectives  and  intended 
impact, namely protecting the Union’s financial interests, and that it delivered results in terms of (i) 
support  to  law  enforcement  and  custom  authorities;  (ii)  enhanced  cooperation  and  (iii)  access  to 
data and analysis. However, the evaluation also showed that efficiency gains are possible if Member 
States share best practices with respect to purchasing and procurement of equipment.  

Operational aspects of performance 
In  2014,  the  Commission  moved  to  the  more  intensive  use  of  the  Executive  Agencies  following  its 
positive experience with implementation of parts of the previous MFF programmes for research and 
innovation.  The  2014  Synthesis  report  identified  a  number  of  challenges  in  terms  of  governance 
supervision  and/or  accountability  related  to  the  transfer  of  programme  management  to  executive 
agencies (EAs) and Joint undertakings (JUs) and proposed appropriate remedial action. 

Overall,  in  2014,  three  major  changes  were  introduced  by  the  Research  Family  DGs,  aiming  to 
increase effectiveness and efficiency in implementation: 

  Creation of a Common Support Centre (CSC): The implementation of FP7 through different 
Directorates-General  and  other  bodies  led,  in  some  cases,  to  divergent  practices  across 
different parts of the programme. This was noted by the Court of Auditors which, called for 
the consistent and uniform treatment of all beneficiaries and the coherent implementation 
of  the FP.  The Commission has  taken  up  these  recommendations:  the role  of  the CSC  is  to 
coordinate,  supervise  and  ensure  coherence  across  the  different  implementing  bodies, 
thereby enabling uniform treatment of beneficiaries. 

Setting  up  of  a  Common  Audit  Service  (CAS):  For  Horizon  2020  the  CAS  will  undertake  all 
audits, including for Executive Agencies and Joint Undertakings. It is a major step forward in 

19 

 
 
 
 

ensuring  a  harmonised  approach and  also  in ensuring  that  audit  burden  on beneficiaries  is 
minimised.  
In 2014, a new on-line Participant Portal was set up, regrouping all relevant information on 
EU programmes for research, innovation and competitiveness. The Portal provides one single 
entry point for  Horizon  2020  applicants  and  beneficiaries  to  get  information  on all  support 
schemes  and  all  calls  in  this  area.  To  make  the  system  as  user-friendly  as  possible,  the 
Commission seeks continuous advice from users.  

B) ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND TERRITORIAL COHESION (Budget Heading 1B) 
Heading 1B of the financial framework covers the ‘European Regional Development Fund’ (ERDF), the 
‘Cohesion Fund’ (CF), the ‘European Social Fund’ (ESF) – including the ‘Youth Employment Initiative 
(YEI)  specific  top-up  allocation’,  and  the  ‘Fund  for  European  Aid  to  the  Most  Deprived’  (FEAD).  All 
these programmes are delivered under shared management.  

The ERDF, CF and ESF constitute the Cohesion Policy of the EU. Its principal objective is to strengthen 
economic,  social  and  territorial  cohesion  between  regions  and  Member  States,  by  concentrating 
resources on less developed regions and Member States. Cohesion Policy is also the most important 
EU investment instrument for the delivery of the Europe 2020 objectives supporting growth and job 
creation at EU level and structural reforms at national level. Cohesion funding represents more than 
50% of the investment budget in a number of Member States (HU, SK, LT), indicating its importance 
in supporting their strategic investments. In other Member States, the contribution is more modest, 
particularly so in the more developed ('Competitiveness') regions and Member States. 

The  Fund  for  European  Aid  to  the  Most  Deprived  ('FEAD')  is  a  new  fund  that  builds  on  the 
discontinued programme of aid for the most deprived people, with dedicated financing contributing 
to  eradicating  poverty  and  focusing  on  food  and  basic  material  assistance  as  well  as  the  social 
inclusion of the most deprived persons.  

In  terms  of  budget  commitment  appropriations,  EUR  47.5  billion  has  been  allocated  to  the 
programmes  under  heading  1B  for  2014,  which  represents  35.9%  of  total  2014  EU  budget  for 
headings 1-4. 

Programme23 

Regional convergence (Less developed regions)  
Transition regions  
Competitiveness (More developed regions)  
Cohesion Fund (CF)  
European territorial cooperation 
Outermost and sparsely populated regions 
Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived  
Youth Employment Initiative (specific top-up allocation) 
Other 
TOTAL PROGRAMMES  

Budget 2014  
commitment    
appropriations   
(EUR million) 

23,243.6 
4,695.8 
7,400.5 
7,936.2 
505.7 
209.1 
514.3 
1,804.1 
1,187.1 
47,496.4 

23 The ERDF and ESF commitment appropriations are included under the cohesion policy strands presented in 
the table (i.e. regional convergence; transition regions; competitiveness; ETC; outermost regions)  

20 

 
 
                                                            
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
In total EUR 351.8 billion is available for investment in Cohesion Policy in the 2014-2020 period. The 
adoption  of  the  2014-2020  legislation  only  in  December  2013  delayed  the  process  of  adoption  of 
Partnership Agreements (PAs) laying down the strategic investment priorities of Member States, and 
of  Operational  Programmes  (OPs)  translating  these  priorities  into  investments.  This  prevented  the 
foreseen  start  of  implementation  in  early  2014  but  the  Commission  has  accelerated  the  follow-up 
work to ensure that all PAs were adopted by the end of 2014. The discussions with Member States 
on the OPs continued in 2015. They were finalised for FEAD with all OPs adopted by the Commission 
by March 2015. For Cohesion Policy (ERDF; CF; ESF) 241 OPs out of 311 (77%) were adopted by April 
2015. As concerns the Youth Employment Initiative (YEI), 20 Member States were eligible and 34 OPs 
have a YEI component. 33 of these OPs have already been adopted. A further 24 European Territorial 
Cooperation  programmes  supported  by  ERDF  were  also  adopted.  For  20  Member  States24 all  OPs 
have been adopted while for Spain, Italy, and the Czech Republic a number of programmes remain to 
be  adopted.  This  means  that  limited  results  under  these  programmes  will  be  available  in  the  first 
years of the new programming period.   

During 2014-2020, Cohesion Policy programmes will concentrate resources on a limited number of 
policy areas contributing to the pursuit of the Europe 2020 strategy, thereby aiming to maximise the 
impact of EU investment. Throughout the discussions on the OPs the Commission aimed to link the 
investment  priorities  under  the  OP  with  problems 
identified  under  the  country-specific 
recommendations  during  the  European  Semester  process.  For  example,  in  Bulgaria  the  Cohesion 
Policy investments will target the improvement of the business environment, in particular for SMEs' 
access  to  finance  which  is  a  structural  problem  identified  in  recurrent  CSRs  for  this  Member  State 
(2012-2014). According to the information available at mid-March 2015, out of all the ERDF-CF OPs 
adopted  so  far  EUR  86.1  billion  will  be  invested  in  smart  growth  (EUR  40.2  billion  R&D  and 
innovation, EUR 13.5 billion in the digital agenda, EUR 32.4 billion in SMEs), and EUR 88.2 billion in 
sustainable growth (EUR 37.6 billion for the low carbon economy; EUR 33.5 billion for transport and 
energy  infrastructure  and  EUR  17.1  billion  for  preserving  and  protecting  the  environment).  As 
regards the ESF, through its four thematic objectives, it contributes to the Europe 2020 targets for 
employment, education and fight against poverty. Contributing to both smart and inclusive growth 
EUR 73.7 billion25 has been programmed in the 150 OPs adopted until end of April (out of 187 OPs) 
under  the  ESF  and  the  YEI  for  actions  promoting  sustainable  and  quality  employment,  social 
inclusion, education, strengthening institutional capacity and efficient public administration. 

Results and Impacts achieved 2007-2013 MFF programmes 
The 2007-2013 cohesion policy programmes continue to operate until the end of 2015 which means 
that significant further progress towards final targets will still be made.  

Reported  Cohesion  Policy  achievements  up  to  2013  is  based  primarily  on  the  latest  available 
monitoring information obtained from the annual implementation reports submitted by the Member 
States in mid-2014. They should be seen in the light of the general Europe 2020 progress described in 
Section 1.1 of this Report.  

24 AT, BE, HR, CY, DK, EE, FI, FR, DE, EL, IE, LV, LT, LU, MT, NL, PL, PT, SK, SI 
25 ESF and YEI allocations (technical assistance included) 

21 

 
 
                                                            
For the ERDF and CF the information illustrated in the graphs below is based on the core indicators 
which  can  be  aggregated  to  the  EU  level26.  For  the  ESF,  this  information  is  mainly  data  on 
beneficiaries  and findings  from the ESF Expert  Evaluation Network Synthesis report (EEN Report),27 
summarising evidence collected by the Member States.  

It should be noted that the use of indicators for which information can be aggregated at EU level was 
not compulsory during the 2007-2013 period so reporting is not comprehensive, with the exception 
of  the  compulsory  reporting  on  participants  for  ESF28.  The  core  indicators  reflect  only  some  of  the 
outputs  of  the  policy,  not  the  results  which  are  programme  specific.    They  illustrate  the  scale  of 
activity undertaken through Cohesion Policy which contribute (albeit modestly) to the Europe 2020 
priorities. 

Smart Growth (ERDF and ESF) 
Based  on  the  information  reported  by  Member  States,  Cohesion  Policy  investments  in  the  smart 
growth  area  have  contributed  to  boosting  high-skilled  and  youth  employment,  entrepreneurship 
and the improvement of digital connectivity across the EU.   

For  example,  from  2007  to  2013,  the  ERDF  and  CF  contributed  to  the  creation  of  a  substantial 
number  of  jobs  (Figure  1)  and  facilitated  the  cooperation  of  26,700  enterprises  with  research 
institutes (Figure 2).  

As  regards  job  creation,  this  figure  was  59%  of  the  target  set  in  2007,  demonstrating  the  limiting 
effect of the global financial and economic downturn.  Putting the figure in context, the jobs created 
between  2007  and  2013  represent  4.7%  of  the  employment  increase  required  to  meet  the 
Europe 2020 target of a 75% participation rate.   

The number of enterprises supported to co-operate with research institutes was 87% of the target 
initially  set,  suggesting  that  by  2015  this  target  will  be  fully  met.    Again,  however,  this  figure 
represents only a very small fraction of enterprises in the EU.  

Figure1: Jobs created  

Source: ERDF-CF Annual Implementation Reports  

Figure 2: Number of enterprises cooperating with supported 
research institutions 
Source: ERDF Annual Implementation Reports 

26 The  ex-post  evaluation  of  the  ERDF  and  Cohesion  Fund  checked  the  reliability  of  reported  data.  It  found  that  the  efforts  made  by 
managing authorities during the last few years, often in reaction to Commission comments, have resulted in generally high quality of data 
reported in Annual Implementation Reports.  
27
ec.europa.eu/esf/BlobServlet?docId=452&langId=en 
28 Annex XXIII of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1828/2006 of 8 December 2006  

achievements, 

2007-2013, 

Evaluation 

synthesis 

Network 

report: 

Expert 

Main 

Final 

 ESF 

ESF 

22 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
With the help of ERDF financing some 74,100 Research, technological development and innovation 
(RTD)  projects  were  carried  out,  most  of  them  in  the  more  developed  regions  ('Competitiveness 
regions').  These  led  to  almost  34,800  full-time  research  jobs  being  created,  split  broadly  equally 
between less developed regions ('Convergence regions') and Competitiveness regions. Access to high 
capacity telecommunication networks is a key factor of competitiveness and economic growth. ERDF 
invested, particularly in less developed regions, in the extension of broadband coverage. Broadband 
availability  is  now  close  to  100%  in  nearly  all  EU  regions,  reducing  the  disadvantage  of  less 
developed regions in doing business through the use of digital networks. However, coverage is higher 
than  households' take-up,  although  the latter  has  also  increased significantly  in  recent  years  (from 
56% in 2009 to 76% in 2013). Cohesion  policy  supported  some  5  million additional  households in 
gaining  broadband  coverage  by  the  end  of  2013.    Greece,  France,  Portugal  and  Poland  have  had 
implementation difficulties which the Commission is addressing in the 2014-2020 programmes. 

Enterprise support has been the main source of job creation among all interventions co-financed by 
the  ERDF  so  far.  In  total,  over  209,000  ERDF  projects  to  support  investment  in  SMEs  were 
undertaken across the EU up to the end of 2013 (82% of target). These directly resulted in at least 
274,000 jobs being created in SMEs (many programmes do not report this indicator). In addition, 
some 98,000 new firms across the EU were supported in their start-up phase (105% of the target 
initially  set).  Forms of ERDF assistance included grant and non-grant financial assistance as well as 
advice and guidance provided by ERDF-funded business support centres. 

Early feedback of an analysis of the support to enterprises under the ongoing ex post evaluation of 
ERDF  and  Cohesion  Fund  is  already  available:  The  394  policy  instruments  analysed  so  far  in  detail 
provided  funding  to  nearly  240,000  firms,  of  which  54%  were  micro‐enterprises  (with  less  than  10 
people employed), 30% were small enterprises (with 10-49 employed) and 16% were medium-sized 
enterprises (50-249 employed). 

For  the  115,000  enterprises  for  which  the  sector  of  activity  could  be  identified,  43%  were  in 
manufacturing, 17% were in wholesaling and retailing, 9% were in ICT, 6% were in the tourism, 7% in 
the construction sector and 25% were in other sectors. 

The  ongoing  ex-post  evaluation  of  the  ERDF  is  also  studying  support  to  large  enterprises  and  finds 
that in the seven countries with the highest absolute figures for large enterprise support29 13% (EUR 
4.6 billion) of enterprise support goes to large enterprises. Support in three countries – PL, PT and DE 
– accounts for half of spending. In terms of the share of support to large enterprises in relation to the 
total ERDF support, the focus on large enterprises is most intense in Austria, Portugal and the Czech 
Republic.  In  the  seven  countries  studied,  2,800  large  enterprises  were  supported.  The  average 
support amounted to EUR 1.6 million per firm. Extrapolating these figures it can be estimated that 
roughly  4000  large  enterprises  received  ERDF  support  in  the  EU  as  a  whole  (compared  to  230,000 
SME projects). 79% of ERDF support goes to the manufacturing sector. 

For  ESF,  the  EEN  report  on  2007-2013  achievements  provides  data  that  many  of  the  interventions 
funded by the ESF were focused on youth. Young people were involved in over 20.9 million (31%) of 
the general number of participations. 

In the area of Access to Employment nearly 5.6 million (29%) of the involved participants were young 
people, with ES, FR and UK generating most of these outputs.  

29 PL, DE, PT, ES, HU, IT, CZ 

23 

 
 
                                                            
In the area of enhancing Human Capital over 10.3 million participants (40%) were young people aged 
15-24. This reflects the high proportion in education and training with many of these young  people 
still in school or university.  

Sustainable Growth (ERDF and CF) 

Based on the last figures reported by Member States, the progress of Cohesion Policy investments in 
relation to sustainable growth is uneven across sectors of intervention. The reasons for this and the 
corrective actions taken by the Commission are explained below. 

Aiming  to  ensure  that  development  and  economic  growth  are  sustainable,  Cohesion  Policy  has 
invested in flood and forest fire protection measures. By the end of 2013 over 7 million people have 
benefited from flood protection measures and over 28 million people have benefited from forest 
fire  protection  projects.  The  latter  already  exceeds  the  2015  target  (24  million  people),  which 
indicates the good progress of investments in this sector.   

Contributing to the relevant Europe 2020 target, nearly 2,700 MW additional capacity of renewable 
energy production was created by the end of 2013, representing 0.72% of the estimated minimum 
capacity needed for actual electricity production across the entire EU (Figure 3).  

Figure  3:  Additional  capacity  of  renewable 
energy production (MW) 
Source: ERDF-CF Annual Implementation Reports  

In  addition,  many  projects  have  been  implemented  to  increase  the  energy  efficiency  of  apartment 
blocks and public buildings especially in the EU-12 countries where both types of building are heavy 
energy consumers. The effectiveness and efficiency of these investments is being assessed as part of 
the ongoing ex-post evaluation.  

Thanks  to  the  EU  co-financed  investments  by  the  end  of  2013  over  4.2 million  additional  people 
have benefited from improved water supply and over 5.5 million people were served by improved 
waste-water  treatment  facilities.  However,  these  achievements  stand  at  only  25%  of  the  overall 
targets  for  2015  indicating a  serious  risk  for  the attainment of  the targets.  Project  implementation 
delays  are  notable  in  BG,  SI  and  ES  due  to  lengthy  public  procurement  procedures,  the  economic 
downturn  in  the  construction  sector  and  subsequent  bankruptcies  of  contractors,  long  national 
spatial  planning  procedures  and  in  several  cases  of  low  technical  and  financing  capacity  of  the 
beneficiaries  -  mainly  local  authorities.  The  ex-ante  conditionalities  introduced  with  the  new 
Cohesion Policy legal framework will help to address these obstacles for the 2014-2020 programmes 
and should also affect positively the implementation of projects in the last  years of  the 2007-2013 
OPs.  These  conditionalities  are  aimed  at  tackling  problems  that  past  experience  has  shown  to  be 

24 

 
 
 
 
particularly relevant to programme implementation such as transposition of specific EU legislation, 
the financing of strategic EU projects, or administrative and institutional capacity.  

In the area of transport,  over  3,700  km  of  new roads  have  been built  out  of  which  1,800  km  are 
part of the TEN-T network. In addition, over 3,000 km of railway lines have been upgraded with EU 
financing  (72%  of  the  overall  target).  PL,  CZ,  PT  and  BG  are  the  main  contributors  to  the  progress 
registered.  The  same  holds  true  for  Hungary,  despite  recent  concerns  regarding  the  regularity  of 
project  selection  criteria.  Some  projects,  however,  continue  to  be  affected  by  delays  in  public 
procurement and planning procedures. This is particularly the case with railway projects in Cohesion 
countries  where  the  achievements  reported  by  the  end  of  2013  stand  only  at  around  20%  of  the 
overall  targets.  The  difficulties  will  be  addressed  in  the  2014-2016  period  through  action  plans 
defined in close cooperation between the Commission and national authorities.  

The  ex-post  evaluation  of  ERDF  and  Cohesion  Fund  asked  the  question  as  to  whether  the  Annual 
Implementation Reports provided sufficient information related to major projects30 (many of them in 
the field of transport and environment). This information was found to be generally absent or of poor 
quality.  Based  on  a  survey  of  managing  authorities  the  study  authors  identified  a  total  of  50 
approved  major  projects  where  physical  works  have  not  yet  started  as  of  October  2014.  This 
represents around 7% of the approved major projects. More than half of these are located in the EU-
15.   

The ERDF has also contributed to a more sustainable public transport, which is demonstrated by the 
following example:  

Five major European public transport companies have joined forces in a transnational initiative called 
‘Ticket  to  Kyoto’.  Together,  they  exchange,  innovate,  and  experiment  with  practical  solutions  for 
reducing  CO2  emissions  from  public  transport.  The  coordination  of  5  major  public  transport 
operators  is  unprecedented  and  is  a  good  illustration  of  the  added  value  of  EU-wide  cooperation 
initiatives.  It  has  reduced  the  costs  of  planning  by  enlarging  the  number  of  possible  suppliers, 
organising  eventual  joint  tenders  and  identifying  the  conditions  for  optimal  implementation, 
developing  a  joint  approach  directly  replicable  to  other  industries.  The  total  investment  for  the 
project was EUR 12 million, half of which (EUR 6 million) came from the ERDF.  

Inclusive Growth (ERDF and ESF) 
ERDF and ESF interact closely together to ensure that existing problems are tackled in an integrated 
way by investing both in hard infrastructure and in soft measures involving actions such as education 
and training.  

The results reported in the EEN Report for the ESF for the period 2007-2012 show an extensive reach 
of  the  programmes  funded  with  68  million  individual  participations  recorded  by  December  2012. 
Thanks  to  these  measures  over  5.7  million  participants  found  a  job,  with  79%  of  these  jobs 
generated in ES, FR, PL and UK. Almost 8.6 million people obtained a qualification with CZ, DE, ES, 
FR,  IT,  NL,  PL  SK  and  UK  accounting  for  78%  of  all  the  qualifications  results,  of  which  over  3.4 
million  concerned  the  up-skilling  of  employed  people.  Almost  550,000  participants  created  their 
own  job  (self-employment)  or  started  a  new  enterprise,  with  DE,  ES,  FI,  FR,  GR  and  IT  generating 
most of these results.  

30 Large-scale infrastructure projects over EUR 50 million are subject to a specific decision by the Commission. 

25 

 
 
                                                            
The analysis of implementation reports submitted by Member States shows that ESF action broadens 
existing interventions by supporting groups (such as older people (50+), ethnic minorities, prisoners, 
Roma  people) or  policy  areas  that  would  not  otherwise  receive  support  (scope effects).  This  is  the 
case for the UK for example, where national authorities consider that ESF funding is broadening the 
scope of provision by targeting groups that are not eligible for mainstream provision, as well as by 
extending the range of activities and providing more intensive support to the individuals facing the 
most  severe  difficulties  to  integrate  into  the  labour  market  (i.e.  individuals  from  minorities  facing 
discrimination, individuals with mental health issues, physical disabilities or ex-offenders). 

In the area of Access to Employment, the effects of the ESF interventions are measured in numbers 
of people ending up into employment and self-employment or closer to be in a position to get a job. 
Evaluations which have been conducted by Member States show significant net differences in terms 
of  employment  and  unemployment  associated  with  the  ESF  activity.  For  example,  individuals  in 
ESF-supported interventions are more likely to find employment than control groups. A number of 
evaluations  also  highlight  the  ‘soft’  results  associated  with  access  to  employment  interventions, 
including such things as more independent and effective job search, greater self-confidence, higher 
level of motivation towards work and more social integration generally.  

In the area of Social Inclusion, ESF activities targeted participants from groups which are particularly 
vulnerable  on  the  labour  market:  migrants  (7%),  ethnic  minorities  (12%)  disabled  people  (14%), 
people  with  primary  or  lower  secondary  education  (45%).  Given  the diversity  of  target groups,  the 
most  effective  ESF  interventions  are  those  designed  very  specifically  around  the  needs  of  these 
groups.   

In the case of enhancing Human Capital, the ESF has helped widen the participation in training and 
education, especially in relation to young people, migrants and those with low qualifications (46% of 
participants had a lower secondary education at most). The ESF has also been used in some Member 
States to either raise the competences of those in work or to put in place mechanisms to recognise 
existing competences (DK, ES).  

In  the  case  of  strengthening  administrative  capacity  there  have  been  over  913,000  participations 
(98%),  primarily  employees  of  public 
reported,  with  the  vast  majority,  nearly  891,000 
administrations,  public  services  and  social  partners.    The  main  result  under  this  policy  field  is  the 
numbers  gaining  a  qualification  –  most  commonly  the  employees  of  public  services.  Over  157,000 
qualifications were achieved based on figures from only for five Member States (CY, GR, HU, MT and 
RO)31.  As  regards  the  ERDF,  the  aggregate  monitoring  information  available  at  the  moment  shows 
good progress of the investments in educational and childcare infrastructure with the capacity of 
supported infrastructure reaching nearly 6.2 million people, which already exceeds the 2015 target 
of 5.2 million.      

Operational aspects of performance 
The  Commission  is  carrying  out  several  actions  to  ensure  a  sounder  framework  of  implementation 
which  will  facilitate  achievement  of  the  programme  objectives.  These  actions  are  also  expected  to 
resolve problems identified in 2014  by  the Court of Auditors in five special reports on investments 
supported  through  ERDF  and  CF  programmes  under  the  2000-2006  and  2007-2013  programing 

31 Other MS used different specific indicators that are not subject to aggregation. 

26 

 
 
                                                            
periods32.  In  these  reports  the  Court  recommended  to  ensure  that  programme  authorities  put  a 
stronger focus on the effectiveness, efficiency and economy of the projects when setting investment 
priorities  and  that  monitoring  project  implementation  should  be  done  through  suitable  and 
transparent performance indicators.  

One  of  the  actions  is  a  Commission  initiative,  within  the  limits  of  its  competencies  under  shared 
management, addressing deficiencies in the administrative capacity of Member States. This is done 
through  technical  meetings,  targeted  advice,  and  dialogue  with  national  authorities.  In  addition,  a 
new  public  procurement  manual,  containing  detailed  guidance  for  beneficiaries,  was  presented  by 
the  Commission  in  2014  together  with  a  training  programme  to  be  implemented  in  2015.  It  is 
expected  that  this  new  manual  will  contribute  to  the  overall  improvement  of  public  procurement 
practices, which are one of the main tools ensuring the cost efficiency of interventions co-financed 
through the Funds. A peer-to-peer assistance instrument, aimed at enhancing the implementation of 
the  Funds  on  the  ground  through  exchange  of  practices  and  advice  between  Member  States,  has 
been developed by the Commission with a pilot expert exchange to take place in 2015. These actions 
are expected to make significant difference in the implementation of the 2014-2020 programmes.  

The  new  2014-2020  legislative  framework  has  new  elements  such  as:  a  stronger  focus  on  result-
orientation  with  a  link  between  the  financed  actions  and  country-specific  recommendations  under 
the European semester; ex-ante conditionalities to ensure a robust implementation framework from 
the start of implementation; annual reporting of output and result indicators at priority axis level as 
well as strong provisions for impact evaluations to be conducted by Member States.  

The Commission Internal Audit Service has carried out a performance audit assessing gaps between 
the Commission's original proposals for the ESI Funds and final outcomes of the legislative process 
and any resulting risks related to the attainment of programme objectives. The findings of this audit 
will  be  made  available  in  the  coming  months  through  the  Commission's  annual  report  on  internal 
audits33. 

2.2 Sustainable Growth: natural resources (Budget Heading 2) 
Heading 2 of the financial framework covers the two pillars of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), 
notably Pillar I consisting of the market related expenditure and the direct payments financed by the 
European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and Pillar II comprising the rural development support 
financed  by  the  European  Agricultural  Fund  for  Rural  Development  (EAFRD).  The  CAP  is  delivered 
under  shared  management.  The  heading  also  covers  the  European  Maritime  and  Fisheries  Fund 
(EMFF) (combining shared and direct management) and an envelope for the international dimension 
of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), as well as activities in the fields of climate and environment 
through  the  Programme  for  the  Environment  and  Climate  Action  (LIFE)  delivered  through  direct 
management. 

Actions  under  this  budget  heading  contribute  mainly  to  the  Europe  2020  objectives  in  the  area  of 
sustainable  growth  with  some  links  also  to  smart  and  inclusive  growth  with  regard  to  investments 
contributing to job creation and innovation.  

32 namely urban transport, renewable energy, innovation/business incubators, biodiversity and airport projects. 
There were no Reports completed regarding the ESF. 
33 Annual report to the Discharge authority on internal audits carried out in 2014 (Article 99(5) of the Financial 
Regulation). 

27 

 
 
                                                            
Food security and promotion of smart, sustainable and inclusive growth for EU agriculture and rural 
areas are the main objectives of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) in the 2014-2020 MFF  period. 
Measures under the EAGF are focused on further improving the situation of primary producers in the 
food chain, bringing EU commodity prices closer to world prices and supporting farm income through 
direct  payments  which  are now  largely  decoupled  from production.  Under  the second  pillar  of  the 
CAP, the EAFRD continues to target the economic, social and environmental well-being of rural areas, 
and the sustainability of the rural environment. Within the new Common Strategic Framework, which 
also applies to the ERDF, ESF, CF and EMFF, the EAFRD will contribute to the objectives of the Europe 
2020 strategy. 

Fostering  environmentally  sustainable,  resource  efficient,  innovative,  competitive  and  knowledge-
based  fisheries  and  aquaculture,  fostering  the  implementation  of  the  CFP,  increasing  employment 
and territorial cohesion, fostering marketing and processing, as well as fostering the implementation 
of the Integrated Maritime Policy (IMP) are the core priorities of the EMFF under the new financial 
framework. The new LIFE programme is a specific funding instrument dedicated to the environment 
and climate action, which should operate in addition to the mainstreaming approach adopted for the 
2014-2020  MFF  implying  that  environment  and  climate  action  are  an  integral  part  of  all  the  main 
instruments and interventions34.  

In terms of budget commitment appropriations, EUR 59 billion has been allocated to Heading 2 for 
2014, which represents 44.6% of the total 2014 EU budget for heading 1-4.  

Programme 

European  Agricultural  Guarantee  Fund  (EAGF)  —  Market  related 
expenditure and direct payments 
European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) 
European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) 
Environment and climate action (LIFE) 
TOTAL  

Budget 2014 
commitment 
appropriations  
( EUR million) 

43,778.1 

13, 990.3 
861 
403.4 
59,032.7 

2014 was a transitional year, when the revised system of market measures started to apply following 
the 2013 CAP reform, while 2015 was the start of implementation of reformed direct payments. The 
Commission  focused  its  efforts  on  examining  and  approving  the  2014-2020  Rural  Development 
programmes (RDPs) and ensuring the implementation of the new direct payment scheme. By the end 
of  May  2015  a  total  of  51  RDPs  out  of  118  programmes  are  foreseen  to  be  adopted  by  the 
Commission with the rest of the programmes to be approved in the course of 2015.  

Considerable  effort  was  also  dedicated  to  accelerating  the  adoption  of  the  EMFF  operational 
programmes in order to compensate for the late adoption of the EMFF regulation in May 2014. By 
April 2015, five35 operational programmes out of 27 programmes were approved by the Commission.  

34 The 2014-2020 EU Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF) includes provisions that seek to mainstream the 
EU’s climate and environment objectives in all major EU policies including cohesion, agriculture, maritime and 
fisheries, research and innovation, and external aid programmes. Mainstreaming is to be achieved through a 
range of requirements for benchmarking, monitoring and reporting for all relevant EU policy instruments. 
35 Latvia, the Netherlands, Austria, Malta and Finland. 

28 

 
 
 
                                                            
 
 
 
 
 
 
The  late  adoption  of  the  LIFE  Regulation  and  the  subsequent  Multi-Annual  Work  programme  for 
2014-2017 has slightly delayed the start of the new LIFE programme. Nevertheless, the first call for 
proposals was successfully launched in 2014.  

Results and Impacts achieved 2007-2013 MFF programmes 
The  achievements  reported  below  are  based  mainly  on  latest  available  monitoring  information  on 
programme implementation.   

In 2014, the agricultural sector has been influenced by the fall of agricultural as well as energy prices 
and  the  significant  impact  of  the  Russian  ban  on  EU  food  products  introduced  in  August  2014. 
Despite these difficult economic circumstances, the CAP ensured that agricultural income in the EU 
decreased  only  to  a  limited  extent.  Direct  payments  contributed  to  this  effect  as  well  as  the 
immediate  CAP  measures  implemented  after  the  Russian  ban  to  stabilise  markets.  In  the  EU27, 
agricultural income has fallen by 8% between 2003 and 201336 and remains below the average in the 
EU. However, while agricultural income has decreased in the EU15, it has grown by 43% in the EU12 
over  the  same  period  (albeit  from  a  much  lower  base).  It  is  estimated  that  agricultural  income 
would  be  22%  lower  in  the  EU27  without  CAP  direct  support,  however  with  large  differences 
between the various Member States depending on farm structures.  

The  CAP  has  continued  to  promote  a  sustainable  management  of  natural  resources  and  climate 
action  via  related  requirements  linking  direct  payments  to  compliance  by  farmers  with  basic 
standards concerning the environment, food safety, animal and plant health and animal welfare, as 
well  as  through  dedicated  Rural  Development  measures  such  as  agri-environmental  measures  and 
organic farming.  The  expansion of  the  surface under  agri-environmental  schemes  during  the 2007-
2013  programming  period  (46.9  million  ha,  representing  more  than  25%  of  the  EU-27  Utilised 
Agricultural  Area  in  2013)  has  played  an  important  role  in  the  improvement  of  the  environmental 
performance  of  EU  farming.  Emissions  from  the  agricultural  sector  have  continued  to  decline, 
showing  an  average  annual  rate  of  decrease  of  1.7%  between  2001  and  2012.  The  share  of 
agriculture in total net emissions has also continued to decline. 

The CAP also promoted a balanced territorial development in the EU through its various instruments. 
For  instance,  the  income  support  provided  to  the  vast  majority  of  the  12  million  agricultural 
holdings and its associated 25 million people is a crucial element for maintaining employment.  

In addition, innovation support has so far been channelled to 136,000 farms that have introduced 
new products or technologies in their farm businesses, such as a new high-tech bioethanol plant in 
Estonia processing waste vegetable material and sugar beet. The new plant has created 20 additional 
jobs  in  the  region  and  is  currently  capable  of  producing  5,000  litres  of  bioethanol  per  day  from 
processing waste vegetable material and sugar beet, which is a clear sign of the effectiveness of the 
investment.  

Concerning the EFF (the predecessor of EMFF), implementation slowed down, particularly in most of 
the Mediterranean and Black Sea Member States due to the financial and economic downturn. This is 
evidenced by the fact that by  the end of May 2014 only 85% of the total appropriations  had been 
committed by Member States leaving a significant part of the EFF still to be committed. This indicates 
that full attainment of the programme objectives is unlikely despite corrective actions taken by the 

36 Figures are based on the implementation reports of 2014. 

29 

 
 
                                                            
Commission since July 2012 such as adopting amendments to Operational Programmes to adapt co-
financing  rates,  to  shift  resources  between  priorities  and  to  take  into  account  automatic  de-
commitments. 

Processing operations represent close to 17% of EFF commitments and are the most used measure of 
the EFF. By providing financial support to nearly one third of the total investments in the sector, the 
EFF  has  contributed  to  the  good  economic  performance  of  the  EU  fish  processing  sector,  which 
according to 2014 data is generating EUR 27.9 billion of income.  

A study on Axis 4 of the EFF37 shows that the sustainable development of fisheries and aquaculture 
areas  delivers  promising,  positive  results.  Most  of  the  312  FLAGs  (fisheries  local  action  groups) 
remain  active  and  by  the  end  of  2014,  more  than  9,800  projects  had  been  approved,  a  significant 
increase over the 6,363 that had been approved by the end of 201338. It was also estimated that this 
would lead to the creation of over 200 new firms  with Axis 4 support and to the creation of some 
7,300  new  jobs  while  a  further  12,500  jobs  would  be  maintained  at  an  estimated  cost  of  EUR 
32,000/job created or maintained.  

The  EFF  has  also  helped  achieve  better  balance  between  fishing  capacity  and  available  fisheries 
resources by contributing to the permanent cessation of nearly 4,100 fishing vessels by May 2014, 
which represents an increase by 2.5 % in one year. 

Concerning  the  last  programming  year  of  the  LIFE+  programme  (predecessor  of  LIFE),  in  2014,  the 
Commission  approved  funding  for  225  new  projects.  The  projects  selected  were  submitted  by 
beneficiaries  from  all  28  Member  States  and  cover  actions  in  the  fields  of  nature  conservation, 
climate change, environmental policy and information and communication on environmental issues 
across the EU. Overall, they represent a total investment of some EUR 589.3 million, of which the EU 
will provide EUR 282.6 million.  

Operational aspects of performance 
In  2014,  the  Court  of  Auditors  published  four  special  reports  covering  the  responsibilities  of  the 
Commission  in  the  areas  of  agriculture  and  rural  development.39 Among  other  issues,  the  Court 
recommended to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of investments, as well as to strengthen 
the monitoring and evaluation systems applied under the CAP.  

The recommendations  of  the Court  have  been  addressed by  the  Commission in the preparation of 
the  2014-2020  programmes.  A  strengthened  monitoring  and  evaluation  framework  has  been 
introduced for the CAP, which will allow for better tracking of the effectiveness and efficiency of the 
financed  interventions.  For  the  first  time  the  monitoring  and  evaluation  framework  will  cover  the 

37 Study on the implementation of Axis 4 of the European Fisheries Fund, 25 July 2014; 
http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/documentation/studies/axis-4/index_en.htm 
38 FLAG projects range from direct sales and promoting the added value of fisheries products to initiatives that combine marketing and 
environmental elements, in fisheries and aquaculture. This can be illustrated by the examples provided in the brochure "Sailing Towards 
2020: Axis 4 in Action" published on: 
https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/cms/farnet/files/documents/Farnet_Brochure2020_EN_WEB.compressed.pdf 
39 Special Report No 4/2014: "Integration of EU water policy objectives with the CAP: a partial success"; Special Report No 8/2014: "Has the 
Commission effectively managed the integration of coupled support into the Single Payment Scheme?"; Special Report No 9/2014: "Is the 
EU  investment  and  promotion  support  to  the  wine  sector  well  managed  and  are  its  results  on  the  competitiveness  of  EU  wines 
demonstrated?";  Special  Report  No  22/2014:  "Achieving  economy:  keeping  the  costs  of  EU-financed  rural  development  project  grants 
under control". 

30 

 
 
                                                            
 
whole CAP (both pillars) and will include a set of output, result and impact indicators that will help to 
assess the achievement of the policy's general objectives.  

In line with the general evolution of the ESI Funds, the EMFF is also more result-oriented in the 2014-
2020  period.  The  programming  process  is  organised  more  systematically  through  a  clear  logic  of 
intervention, using a hierarchy of Union Priorities, specific objectives and measures. These are in turn 
translated  in  common  financial,  output  and  result  indicators  that  will  be  closely  monitored  in  the 
framework of a strengthened monitoring and evaluation system. 

Concerning the EFF, a report by the Court of Auditors40 revealed that the instrument failed to deliver 
value for money and effective support for the sustainable development of aquaculture. The auditors 
found that projects usually failed to achieve the planned results. To ensure that EU funds available 
for  aquaculture  are  spent  in  a  targeted  way,  the  Commission  has  asked  national  authorities  to 
prepare multiannual national plans for the development of aquaculture in each Member State based 
on Strategic Guidelines41. In line with the ex-ante conditionality on aquaculture, the Commission will 
not  adopt  the  EMFF  operational  programmes  unless  Member  States  have  submitted  appropriate 
multiannual national strategic plans for the promotion of sustainable aquaculture, where relevant.   

With  a  view  to  ensuring  a  smooth  start of  the  implementation  of  the  new  programmes  under  this 
budget  heading,  the  Commission  has  also  introduced  some  additional  operational  adjustments  at 
working level. Notably, a "Task-Force on Rural Development post-2013" (TF) was created in 2012 to 
provide assistance to the Member States in the preparation of the rural development programmes 
2014-2020. Since 2012 the TF has regularly met, among others to develop guidance documents both 
for  the  Member  States  on  the  content  of  the  policy,  and  for  the  desk  officer  as  regards  the 
assessment  of  submitted  programmes  (e.g.  detailed  checklists  for  each  of  the  rural  development 
measures).  In  addition,  a  "Consistency  Board"  was  set-up.  It  has  ensured  a  coherent  approach  on 
selected  relevant  issues,  such  as  synergies  and  complementarities  of  planned  interventions  with 
interventions  under  the  CAP  first  pillar  and  other  funds  of  the  Union,  proposed  approach  in  the 
implementation of specific rural development measures, etc.  

In  2014  the  Commission  delegated  a  major  share  of  its  budget  under  direct  management  to  the 
Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (EASME) in the area of control, scientific 
advice and the Integrated Maritime Policy (IMP). Based on the cost-benefit analysis, the use of the 
executive  agency  is  expected  to  generate  a  saving  of  almost  EUR  5  million  over  the  programming 
period 2014-2020, when compared with the in-house scenario.  

As of 1  May  2014, a part  of LIFE was also delegated to  EASME. The part of the programme that is 
delegated to the agency concerns the implementation of action  grants for so called traditional and 
capacity building projects and operating grants for NGOs under the new legal base. This delegation 
allows EASME  to identify synergies between LIFE, Horizon 2020 and the other programmes that it 
manages.  

2.3 Security and Citizenship (Budget Heading 3)  
The programmes under Budget Heading 3 consume a small share of EU budget (1.2% of the 2014 EU 
budget for headings 1-4) and are implemented either via direct or shared management modes. 

40 Special Report No. 10/2014: "The effectiveness of European Fisheries Fund support for aquaculture". 
41 http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/aquaculture/official_documents/com_2013_229_en.pdf  

31 

 
 
                                                            
The programmes aim to support high level political objectives such as the establishment of an open 
and secure EU, the setting up of a European Area of Justice and Rights, improving the health of EU 
citizens, protecting consumers and promoting youth, culture and dialogue with citizens. Because of 
their  small  size,  these  budgets  cannot  be  directly  correlated  with  the  achievement  of  these 
objectives. 

In terms of budget commitment appropriations, EUR 1.49 billion has been allocated to Heading 3 for 
2014. 

Programme 

Asylum Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF) 

Internal Security Fund (ISF) 

Food and Feed  

Rights, Equality and Citizenship Programme 

Justice Programme 

Union Civil Protection Mechanism 

Europe for Citizens 

Consumer Programme 

Other actions and programmes, IT systems, agencies 

Total 

Budget 2014 commitment 
appropriations  (EUR 
million) 

403.3 

399.1 

253.4 

55.3 

47.0 

28.2 

25.6 

24.1 

259.1 

1,495 

Implementation of the Asylum Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF) and the Internal Security Fund 
(ISF)  has  suffered  from  delays  in  the  adoption  of  the  legal  frameworks:  The  basic,  delegating  and 
implementation  acts  were  adopted  in  April  and  July/October  2014.  Annual  work  programmes 
defining funding priorities  for both funds were adopted in August 2014. On  that  basis the  national 
programmes for Member States are being approved by the Commission: by April 2015 a total of 22 of 
the 58 national programmes have been approved with the remaining foreseen by the end of 2015.  
The Creative Europe Programme was rolled out almost as planned and fed VALOR (an IT system for 
disseminating results) with first projects in the fourth quarter of the year. Other programmes, such 
as the Justice Programme and the Rights, Equality and Citizenship Programme only managed to sign a 
few grant agreements in 2014. However, this should not affect the overall implementation of 2014 
budgetary appropriations, which will continue in 201542.  

Results and Impacts 2007-2013 MFF programmes 
The  ex-post  evaluation  of  Civil  Protection  Financial  Instrument  and  Community  Civil  Protection 
Mechanism43,  predecessors  to  the  Union  Civil  Protection  Mechanism  (UCPM),  concluded  that  the 
coordinated emergency response at EU level was efficient and coordinated assistance. With regard 
to  EU  added  value,  the  evaluation  found  that  83%  of  the  projects  would  not  have  taken  place 
without EU co-funding, even though they are highly relevant as they strengthen the cooperation 

42 Individual commitments can still be done in N+1 (2015), so the delay has no financial consequence but it will delay reporting on outputs 
and achievements of the programme. 
43 The evaluation covered the period 2007-2013. In the period 2007-2013 the Mechanism consisted of Monitoring and Information Centre 
(MIC); the training programme; and Modules and Technical Assistance and Support Teams (TAST); Prevention and preparedness projects; a 
prevention policy framework; marine pollution and actions with third countries. 

32 

 
 
 
                                                            
between participating States; that projects address gaps in national response capacities and bring 
visibility to the EU.  

Evaluations  were  also  carried  out  on  the  "Better  Training  for  Safer  Food  (BTSF)"  and  on  the  "2013 
European Year of Citizens." The first concluded that the quality of the training is high, (with 85% of 
participants stating a high degree of satisfaction), while the costs of the programme are broadly in 
line  with  other  similar  programmes.  However,  the  evaluation  also  underlined  that  effectiveness 
could  be  strengthened  through  better  targeting  of  participants  and  increased  dissemination.  The 
second evaluation concluded that the financial resources made available for the 2013 Year of Citizens 
did not match the ambition of the initiative and hampered its sustainability. Nevertheless, individual 
activities were found to be effective in increasing citizen's awareness of their EU rights.  

Operational aspects of performance 
Two special reports of the Court of Auditors covered programmes financed in the field of migration, 
asylum  and  internal  security.  The  External  Border  Fund  (EBF)44 was  found  to  have  contributed  to 
external  border  management  and  to  have  fostered  financial  solidarity.  However,  the  report  also 
highlighted  that  EU  added  value  was  limited,  that  its  effectiveness  was  hampered  because  of 
Member States' partially ineffective management systems and lack of monitoring.  

The  second  audit  report  covered  the  implementation  of  the  Schengen  Information  System  II.  Here 
the  Court  found  that  the  Commission  delivered  the  central  system  more  than  six  years  later  than 
initially planned and at eight times the initial budget estimate. The delay and overspending resulted 
to a large extent from the challenging governance context45 which limited the Commission’s ability to 
address operational issues.  

The  Commission  put  in  place  several  measures  in  2014  to  incorporate  lessons  learned  from  the 
previous programmes and replicate best practice.    

For  example,  the  Commission  incorporated  compulsory  indicators  to  monitor  effectiveness  and 
efficiency into legal basis of the ISF. This should strengthen evidence gathering, thereby ensuring that 
upcoming evaluations will have quantitative data to base their assessments on. Recommendations of 
the  external  evaluation  on  CPFI  were  taken  into  account  of  and  some  of  them  integrated  in  the 
design  of  UCPM.  Exercises,  training,  projects  and  exchange  of  experts  for  example  are  now  given 
higher priority, which should strengthen operation of the Mechanism's operation. 

Other  programmes,  also  took  concrete  actions  to  increase  their  effectiveness  and  efficiency.  The 
Health and Consumer programmes for example got access to the Horizon 2020 IT platform for grant 
management, which resulted in cost savings of approximately 60 person days during the evaluation 
and  submission  phase  representing  ca.  2%  of  the  total  human  resource  costs  of  the  unit.  Overall, 
efforts were also deployed to reduce administrative burden imposed on participants and to reduce 
costs and errors on side of the Commission.  

44 Predecessor to AMIF and ISF programmes. 
45 The Council took the decision to develop SIS II without a Commission proposal. Many system requirements were not foreseen from the 
start and were only added later.  

33 

 
 
 
                                                            
2.4 Global Europe (Budget Heading 4)  
The programmes under Budget Heading 4 and the European Development Fund finance the different 
dimensions  of  the  Union's  external  policies.  An  important  part  of  the  funding  under  Heading  4  is 
indirectly  managed  and  implemented  by  third  organisations,  such  as  UN  agencies,  while  the 
remaining is either directly managed by the Commission (mostly grants) or indirectly by beneficiary 
countries or through shared management.  

In terms of budget commitment appropriations, EUR 8.3 billion has been allocated to Heading 4 for 
2014, which represents 6.3% of the total 2014 EU budget for headings 1-4.  

Programme 

Development Cooperation Instrument (DCI)  

European Neighbourhood Instrument (ENI) 

Instrument for Pre-Accession (IPA) 

Humanitarian aid 

Instrument contributing to Stability and Peace (IcSP)  

Common Foreign and Security Policy operations (CFSP) 

Others46  

TOTAL  

Budget 2014 
commitment 
appropriations  (EUR 
million) 

2,345.0 

2,315.0 

1,478.6 

1,081.7 

276.8 

301.1 

515.3 

8,313.5 

The  European  Development  Fund  is  financed  outside  the  EU  budget.  The  most  important 
programmes in financial terms, contribute to the EU's primary development aid objective 'to reduce 
and  in  the  longer  term  to  eradicate  poverty'  (Article  208  TFEU).  These  are  the  Development 
Cooperation 
Instrument  (DCI);  the  European  Development  Fund  (EDF)  and  the  European 
Neighbourhood  Instrument  (ENI),  the  last  one  also  including  a  wide  range  of  reform  objectives 
contributing  to  political  reforms,  economic  integration  and  management  of  migration.  Other 
financially  important  programmes  are  the  Instrument  for  Pre-Accession  (IPA)  supporting  pre-
accession countries to prepare them for EU membership; Humanitarian Aid which gives ad-hoc relief 
and assistance to the most vulnerable people affected by natural disasters or man-made crises; the 
instruments  supporting  the  prevention  of  conflict  and  the  strengthening  of  international  security 
(Instrument contributing to Stability and Peace  (IcSP) and the Common Foreign and Security Policy 
operations (CFSP)). This chapter focusses on these main programmes. 

In  2014,  financing  continued  under  predecessor  programmes  (MFF  2007-2013).  Following  the 
adoption of the main legal acts in March 2014 the multi-annual indicative programmes for the new 
2014-2020 MFF were prepared, but actual implementation of most programmes could only start in 
2015  or  later.  In  line  with  the  strengthened  focus  on  results,  the  programming  documents  include 

46 European  Instrument  for  Democracy  and  Human  Rights;  Partnership  Instrument;    Instrument  for  Nuclear  Safety  Cooperation;  Macro 
Financial Assistance;  Union Civil Protection Mechanism and European Emergency Response Centre; European Voluntary Humanitarian Aid 
Corps EU Aid Volunteers; Cooperation with Greenland; Instrument economic development of the Turkish Cypriot community; other actions 
and programmes; pilot projects and preparatory actions. 

34 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
systematically a clear logic of intervention, defining specific objectives and related results indicators 
for each of the concentration sectors. These should then become part of the results chain to be built 
up  over  implementation  and  to  be  monitored  in  the  framework  of  strengthened  monitoring  and 
evaluation systems. 

Given  the  delay  in  adoption  of  the  11th  European  Development  Fund,  which  entered  into  force  in 
March 2015 whilst the predecessor scheme ended the fourth quarter of 2013, a bridging facility was 
established under the 10th EDF ensuring continuity of operations.   

Results and Impacts achieved 2007-2013 MFF programmes 
EU  development  aid  contributes  to  the  United  Nations  Millennium  Development  Goals  (MDGs)  for 
which  progress  is  measured,  amongst  others,  through  indicators  on  poverty,  education  and  health 
which  set  targets  for  the  year  2015.  Although  these  indicators  are  influenced  by  a  multitude  of 
factors beyond EU development aid, they represent the long term development progress achieved by 
EU partner countries.  

MDG Impact indicator on poverty: 

Halve between 1990 and 2015 the proportion of population living in extreme poverty 

Target achieved in 2010 – East Asia and Pacific have had good results in poverty alleviation, but Sub-
Saharan Africa still lags behind  

MDG impact indicator on education: 

Ensure that by 2015 children everywhere, boys and girls, can fully complete primary school 

Target not reached - enrolment rate up to 90%, but completion rate at 73%: While substantial progress 
was made, only East Asia and Pacific, Europe and Central Asia have achieved/ close to achieve target 

MDG Impact indicator Health 

Reduce by two thirds the under-five mortality rate between 1990 and 2015 

Target not reached, but under-five mortality rate dropped by almost half. Developing countries as a 
whole are likely to fall short of the target. East Asia, Pacific and Latin America and the Caribbean have 
achieved it.  

The  EU  and  Member States  jointly  provide  half  of  the  world's  development  assistance. In  terms  of 
financing  specifically  directed  towards  education  and  health,  under  the  2007-2013  MFF  the  EU 
supported  education  in  42  countries  with  EUR  4.2  billion  and  health  in  43  countries  with  EUR  3.2 
billion.  Below  examples  are  given  illustrating  the  link  between  EU  interventions  and  progress  on 
related MDG indicators in different countries.  

In  Mozambique,  an  evaluation  concluded  that  budget  support  in  2005-2012  has  helped  to  make  it 
possible for the government to spend an average some 20% of total expenditure on education. This 
has  resulted  in  40%  more  children  attending  primary  school  and  65%  more  attending  secondary 

35 

 
 
 
 
school in 2012 compared to 2004 with the largest gain for poorer households. However, there has 
been almost no change in absolute poverty in this country; one of the main reasons being the failure 
of  the  agricultural  policy  to  significantly  improve  agricultural  production.  In  Bangladesh,  where 
absolute poverty fell from 50% to just over 30% between 1990 and 2015, the EU contributed EUR 38 
million  to  a  food  security  programme  which  has  helped  nearly  325,000  vulnerable  and  women-
headed households to get out of extreme poverty and achieve household nutrition security. In El 
Salvador, the EU contributed EUR 47 million through sector support to a Government programme of 
EUR  690  million  to  increase  the  provision  of  public  services  to  the  poorest  and  more  vulnerable 
people (aimed to reach 750,000 or 13% of the total population) with the following results to date: an 
additional  30%  of  the  51%  targeted  people  older  than  70  are  now  covered  by  a  basic  pension; 
226,000 of the targeted 260,000 families are receiving preventive medical care; seven of the fifteen 
planned offices have been set up for the prevention of violence against women; 70% of the planned 
80%  of  population  in  the  municipalities  are  covered  with  access  to  drinking  water  and  basic 
sanitation;  over  84%  of  the  planned  95%  of  the  population  has  been  provided  with  access  to 
electricity. Given that the project is still running, it is expected that the targets will be reached. 

Under the Instrument for Pre-Accession to the EU (IPA) progress made by candidate countries (the 
Western Balkan and Turkey) in implementing  political reforms and EU acquis is mixed47. Highlights 
are  the  launch  of  accession  negotiations  with  Serbia;  the  granting  of  the  status  of  candidate 
country  to Albania; the completion  of the screening process  and the  opening of new negotiating 
areas  with  Montenegro.  However,  the  accession  process  with  Turkey  was  negatively  affected  in 
2014  by  arrests  and  clamp  down  on  media  freedom  in  Turkey.  In  Bosnia  and  Herzegovina,  the 
standstill  in  the  EU  integration  process  continued  and  funding  under  IPA  was  reduced,  because  no 
agreement was reached on the establishment of the coordination mechanism and implementation of 
a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights relating to discriminatory legal provisions on the 
rights of minorities to stand for elections. 

An evaluation of IPA assistance for infrastructure projects in five countries in the period 2005-2011 
found  that  financed  projects  were  well  targeted  and  responded  to  a  real  demand.  Most  of  the 
sample  projects  confirmed  full  accessibility  and  proper  use  of  the  provided  infrastructure  and 
equipment in line with project objectives. Compared to similar national actions the evaluation found 
evidence that IPA projects ensured good value for money because of less corruption due to intensive 
supervision  and  independent  tender  evaluations.    Different  aspects  of  EU-added  value  were 
identified,  such  as  enhanced  strategic  planning,  technical  assistance  and  capacity  building  for 
beneficiaries;  complementary  or  unique  sources  of  financing;  and  demonstration  of  benefits  of  EU 
integration. 

In a context of a major surge in humanitarian crises in 2014, the Commission provided relief through 
Humanitarian  aid  to  the  most  vulnerable  people  in  more  than  80  countries.  An  example  is  Syria, 
where in 2014 aid from the EU budget increased by 80% from EUR 515 million to EUR 817 million 
compared to 2013 allowing support to the 12.2 million people in need of humanitarian assistance 
inside Syria as well as to the millions of Syrian refugees and their host-communities in the region in 
the form of medical emergency relief, protection, food-nutritional assistance, water, sanitation and 
hygiene, shelter and logistics services.  

47 The indicators do not allow differentiating between progress made thanks to policy dialogue or financial support. 

36 

 
 
                                                            
The EU is one of the leading humanitarian donors in the response to the Syria crisis with around EUR 
3.6  billion  committed  by  the  EU  institutions  and  Member  States  collectively  in  humanitarian, 
stabilisation and development assistance. Also in Eastern Ukraine, humanitarian aid addressed the 
basic  needs  of  more  than  1  million  displaced  people  providing  shelter,  food,  water,  healthcare, 
psycho-social assistance and protection in preparation for winter. In Central African Republic (CAR), 
where over half of the 4.6 million population is in need of humanitarian assistance the EU provided 
over  EUR  128  million  in  aid  for  humanitarian  interventions,  including  to  CAR  refugees  in 
neighbourhood countries, and organised repeated airlifts of aid workers and relief material into CAR. 
Funding addressed the basic needs of more than 2.6 million displaced people in CAR and at least 
338,500  refugees  and  returnees  in  the  neighbouring  countries  (Cameroun,  Chad,  Democratic 
Republic  of  Congo  and  the  Republic  of  Congo)  providing  shelter,  food,  water,  healthcare,  psycho-
social assistance and protection. 

The trend observed on the impact indicators measuring conflict intensity in the countries where main 
CFSP operations were deployed  is  more positive  than the overall world-wide  trend although direct 
causal  link  cannot  be  made  given  the  influence  of  external  factors  and  the  other  involved  actors. 
Whereas the number and intensity of conflicts increased in 2014 compared to 2013 from 414 to 424 
amongst which 21 wars (intensity level 5) compared to 20 in 2013, the intensity of conflicts in main 
CFSP  operations  were  deployed  stabilised  in  Kosovo,  Afghanistan,  Sahel  Niger  and  it  decreased  in 
Georgia, Mali and DR Congo. However, the conflict intensity increased in the Palestinian territories, 
Libya and Ukraine. 

As  regards  the  predecessor  of  the  IcSP,  evaluation  evidence  became  available  on  aid  to  crisis 
preparedness  (EUR 103  million  in 2007-2013),  which  aims  to  build institutional capacity  to  address 
conflict before it  escalates48. On  the positive side  the  evaluation  concluded very  broadly  that  crisis 
preparedness  is  highly  relevant  to  the  international  commitments  of  the  EU  and  that  financed 
projects  have  built  or  strengthened  the  capacity  of  organisations  to  contribute  to  peace-building 
efforts.  This  was  achieved  by  financing  a  higher  number  of  entities  engaged  in  conflict  prevention 
(e.g.  community  groups)  and  a  higher  number  of  mediation  processes  and  political  dialogue.  For 
example,  the  financed  early  warning  and  early  response  system  in  Timor-Leste  had  an  impact  on 
government, civil society and international agencies. Data generated by the system is being used at 
all  levels  for  policy  and  security  briefings  because  it  is  trusted  and  timely.  This  has  reinforced 
community  preparedness  and  responses  to  emerging  conflict  and  inter-community  tensions.  The 
number of conflicts in several areas has decreased significantly after the introduction of the system. 

Although it is difficult to measure exactly the conflicts prevented by the early warning system, in this 
case  all  interviewed  stakeholders  indicated  that  the  system  was  working  well  and  that  70%  of  the 
conflicts could be solved immediately at grassroots level. However, overall the evaluation found that 
picture as regards actual reduction of conflict remains diverse with ownership being one of the key 
factors influencing the  achievement of impact. 

Given  that  conflict  prevention  activities  seldom  generate  economic  gains  that  can  help  sustain 
funding  beyond  a  given  project  the  sustainability  of  results  without  further  financial  support  was 
highlighted.  Complementary  funding  through  longer-term  development  aid  may  address  this.    The 
issue  of  aid  sustainability  related  to  poor  capacity  of  administrations  and  public  service  was  raised 

48 Evaluation IfS Crisis Preparedness Component 2007-2013. 

37 

 
 
                                                            
also in other evaluations49 as well as the importance of securing ownership to ensure effectiveness 
and  impact50.  Limited  ownership  is  often  related  to  a  poor  alignment  of  donor's  objectives  and 
government 
improved  by  policy  dialogue  and  stakeholder 
participation in the design of the strategy and programmes.  

interest  and  ownership  can  be 

Operational aspects of performance 
A number of evaluations  carried out in 2014 confirm the challenging context under which external 
aid is deployed, such as cooperation with different donors and the poor capacity of administrations 
in  partner  countries  and  the  need  to  react  rapidly  in  difficult  circumstances.  For  example,  a 
performance  audit  by  the  Court  of  Auditors  on  humanitarian  aid  to  Haiti    referred  to  the  difficult 
context  under  which  aid  has  been  granted,  such  as  weak  national  authorities,  and  noted  that  it 
proved  challenging  to  ensure  a  smooth  transition  between  activities  financed  under  different 
instruments and to coordinate with multiple donors. The institutional weakness of the administration 
of Haiti was confirmed to be a major obstacle in the effective implementation of aid by an evaluation 
of  EU  cooperation  with  Haiti  over  the  period  2008-2012  (EUR  485.6  million  development  support; 
EUR 210 million emergency aid). It was recommended that State building should be at the core of the 
EU strategy in order to ensure efficiency and sustainability of aid. 

Overall, evaluations have broadly confirmed the relevance of EU cooperation and showed that EU 
actions  have  addressed  core  development  needs  in  line  with  national  priorities.  The  way  the  EU 
operates in fragile countries is positively assessed, notably its capacity to stay flexible and keep sight 
of  the  shorter  and  longer  term  approaches,  addressing  both  core  development  problems  and 
emergencies. On the negative side, performance feedback criticises lack of focus and fragmentation 
of  aid51 which  affects  impact52 and  leads  to  inefficiencies  and  administrative  burden  and  lack  of 
monitoring and performance framework53. As regard regional development aid in Asia54 it was found 
that the regional programmes did not achieve a real regional dimension. The need to  improve links 
between  programming  and  a  broader  country;  regional  or  sector  strategy  was  confirmed  in  other 
evaluations55.  

The assessments of the performance evidence of aid projects funded under the previous MFF- period 
are  reflected  in  the  direction  taken  in  the  new  2014-2020  MFF  external  aid  programmes  to 
differentiate  aid  amongst  partner  countries  according  to  their  specific  economic  situation,  to 
concentrate  resources  where  they  are  most  needed  (now  each  country  programme  has  fewer 
sectors  than  in  the  past),  to  improve  EU  coordination  between  financial  programmes  and  to 
maximise policy coherence. Also the monitoring and reporting systems are being reviewed, including 
in  particular  the  launch  of  a  corporate  results  framework56 which  will  provide  the  basis  for  a  first 
report on results in 2015. The strengthening of these systems will equally be beneficial for the quality 
and use of project and strategic evaluations. 

49 Evaluation Democratic Republic of Congo 
50 'Evaluation Kenya; Evaluation Asia; Evaluation Cameroon; Evaluation Western Balkans; Evaluation Burundi 
51 Special Report No. 13/2013: "EU development assistance to Central Asia". 
52'Evaluation Kenya; Evaluation Western Balkans; Evaluation Asia 
53 Evaluation  Western  Balkans;  Evaluation  crisis  preparedness;  Mid  Term  Review  CT  Sahel;  Mid-term  evaluation  Council  of  Europe 
Programme;  'Evaluation  Kenya;  Evaluation  Cameroon;    Evaluation  Democratic  Republic  of  Congo;  Joint  Evaluation  Budget  Support 
Morocco; Evaluation EU cooperation occupied Palestinian Territory. 
54 See footnote 36. 
55 Evaluation Youth in Action Window; Evaluation EU support to refugees Bosnia; IPA programme Western Balkan and Turkey: Mapping of 
Sector Strategies; Evaluation Western Balkans; 'Evaluation Kenya, Evaluation Haiti. 
56 With a slightly different focus and methodology as far as enlargement countries are concerned. 

38 

 
 
                                                            
3. Conclusion   
The  findings  in  this  year's  edition  of  the  Article  318  Report  reflect  the  transitional  nature  of  the 
financial year 2014. It was the first year for the financial programmes under the new 2014-2020 MFF 
period. At the same time projects continued to be financed under the programmes covered by the 
2007-2013 MFF period. Most of the evaluations of those programmes have not yet been completed.  

Under  the  new  2014-2020  MFF,  most  of  the  programmes  under  direct  management  started  to  be 
implemented,  with  calls  for  proposals  being  launched  and  first  projects  receiving  financing. 
Programmes  under  shared  management  have  been  delayed  due  to  the  late  adoption  of  the  2014-
2020  MFF  Regulation  and  of  legislative  acts  laying  down  provisions  for  the  implementation  of 
European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF). This led to the subsequent delay in submission and 
approval  of  Partnership  Agreements  with  Member  States  and  of  their  Operational  Programmes. 
Annual reporting on the implementation of these programmes will only start as of 2016.  

Most  Court  of  Auditors  and  evaluation  criticisms  from  the  earlier  set  of  programmes  have  led  to 
changes to the design of the current programmes with a view to improved efficiency, effectiveness, 
monitoring and reporting. Some very major management adjustments have been made, for example 
the out-sourcing of the management of a number of programmes under direct management to five 
executive agencies and the introduction of the Common Support Centre for the implementation of 
Horizon 2020. 

Under the 2007-2013 MFF, spending continued to be wound-up. Implementation is mostly on track. 
Some  ex-post  evaluations  that  became  available  in  2014  relating  to  smaller  spending  programmes 
aiming to solve specific issues or on components of spending programmes and the results of these 
assessments are provided in this report. These provide most of the available information on the EU 
added  value  of  actions  financed  through  the  EU  budget.  Furthermore,  a  non-exhaustive  list  of 
concrete project examples has been provided throughout  this Report and its  accompanying SWD1. 
The EU added value of the Project Bond Initiative and the EU's reaction towards the Ebola outbreak 
are also provided as examples.   

Overall,  the  results  given  in  evaluation  reports  and  performance  audits  on  the  2007-2013  MFF 
provide  initial  confirmation  of  the  relevance  of  the  direction  taken  in  the  new  2014-2020  MFF 
programmes  focussing  on  European  political  priorities  and  Europe  2020  goals  and  including  better 
systems to monitor performance against set benchmarks and targets.  

in  the 
Subsequent  reports  will  supplement  these  early 
implementation  of  the  new  programmes,  in  due  course  providing  the  results  of  the  interim 
evaluations due in 2016 and 2017 and reporting on the performance of the programmes under the 
previous MFF on which information will become available in 2015/2016 through ex-post evaluations 
for  major  programmes  which  are  currently  ongoing:  the  Seventh  Framework  for  Research  and 
Development, the ERDF, the Cohesion Fund and the ESF. 

indications  and  confirm  progress 

39