COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Ex-ante Evaluation Accompanying the document Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on the establishment of the Structural Reform Support Programme for the period 2017 to 2020 and amending Regulations (EU) No 1303/2013 and (EU) No 1305/2013
Date: 2015-11-26
Institutions: European Commission, Secretariat-General
Subjects: EU aid, administrative reform, economic convergence, economic reform, fund (EU), institutional reform, investment promotion, structural adjustment, sustainable development, technical cooperation

EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 26.11.2015  SWD(2015) 750 final   COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Ex-ante Evaluation Accompanying the document Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL  on the establishment of the Structural Reform Support Programme for the period 2017 to 2020 and amending Regulations (EU) No 1303/2013 and (EU) No 1305/2013  {COM(2015) 701 final}  
 
 
1.  CONTEXT .................................................................................................................. 3 

2.  PROBLEM ANALYSIS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT ........................................... 4 

2.1.  Limited administrative and institutional capacity ............................................. 6 
2.2. 

Inadequate  application  and  implementation  of  Union  legislation  towards 
achieving the Union's fundamental goals .......................................................... 7 
2.3.  Past experience, lessons learnt and going forward ............................................ 7 

3.  OBJECTIVE ................................................................................................................ 9 

4.  ALTERNATIVE DELIVERY MECHANISMS AND RISK ASSESSMENT ........ 10 

4.1.  Option 1 - "Status quo" (baseline scenario) .................................................... 10 

4.1.1.  Union  sectoral  support  via  existing  financing  programmes  under 

the Multiannual Financial Framework .............................................. 10 

4.1.2.  Union  support 

in  connection  with  economic  adjustment 
programmes  (for  Member  States  receiving  Union  financial 
assistance) .......................................................................................... 11 
4.2.  Option 2 – Structural Reform Support Programme (SRSP) ........................... 12 
4.2.1. 
Instrument .......................................................................................... 14 
4.2.2.  Added value ....................................................................................... 14 
4.2.3.  Potential risks .................................................................................... 17 

5.  PLANNING OF FUTURE MONITORING AND EVALUATION ........................ 18 

6.  HELPING TO ACHIEVE EFFECTIVENESS AND COST EFFICIENCY ............ 19 

2 

 
 
 
 
1.  CONTEXT 

The creation of a sound regulatory and institutional environment and a smoothly-functioning 
economy  are  essential  for  making  gains  in  competitiveness,  encouraging  investment, 
supporting  employment  creation,  raising  living  standards  and  producing  sustainable  growth 
across the Union.  

Many economies in the Union went through and continue to undergo adjustment processes to 
correct macroeconomic imbalances and remove investment obstacles and many are facing the 
challenge  of  low  potential  growth.  This  situation  is  often  a  result  of  delayed  and/or 
insufficient  structural  reforms  in  the  respective  economies.  The  Union  has  identified  the 
implementation of structural reforms among its policy priorities to strengthen the adjustment 
capacity  of  Member  States,  and  help  unlock  the  Union  growth  potential  and  support  the 
process of convergence.  

Institutional and structural reforms are by their very nature complex processes, the design and 
implementation  of  which  requires  a  complete  chain  of  highly-specialised  knowledge  and 
skills.  Member  States  (MS)  often  exhibit  varying  abilities  in  their  attempt  to  reform,  which 
might hamper long-term growth, limit convergence and impede the much-needed increases in 
social  welfare  and  job-creation.  Technical  support  for  the  implementation  of  structural 
reforms begins with the identification of priorities and then the design of the reforms; this is 
followed by support for implementation, ex-post evaluation and further reform where needed. 

Technical  assistance  (TA)  to  support  reforms  can  foster  Member  States'  administrative 
capacity  and  disseminate  good  practices  in  key  policy  areas  for  the  achievement  of  the 
common goals set out by the Union law. Improving the implementation of the Union acquis is 
one of the priorities of the Commission as set out in the Communication on "Better regulation 
for better results - An EU agenda"1. In this Communication, the Commission indicated that it 
needs  to  "cooperate  with  Member  States  in  examining  the  best  ways  to  ensure  compliance 
with Union law at national level […], and continue to carefully monitor that Union Directives 
are  transposed  in  a  clear,  correct  and  timely  manner  and  that  Union  rules  are  properly 
implemented and enforced in all Member States, bringing legal certainty and allowing citizens 
and businesses to benefit from the opportunities of the single market".  

The  need  to  cooperate  with  Member  States  also  exists  in  respect  of  gaps  which  have  been 
identified with regard to the implementation of reforms, in particular those recommended by 
Country Specific Recommendations (also referred to as CSRs) in the context of the European 
Semester. 

The  present  ex-ante  evaluation  supports  the  Commission  proposal  for  a  Regulation  of  the 
European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  establishing  the  Structural  Reform  Support 
Programme (SRSP) - hereafter "the Programme"- for the period 2017 to 20202.  

1   Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  The  European  Economic 
and Social Committee and the Committee of Regions Better regulation for better results  - An EU agenda, 
Strasbourg, 19.5.2015, COM(2015) 215 final. 

2   Regulation (EU) No XXX/XXX of the European Parliament and of the Council on the establishment of the 
Structural  Reform  Support  Programme  for  the  period  2017  to  2020  and  amending  Regulations  (EU) 
No1303/2013 and (EU) No 1305/2013. 

3 

 
 
                                                            
The SRSP would provide support to institutional, administrative and structural reforms in the 
Member States by providing support to national authorities for measures aimed at reforming 
institutions, governance, administration, economic and social sectors in response to economic 
and  social  challenges  with  a  view  to  enhancing  competitiveness,  growth,  jobs,  and 
investment, in particular in the context of economic governance processes, including through 
assistance  for  the  efficient  and  effective  use  of  the  Union  funds3,  on  request  by  a  Member 
State. This evaluation has been conducted in the second semester of 2015 by the Commission 
service  in  charge  of  providing  support  for  the  preparation  and  implementation  of  growth-
enhancing  administrative  and  structural  reforms  for  all  Member  States,  i.e.  the  Structural 
Reform  Support  Service  (SRSS)  which  is  part  of  the  Secretariat-General  of  the  European 
Commission.  The  ex-ante  evaluation  addresses  the  requirements  of  Article  30(4)  of  the 
Financial Regulation on the implementation of the budget. 

2.  PROBLEM ANALYSIS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT 

Sustained  economic  growth  requires  timely  adaptation  to  changing  circumstances.  In  some 
Member States the capacity to initiate and implement structural reforms is often not adequate 
in view of the reform challenges ahead. As a result, Member States risk becoming trapped in 
low-growth equilibria, with potentially serious consequences for financial, social and political 
stability in the future.  

Moreover, lack of reform implementation in the Member States limits the Union's and notably 
the  Economic  and  Monetary  Union's  (EMU's)  resilience  necessary  to  ensure  convergence 
between  Member  States  and  within  their  societies,  the  resilience  necessary  to  ensure 
increasing  productivity,  job  creation  and  social  fairness.  Due  to  the  strong  interconnections 
between the economies of EMU Member States, the inadequacy of reform efforts cannot be 
seen as a purely national problem. To address this problem, economic surveillance of Member 
States has been strengthened but it is primarily for the Member States to ensure that reforms 
are effectively implemented. 

Available  research  on  the  impact  of  reforms  on  growth  suggests  important  potential  gains. 
Quantitative  model-based  assessment  of  the  potential  impact  of  structural  reforms  show  for 
example that Euro Area Gross Domestic Product (GDP) could be up to 6% higher after ten 
years  if  Member  States  adopt  measures  to  halve  the  gap  vis-à-vis  the  average  of  the  three 

3 

For  the  purpose  of  the  present  document,  "Union  funds"  refer  to  the  European  Structural  and  Investment 
Funds  (ESIF),  the  Fund  for  European  Aid  to  the  Most  Deprived  (FEAD),  the  Asylum,  Migration  and 
Integration  Fund  (AMIF),  and  the  Internal  Security  Fund  (ISF).  Cf.  respectively:  Regulation  (EU)  No 
1303/2013  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  17  December  2013  laying  down  common 
provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the 
European  Agricultural  Fund  for  Rural  Development  and  the  European  Maritime  and  Fisheries  Fund  and 
laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, 
the Cohesion Fund and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) 
No 1083/2006; Regulation (EU) No 223/2014 of 11 March 2014, on the Fund for European Aid to the Most 
Deprived, O.J. L 72/1 of 12.3.2014; Regulation (EU) No 516/2014 establishing the Asylum, Migration and 
Integration  Fund,  Regulation  (EU)  No  513/2014  establishing,  as  part  of  the  Internal  Security  Fund,  the 
instrument  for  financial  support  for  police  cooperation,  preventing  and  combating  crime,  and  crisis 
management,  and  Regulation  (EU)  515/2014  establishing,  as  part  of  the  Internal  Security  Fund,  the 
instrument for financial support for external borders and visa. 

4 

 
 
                                                            
best-performing  Member  States  in  each  of  the  reform  areas  assessed  (labour  and  product 
markets) in the model simulation.4 

Furthermore,  according  to  the  findings  of  the  International  Monetary  Fund  (IMF)  Global 
Integrated  Monetary  and  Fiscal  Model  (GIMF)  on  short  and  long-term  GDP  impact  of 
reforms in the Euro Area, under the assumption of reducing 50% of Euro Area countries' gap 
with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) best practice in 
labour market and pension policies, GDP could increase on average by almost  1.5% after 5 
years and by another 2.25% through the implementation of product market reforms; if reforms 
are jointly implemented, the effect becomes bigger.5  

Apart  from  cross-reform  spillovers,  empirical  analysis  reveals  that  some  structural  reforms 
create  positive  spillovers  when  these  are  undertaken  simultaneously  by  more  than  one 
country.6  In  the  same  vein,  international  cooperation  for  exchanging  experiences  on 
implementing reforms can enhance awareness of their costs and benefits while international 
arrangements can function as a "commitment device" against resistance to reforms.7  

Over  the  last  years,  the  annual  Country  Specific  Recommendations  (CSRs)  adopted  by  the 
Council  upon  a  recommendation  by  the  Commission  push  for  reforms  towards  overcoming 
growth  obstacles  and  achieving  long-term  sustainable  economic  development.  However, 
reform  design  and  implementation  in  Member  States  as  a  response  to  the  CSRs  has  not  yet 
reached  the  desired  level  and  outcome.  The  following  graphs  depict  the  progress  of  CSRs 
implementation for the 2013 and 2014 CSRs as assessed in the 2014 and 2015 Commission's 
staff working documents.8 

4   The  growth  impact  of  structural  reforms,  Quarterly  report  on  the  euro  area,  Vol.  12,  Issue  4.  December 

2013, available at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/qr_euro_area/2013/pdf/qrea4_section_2_en.pdf. 

5   B. Barkbu et al. (2012), "Fostering growth in Europe now", IMF Staff Discussion Note, IMF. 
6  
7   World economic and financial surveys (2004), "World Economic Outlook. Advancing Structural Reforms", 

Janos Varga and Jan in 't Veld. "The growth impact of structural reforms". Vol 12, No 4. P. 17-27. 

Chapter III: Fostering Structural Reforms in Industrial Countries, IMF. 

8   Note  that  the  assessment  of  2013  CSRs  does  not  include  Croatia,  Ireland,  Portugal,  Greece  and  Cyprus 

while in 2014 the latter two are still excluded. 

5 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
Figure 1: 2013 CSRs (assessed by subparts 
of the CSRs)9 

Figure 2: 2014 CSRs (assessed by subparts 
of the CSRs) 

Source: European Commission 

Furthermore,  with  regard  to  the  implementation  of  Union  law  in  Member  States,  the 
Commission  regularly  examines  the  texts  of  national  transposition  measures  and  initiates 
own-initiative investigations. The latest Commission's Annual Report of 2014 on “Monitoring 
the application of Union law” reports that despite the decreasing trend in formal infringement 
procedures, their number still accounts for 1347 cases across the Union10. 

Member  States  may  face  challenges  as  regards  the  design  and  implementation  of  structural 
and administrative reforms. This may relate to factors, such as the limited administrative and 
institutional capacity and the inadequate application and implementation of Union legislation.  

2.1.  Limited administrative and institutional capacity 

Any reform must be well-designed, legislated and effectively implemented. Effective reforms 
require more than just passing the necessary legislation – they require effective and efficient 
implementation which implies addressing the structural problems in national authorities (e.g. 
responsibilities,  competences,  mobility,  incentives,  changes  to  work  processes,  etc.).  The 
benefits of reforms may take some time to materialise. Therefore, early and efficient design 
and implementation are crucial. 

The  institutional  capacity  to  plan,  design  and  implement  reforms  often  varies  significantly 
among Member States. Usually the weakness to reform is more skewed towards the Member 
States  that  are  in  most  need  of  reforms.  A  paper  of  the  "European  Union  –  OECD  Sigma" 
identifies  overall  institutional  weaknesses  of  a  certain  number  of  Member  States.11  In 
particular, it underlines challenges in civil governance, administrative practices and capacity 
to implement laws, with important consequences on the capacity of the countries concerned to 
implement Union law and related reforms. 

9   Each  CSR  includes  more  than  one  policy  action.  In  order  to  facilitate  the  implementation  assessment,  a 

CSR has been divided into subparts corresponding to policy actions. 

10   Report from the Commission, "Monitoring the application of Union law 2014 Annual Report, COM(2015) 

329 final, available at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/atwork/applying-eu-law/docs/annual_report_32/com_2015_329_en.pdf 

11   Meyer-Sahling,  J.  (2009),  "Sustainability  of  Civil  Service  Reforms  in  Central  and  Eastern  Europe  Five 

Years After EU Accession", Sigma Papers, No. 44, OECD Publishing. 

6 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
Furthermore, it is not only the process of reform itself that represents the challenge, but also 
the number of reforms needed simultaneously in different areas. Reports12 from the European 
Court  of  Auditors  (ECA)  identify  the  limited  capacity  of  certain  Member  States  to  reform 
specific  policy  areas  (customs,  taxes,  transport,  etc.).  The  ECA  identifies  three  main 
weaknesses  leading  to  major  faults  in  implementation  of  policies  and  reforms  in  particular 
areas: 

a)  Weaknesses of the authorities in charge of the specific areas to translate reform objectives 

into operational action plans; 

b)  Failure  of  the  authorities  in  charge  to  adopt  the  relevant  implementing  instruments  to 
reach the objectives. Instruments are chosen from those readily available by the country 
rather than specifically designed for the purpose to fulfil;  

c)  Legalistic and formalistic approach to implement Union rules, with limited impacts on the 

pursued objectives. 

These  weaknesses  are  related  to  institutional  and  administrative  capacity.  According  to  the 
reports, it is not only that national authorities often do not have the appropriate expertise but 
they  also  often  have  difficulties  in  learning  and  adapting,  possibly  due  to  the  absence  of 
sufficient empowerment and endowment.13 

2.2.  Inadequate  application  and  implementation  of  Union  legislation  towards 

achieving the Union's fundamental goals 

The implementation of Union legislation and policies relies on the national capacity of each 
Member State to effectively select the best instruments to meet the objectives, translate them 
into  reform  plans,  involve  and  coordinate  all  stakeholders  concerned,  deploy  the  relevant 
measurement  tools,  assess  the  implementation  and  ensure  that  the  final  outcomes  meet  the 
objectives. This may represent standard practice for the implementation of Union acquis. This 
approach  may  raise  (in  certain  circumstances  and  for  some  Member  States)  potential 
concerns, insofar it does not necessarily:  

a)  take  advantage  of  the  potential  synergies  between  Member  States,  e.g.  sharing  best 

practices; 

b)  take adequately into account the administrative capacity in some Member States;  

c)  allow  the  Union  and  the  Member  States  to  fully  use  the  potential  benefits  from  the 

interactions between policy-making and its implementation. 

The Commission may take action if a Member State fails to incorporate Union directives into 
national law or if it is suspected of breaching Union law through infringement procedures. In 
certain situations, the Member States are found to be in breach of Union State Aid and public 
procurement rules, which may have negative consequences for the public investments (often 

12   Phedeon Nicolaides (2013) "Administrative Capacity for Effective Implementation of EU law" – analysis of 
selected  reports  from  ECA,  including  "the  EU  transit  system"  (2006),  "Are  simplified  procedures  for 
imports  effectively  controlled?"  (1/2010),  ''Are  school  Fruit  Schemes  effective?"  (10/2011),  "Financial 
instruments for the SMEs co-financed by the ERDF" (2/2012). 

13   Cf. the analysis referred to in footnote 12. 

7 

 
 
                                                            
co-financed by Union funds). The correct implementation of Union legislation and acquis and 
the  avoidance  or  swift  conclusion  of  infringement,  State  Aid  and  public  procurement 
procedures are in the interest of all Member States and the Union as a whole. 

Moreover,  with  regard  to  Union  funds  potential  impediments  and  structural  weaknesses  at 
national  level  (i.e.  complexity  of  administrative  procedures  in  the  management  of  Union 
funds, national "gold-plating" of Union rules, etc.) can form a barrier to the effective use of 
the full potential of these funds and may not allow for the emergence of positive synergies.  

On  the  whole,  building-up  the  necessary  capacity  structures  within  national  authorities  and 
creating  a  strong  governance  environment  to  support  the  design  and  implementation  of 
reforms  as  well  as  effectively  applying  Union  law  is  of  great  value,  not  only  for  Member 
States considered but also for the Union towards achieving its fundamental goals. 

2.3.  Past experience, lessons learnt and going forward 

In order to be able to respond to Member States' requests for technical support in a number of 
policy areas from the Union, a comprehensive and integrated framework to allow the Union to 
concretely respond to such requests would have to be available.  

Currently Union sectoral support can be provided via existing financing programmes (open to 
all  Member  States)  within  the  Multiannual  Financial  Framework.  The  only  case  in  which 
"extensive"  support  (i.e.  support  tailored-made  to  the  country  needs,  spanning  over  several 
public  policy  areas  and  provided  in  a  comprehensive  way  and  with  an  overall  "country" 
vision)  could  be  provided  is/was  in  connection  with  economic  adjustment  programmes  for 
certain Member States in financial difficulties.  

In  particular,  past  experience  of  providing  technical  assistance  in  support  of  the 
implementation  of  reforms  and  policy  measures  is  related  to  the  economic  adjustment 
programmes  for  Cyprus  and  Greece  (via  the  Support  Groups  for  Cyprus  -  SGCY  -  and  the 
Task Force for Greece - TFGR). The provision of technical assistance for almost four years 
by the TFGR and two years of TA provision by the SGCY, in areas spanning over almost the 
entire spectrum of public policy areas, serves as a basis to further improve the effectiveness of 
the support provided to the Greek and Cypriot authorities and provides useful lessons for the 
roll-out of technical assistance to other Member States.  

The  technical  support  provided  to  Greece  by  the  Commission  services  coordinated  by  the 
"Task  Force  for  Greece"  with  the  view  to  supporting  the  implementation  of  the  economic 
adjustment  programme  was  subject  to  an  evaluation  carried  out  by  an  independent 
consultancy in July 2014.14 This evaluation assessed the technical assistance provided to the 
Greek authorities in two key areas, i.e. tax administration and central administration reform, 
based  on  more  than  forty  interviews  concluded  with  key  technical  assistance  providers  and 
recipients,  including  the  political  leadership,  senior  managers,  middle  managers,  and  junior 
employees from Greece, other involved Member States and International Organisations (IOs). 

14     Final  report,  July  2014:  VC/2014/0002  Preliminary  Evaluation  of  the  Technical  Assistance  provided  to 
Greece  in  2011-2013  in  the  areas  of  Tax  Administration  and  Central  Administration  Reform  Prepared  by 
Alvarez & Marshal Tax and Adam Smith International for the European Commission, available at:  
  http://ec.europa.eu/about/taskforce-greece/pdf/tfgr/evaluation_report_alvarez_july_2014_en.pdf. 

8 

 
 
                                                            
 
Overall, this evaluation concluded that technical assistance delivered and coordinated by the 
TFGR had contributed to the implementation of the reform programme in Greece in the areas 
under evaluation during the period 2011-2013. This conclusion was based on an assessment 
of  the  effectiveness,  efficiency,  relevance  and  sustainability  of  the  assistance  delivered  and 
was largely confirmed by the responses of most of the stakeholders involved. They indicated 
that  in  the  absence  of  technical  assistance  delivered  by  the  TFGR,  the  reforms  undertaken 
would not have materialised.  

Furthermore,  the  report  stated:  "Technical  Assistance  should  not  only  be  provided  when  an 
EU  country  is  in  crisis.  It  should  be  a  normal  activity  within  the  EU.  The  European 
Commission  can  work  with  Member  States  to  establish  a  permanent  structure  with  a 
dedicated  budget  to  enable  co-operation  and  exchange  of  expertise  between  Member  States 
and co-ordinate the provision of Technical Assistance to all Member States to enable sharing 
and  adoption  of  best  practice.  Exchanging  best  practice  not  just  in  ideas  but  in 
implementation of those ideas has been highlighted as important in the feedback received." 

Additionally,  discussions  with  stakeholders,  such  as  Member  States,  related  national 
agencies15  providing  technical  assistance  and  International  Organisations  took  place  in  the 
past  through  regular  (high-level)  coordination  meetings  organised  by  the  TFGR  and  the 
SGCY.  During  these  meetings  Member  States,  International  Organisations  and  European 
Commission  services  have  been  discussing specific assistance  needs for Greece and Cyprus 
and ways to address them. On these occasions, several Member States, both in the technical 
assistance  supply  and  demand  side  have  expressed  appreciation  for  the  work  done  by  the 
TFGR  and  SGCY  and  their  willingness  to  continue  the  cooperation  in  this  respect. 
Additionally, they expressed concerns on the future of TA work if these entities would cease 
support. The statement of the Eurogroup on Greece of May 2014 recognises the contribution 
of technical assistance to the progress in implementing the economic adjustment programme 
and highlights the need to step up the current technical assistance in support of growth related 
reforms.  The  Eurogroup  also  encouraged  the  Member  States  to  provide  further  technical 
assistance to Greece and to establish partnerships with Greece, acting as reform partners.16 

In view of this positive experience, the intention is to provide comprehensive and integrated 
technical  support  to  all  Member  States  that  would  request  assistance,  i.e.  beyond  those 
receiving financial assistance from the Union under economic adjustment programmes. 

3.  OBJECTIVE 

The general objective of the Union action is: 

 

to  contribute  to  institutional,  administrative  and  structural  reforms  in  the  Member 
States  by  providing  support  to  national  authorities  for  measures  aimed  at  reforming 
institutions,  governance,  administration,  economic  and  social  sectors  in  response  to 
economic  and  social  challenges  with  a  view  to  enhancing  competitiveness,  growth, 

15   National agencies such as the GIZ: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit, the German 
Federal Enterprise for International Cooperation, BTC: Coopération technique belge, Adetef: Assistance au 
Développement des Échanges en Technologies Économiques et Financières etc. 

16   Eurogroup statement on Greece 5.05.2014, available at: 

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/en/ecofin/142481.pdf. 

9 

 
 
                                                            
jobs,  and investment, in particular in the context  of economic  governance  processes, 
including through assistance for the efficient and effective use of the Union funds.  

Expected results of the Union action  

The Union action is expected to contribute to the reinforcement of the administrative capacity 
in the Member States to reform institutions, the administration, economic and social sectors, 
including  through  the  efficient  and  effective  use  of  Union  funds,  with  a  view  to  providing 
simplified, efficient and modern structures at the service of citizens and businesses. Expected 
results can be indicated as follows: 

  Enhanced ability of national authorities of the Member States to identify and address 

economic and structural weaknesses;  

  Strengthened competencies and ability of national authorities of the Member States in 

developing, designing and implementing reform policies according to priorities; 

  Enhanced capacity of national authorities of the Member States to pursue an integrated 
approach to reforms across policy areas while ensuring consistency between goals and 
means; 

  Enhanced  capacity  of  national  authorities  of  the  Member  States  to  define  processes 
and  methodologies  at  national  level  in  order  to  support  reform  design,  management 
and  implementation  inter  alia  as  a  consequence  of  exchange  of  good  practices  and 
lessons learnt by peers; 

  Strengthened efficiency and effectiveness of human resources management of national 
authorities  of  the  Member  States  through  increasing  professional  knowledge,  skills 
and adaptability to change management processes; 

  Enhanced  channels  of  communication  established  with  the  Commission,  Member 
States  and  International  Organisations  in  order  to  improve  communication  and 
coordination of reform efforts; and 

  Enhanced capacity of national authorities of the Member States to ensure progress of 
reforms  recommended  within  the  European  Semester  cycle,  economic  adjustment 
programmes,  Member  State's  own-initiative  reforms,  and  to  ensure  consistent  and 
coherent implementation of Union law. 

The expected results are, very much, country and project-dependent, and their attainment will 
vary  according  to  the  policy  areas  and  the  breadth  and  depth  of  the  support  provided. 
Furthermore, they are expected to be based on the measures implemented by policy area and 
beneficiary Member State as a result of support actions provided under the Programme. 

4.  ALTERNATIVE DELIVERY MECHANISMS AND RISK ASSESSMENT 

The Commission examined two options - presented below - in order to achieve the objective 
and  expected  results  of  the  Union  action  set  in  section  3.  The  identified  options  can  be 
referred as the current "Status quo" (which is the baseline scenario) and the introduction of the 
Structural Reform Support Programme (SRSP).  

10 

 
 
4.1.  Option 1 - "Status quo" (baseline scenario) 

In  the  current  situation,  the  provision  of  support  to  Member  States  from  the  Union  is  two-
pronged:  On  the  one  hand,  support  is  provided  under  a  number  of  Union  financing 
programmes  (open  to  all  Member  States)  within  the  Multiannual  Financial  Framework  on 
specific policy areas. On the other hand, "extensive" technical support (i.e. support tailored-
made  to  the  country  needs,  spanning  over  several  public  policy  areas  and  provided  in  a 
comprehensive  way  and  with  an  overall  "country"  vision)  is  provided  in  connection  to  the 
implementation of reforms under the economic adjustment programmes for Member States. 

4.1.1.  Union  sectoral  support  via  existing  financing  programmes  under  the 

Multiannual Financial Framework 

Certain Union financing programmes provide support to Member States. These programmes 
foresee  the  possibility  of  supporting  the  Member  States  in  deploying  certain  public  policy 
actions within specific policy areas. Depending on their objective and area, these programmes 
are designed to promote the creation of favourable conditions for economic growth and better 
social  and  environmental  conditions.  The  support  provided  under  these  programmes  is 
characterised by a specific thematic focus and contributes to the achievement of the specific 
objectives of the relevant programmes. 

The  efficiency  of  this  type  of  Union  support  could  be  enhanced  if  it  could  benefit  from  a 
comprehensive  and  integrated  approach  englobing  a  wider  spectrum  of  Union  policies 
coordinated within a single platform and providing, on request, tailor-made technical support 
on the ground by the Commission and national experts.  

4.1.2.  Union support in connection with economic adjustment programmes (for 

Member States receiving Union financial assistance) 

"Extensive"  support  (i.e.  support  tailored-made  to  the  country  needs,  spanning  over  several 
public  policy  areas  and  provided  in  a  comprehensive  way  and  with  an  overall  "country" 
vision) may take place in relation to the implementation of economic adjustment programmes 
for  Member  States  that  receive  financial  assistance  from  the  Union.  In  this  case,  ad  hoc 
structures were created on a temporary basis in the past (see TFGR and SGCY) and technical 
assistance was carried out in an environment of crisis. These temporary structures have now 
been consolidated to form the nucleus for the new Structural Reform Support Service (SRSS), 
which is mandated to provide support to potentially all 28 Member States. 

In the baseline scenario, technical assistance would be provided under the auspices of SRSS 
with  arrangements  similar  to  the  previous  ad  hoc  bodies  (TFGR  and  SGCY),  notably:  a) 
support would be available mainly to Member States under a financial assistance programme, 
and b) support would have to comply with the priorities and eligibility rules of the European 
Structural and Investment Fund (ESIF) Regulation17.  

17   Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 laying 
down  common  provisions  on  the  European  Regional  Development  Fund,  the  European  Social  Fund,  the 
Cohesion  Fund,  the  European  Agricultural  Fund  for  Rural  Development  and  the  European  Maritime  and 
Fisheries  Fund  and  laying  down  general  provisions  on  the  European  Regional  Development  Fund,  the 
European  Social  Fund,  the  Cohesion  Fund  and  the  European  Maritime  and  Fisheries  Fund  and  repealing 
Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006. 

11 

 
 
                                                            
This  particularly  includes  supporting  "measures  aimed  to  identify,  prioritise  and  implement 
structural  and  administrative  reforms  in  response  to  economic  and  social  challenges  in 
Member  States  which  meet  the  conditions  set  out  in  Article  24(1)"  i.e.  in  programme 
countries18.  

Therefore,  "extensive"  support  for  structural  reforms  will  be  available  only  to  a  limited 
number  of  Member  States  (i.e.  Member  States  receiving  financial  assistance  from  the 
Union)19 Even in this case, the achievement and sustainability of reforms and the benefit from 
support remain uncertain once the assistance linked to the economic adjustment programme 
ceases.  

Unlike  the  Commission,  other  International  Organisations20  have  been  integrating  for  many 
years a capacity to support directly their countries of operation with technical assistance in the 
context  of  their  lending  and  non-lending  activities.  Enabling  the  Commission  to  assist 
operationally  Member  States  in  addressing  structural  and  institutional  weaknesses  and 
ensuring adequate administrative capacity would enhance the progress in the implementation 
of necessary reforms with a view to sustaining of a macro-economic environment favourable 
to jobs, growth and investment. 

4.2.  Option 2 – Structural Reform Support Programme (SRSP) 

This  policy  option  draws  on  the  lessons  learnt  and  experience  gained  via  the  TFGR  and 
SGCY.  It  proposes  an  enhanced  approach  for  technical  support  provided  by  the  Union  to 
Member  States  requesting  it,  taking  into  account  the  need  to  support  implementation  of  in-
depth  growth-enhancing  reforms  in  the  Member  States.  In  this  case,  the  Union  would 
introduce  the  Structural  Reform  Support  Programme  and  would  allow  support  to  Member 
States  beyond  crisis-specific  situations.  The  general  objective  of  the  Programme  would  be 
contribute  to  institutional,  administrative  and  structural  reforms  in  the  Member  States  by 
providing  support  to  national  authorities  for  measures  aimed  at  reforming  institutions, 
governance, administration, economic and social sectors in response to economic and social 
challenges  with  a  view  to  enhancing  competitiveness,  growth,  jobs,  and  investment,  in 
particular in the context of economic governance processes, including through assistance for 
the efficient and effective use of the Union Funds. 

18   Article  58(1)(l)  of  Regulation  (EU)  No  1303/2013  stipulates:  "1.  At  the  initiative  of  the  Commission,  the 
ESI  Funds  may  support  the  preparatory,  monitoring,  administrative  and  technical  assistance,  evaluation, 
audit and control measures necessary for implementing this Regulation. […].The measures referred to in the 
first  subparagraph  may  include  in  particular:  […]  (l)  measures  to  identify,  prioritize  and  implement 
structural and administrative reforms in response to economic and social challenges in Member States which 
meet the conditions set out in Article 24(1). [i.e. programme countries]. 

19   Beyond  countries  receiving  financial  assistance  from  the  Union,  under  the  ESIF  Regulation  technical 
assistance is only possible for: a) implementing preparatory actions (technical assistance at the initiative of 
the Commission) and b) in shared management under the direct responsibility of the Member State within 
the  relevant  national  Operational  Programmes  and  only  in  order  to  support  technical  assistance  actions 
within the goals of the ESIF and relevant Operational Programmes (cf. Article 59 of Regulation (EU) No 
1303/2013).  

20    The IMF for example has started developing such support activities in 1999 and in January 2012 it set up the 
"Institute  for  Capacity  Development"  (ICD).  While  the  provision  of  support  still  relies  on  the  IMF's 
dedicated  thematic  departments,  the  ICD  is  in  charge  of  the  overall  support  strategy  of  the  Fund,  of  the 
coordination  of  the  assistance  of  functional  departments  when  necessary,  of  the  evaluation  of  the  support 
provided and acts as a single entry point to support for its member countries. The delivery of assistance is 
also supported by regional support centres (eight centres in charge of support in specific geographical areas). 

12 

 
 
                                                            
The  provision  of  technical  support  under  this  Programme  would  be  organised  by  the 
Commission and would be implemented inter alia in cooperation with other Member States, 
International  Organisations  and,  when  necessary,  the  private  sector.  Through  the  SRSP,  the 
Union would be able to provide support to all Member States, upon their request, to: 

i. 

ii. 

iii. 

the  implementation  of  reforms  in  the  context  of  economic  governance  processes,  in 
particular of relevant Country Specific Recommendations (CSRs) issued in the context 
of  the  European  Semester  or  of  relevant  actions  related  to  the  implementation  of 
Union law; 

the implementation of economic adjustment programmes for Member States being in 
receipt of Union financial assistance under the existing instruments; 

the implementation of reforms by Member States, undertaken at their own initiative, 
notably to achieve sustainable investment, growth and job creation.  

The  decision  to  provide  support  to  a  Member  State  would  have  to  be  taken,  based  on  the 
principles  of  transparency,  equal  treatment  and  sound  financial  management,  considering 
urgency,  breadth  and  depth  of  the  problems  identified,  support  needs,  analysis  of 
socioeconomic  indicators,  and  general  administrative  capacity  of  the  Member  State. 
Furthermore,  due  account  would  be  taken  of  the  existing  actions  and  measures  financed  by 
Union funds or other Union programmes. The proposal for this Programme fits in well with 
the  Union  policy  priorities.  The  Programme  would  contribute  to:  a)  strengthening 
implementation  of  the  CSRs  under  the  European  Semester,  b)  ensuring  a  consistent  and 
coherent implementation of Union law21 and c) assisting in the implementation of reforms in 
Member  States  undergoing  an  economic  adjustment  in  connection  to  a  Union  financial 
assistance programme.  

The  Programme  would  also allow for  the  provision  of  technical  support that  is  vital  for the 
successful  implementation  of  important  new  elements  of  the  Single  Market  (including  its 
digital part). For example, the Capital Market Union (CMU) action plan22 envisages technical 
support  for  capital  market  development.  The  Programme  would  provide  for  the  necessary 
framework and funding for such support. 

Bearing  in  mind  the  general  objective  of  the  Programme,  the  specific  objectives  of  the 
Programme would relate directly to the needs identified in section 2. These specific objectives 
would be: 

a)  To  assist  the  initiatives  of  national  authorities  to  design  their  reforms  according  to 
priorities, taking into account initial conditions and expected socio-economic impacts; 

21   For  example,  the  Programme  would  allow  for  the  provision  of  technical  support  that  is  vital  for  the 
successful  implementation  of  important  new  elements  of  the  Single  Market.  The  Capital  Market  Union 
(CMU)  action  plan  envisages  technical  support  for  capital  market  development  through  the  Commission. 
The SRSP would provide for the necessary funding for such support. 

22   Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and 
Social  Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions  Action  Plan  on  Building  a  Capital  Markets  Union, 
Brussels, 30.9.2015, COM(2015) 468 final.  

13 

 
 
                                                            
b)  To support the national authorities to enhance their capacity to formulate, develop and 
implement reform policies and strategies and pursue an integrated approach ensuring 
consistency between goals and means across sectors;  

c)  To  support  the  efforts  of  national  authorities  to  define  and  implement  appropriate 
processes  and  methodologies  by  taking  into  account  good  practices  and  lessons 
learned by other countries in addressing similar situations; 

d)  To assist the national authorities to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of human 
resources management, where appropriate, through definition of clear responsibilities 
and increase of professional knowledge and skills;  

These objectives would be pursued in close cooperation with beneficiary Member States. In 
order  to  achieve  these  objectives,  the  operational  actions  that  may  have  to  be  undertaken 
under  the  SRSP  to  support  reforms  -  including  through  assistance  for  the  efficient  and 
effective  use  of  Union  funds23  -  would  cover  a  wide  spectrum  of  thematic  areas  related  to 
competitiveness,  growth,  jobs  and  investment  and  in  particular  the  following  policy  areas 
(which therefore identify the scope of the Programme): 

a)  public  financial  management,  budget  process,  debt  management  and  revenue 

administration;  

b)  institutional  reform  and  efficient  and  service-oriented  functioning  of  public 
administration, effective rule of law, reform of the justice system and reinforcement of 
anti-fraud, anticorruption and anti-money laundering; 

c)  business environment, private sector development, investment, privatisation processes, 
trade and foreign direct investment, competition and public procurement, sustainable 
sectoral development and support for innovation; 

d)  education  and  training,  labour  market  policies,  social  inclusion,  social  security  and 
social  welfare  systems,  public  health  and  healthcare  systems,  asylum,  migration  and 
borders policies; 

e)  policies for the agricultural sector and the sustainable development of rural areas; and 

f)  financial sector policies and access to finance. 

All  in  all,  the  SRSP  would  provide  for  a  comprehensive  and  integrated  approach  of  the 
support  provision  to  institutional,  structural  and  administrative  reforms  available  to  all 
Member  States.  It  would  allow  stable  and  well-structured  support  to  the  design  and 
implementation  of  reforms  in  order  to  accelerate  them  and  ensure  their  quality  and 
sustainability while safeguarding full synergy with other Union policies. 

4.2.1. 

Instrument 

The SRSP would require the adoption of legislation in order to provide a legal base, a clear 
mandate  and  sufficient  financial  resources  for  the  actions  to  be  undertaken  by  the  Union  to 
support  the  design  and  implementation  of  structural  reforms  in  potentially  all  28  Member 

23   Cf. footnote 3. 

14 

 
 
                                                            
States.  The  proposal  would  be  based  on  Articles  175  (third  paragraph)  and  197(2)  of  the 
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. 

A Directive cannot be considered due to the fact that this action is not about harmonisation of 
legislations  or  introduction  of  minimum  standards,  but  about  the  establishment  of  a  Union 
financing  programme.  Further  alternatives,  such  as  soft  law  and/or  voluntary  actions  would 
not be sufficient for this purpose. Soft law and non-regulatory action (e.g. a Communication 
of the Commission, or a guidance note), would not allow achieving the objectives as set out in 
section 4.2.  

Therefore, in order to allow best achieving the aforementioned objectives, the second option, 
namely  the  establishment  of  the  Structural  Reform  Support  Programme,  is  the  preferred 
policy choice since it allows providing support in an organised and systematic manner to all 
Member States. 

In  accordance  with  the  principle  of  proportionality,  this  Programme  would  not  go  beyond 
what is necessary in order to achieve its objectives. The proportionality of this option would 
be  ensured  by  the  fact  that  the  Programme  would  establish  a  range  of  potential  areas  of 
support but it would be then up to the Member State to request support and for the Member 
State and the Commission to define the concrete scope and the resources needed to provide 
the assistance to that Member State. 

4.2.2.  Added value 

The European added value of introducing the SRSP is presented below: 

  Actions  under  the  SRSP  would  ensure  complementarity  and  synergy  with  other 
programmes  and  policies  at  national,  Union  and  international  level,  contribute  to  further 
promote mutual trust and further cooperation between beneficiary Member States and the 
Commission  and  to  ensuring  a  consistent  and  coherent  implementation  of  Union  law.  In 
the  development  and 
this  Programme  would  allow  for 
addition,  actions  under 
implementation  of  solutions  that  while  addressing  national  challenges  have  a  positive 
cross-border impact and/or for the Union as a whole. This initiative would contribute to the 
strengthening  of  coordination  of  economic  and  sectoral  policies  of  Member  States  and 
better implementation of Union law.  

  Support  to  the  Member  States  would  be  provided  in  a  coordinated  manner  across  policy 
areas.  Efforts  of  national  authorities  to  enhance  their  capacity  to  define,  develop  and 
implement reform policies and strategies would be pursued within an integrated approach 
ensuring  consistency  between  goals  and  means  across  sectors.  In  order  to  allow  to  best 
manage  the  technical  assistance  requests  and  achieve  consistency  and  synergy  among 
technical  assistance  actions,  the  SRSP  would  pursue  a  similar  integrated  approach  as  the 
one followed in the cases of Greece and Cyprus, where technical assistance across sectors 
was coordinated by the Commission (via the TFGR and SGCY) and at Member State level 
the work was coordinated by a specific entity (i.e. the SGCO in Greece and the DGEPCD 
in Cyprus)24 inside the national administrations.  

24   SGCO: Secretariat General for Coordination; DGEPCD: Directorate General for European Programmes Co-

operation and Development. 

15 

 
 
                                                            
  Support  given  to  Member  States  would  be  enhanced  through  the  use  of  a  platform  for 
sharing and adopting best practices among Member States and International Organisations. 
The  Union  is  in  a  better  position  than  any  single  Member  State  to  identify  best  practice. 
This  would  also  ensure  efficiency  gains  in  terms  of  quickly  mobilising  expertise  and 
sharing  best  expertise  via  a  pool  of  experts,  who  could  easily  and  foremost  swiftly  be 
activated to provide support on request by a Member State. 

  The  Programme  would  allow  for  the  achievement  of  economies  of  scale  and  scope. 
Member States often face similar challenges and need to address similar practical problems 
related to the implementation of reforms. Union action can contribute to avoid duplication 
of effort, promote cooperation between Member States and coordination with International 
Organisations. 

The proposed Programme intends to add value and complement the already successful results 
of the existing support measures, by focusing on the aspects of assistance that are more linked 
to the offering of advice and expertise on the ground, i.e. accompanying (where possible via 
embedded  experts)  the  national  authorities  of  the  requesting  Member  States  throughout  the 
reform  process  or  according  to  defined  stages  or  to  different  phases  of  the  reform  process. 
This  would  be  based  on  the  most  pressing  country  needs,  as  mutually  agreed  between  the 
Commission  and  the  Member  State  concerned.  It  is  worth  noting  that  the  support  provided 
within  the  SRSP  would  continuously  be  adapted  to  the  needs  and  challenges  faced  by  the 
Member  States  on  the  ground  (support  by  the  SRSP  could  be  reflected  in  the  analogy  of 
"training in a course" vs "training on the job", with SRSP providing the latter case).  

The  following  box  provides  for  some  examples  of  reforms  which  received  technical 
assistance by the TFGR and SGCY. Similar support could, on request, be provided to other 
Member States carrying out reforms and related processes. Ultimately, the box illustrates the 
type  of  results  stemming  from  technical  support  that  SRSP  would  provide  in  the  future  to 
other Member States.  

16 

 
 
Examples of high-impact reforms which have been supported by technical 
assistance: 

Governance and public administration  

  Absorption of EU Structural and Cohesion Funds: Greece moved from 18th (in 
2011) to 5th place out of all Member States (by the Commission's services)1 
  Reform  of  Cypriot  personal  and  corporate  insolvency  legislation  (with  IMF 

and European Central Bank; IE) 

  Creation of a Secretariat-General for Coordination in Greece (with FR) 

Growth-supporting reforms 

  Removing barriers to competition for some sectors in Greece (with OECD) 
  Support  to  develop  an  Action  Plan  for  Better  Regulation,  a  fast-track 
mechanism for strategic investment, and develop a policy for entrepreneurship 
in Cyprus (with UK; private sector) 

  Cypriot strategy for energy sector, including aspects of market regulation and 
market  organisation  (with  AT;  IT;  Joint  Research  Centre  –  European 
Commission) 

Financial sector and access to finance  

  Creation of the Institution for Growth in Greece (with DE KfW) 
  Establishment of a unified supervisor of insurance companies and occupational 
pension funds in Cyprus (with European Insurance and Occupational Pensions 
Authority; ES) 

Revenue administration and Public Financial Management 

  Establishment of an integrated domestic tax department in Cyprus (with IMF; 

BG; NL)  

  Creation of semi-autonomous tax administration in Greece (with IMF) 

Labour market, health and social services 

  "Health  in  action"  reform  road  map  in  Greece  (with  World  Health 

Organization; DE; SE)  

  Assistance  for  the  introduction  of  a  Guaranteed  Minimum  Income  in  Cyprus 

(GMI) (with private sector) 

1 In brackets are included the entity, i.e. Member State, International Organisation etc., which provided 

intensive TA in this area of reform. 

As  a  result  of  the  support  provided  within  the  SRSP,  the  Commission  would  gain  a  better 
overview and would be in a better position to follow the actual implementation of policies and 
reforms in the Member States. Therefore, the Commission would have a better opportunity to 
verify in detail whether the pursued policy objectives are indeed achieved and assess in more 
detail and at an earlier stage how adopted legislation and reforms are being implemented on 
the  ground.  This  would  in  turn  also  benefit  Member  States  insofar  as  they  could  take 
advantage of a better knowledge and experience by the Commission in receiving timely and 
country-specific  support  to  effectively  select  the  best  instruments  to  meet  their  policy 
objectives and translate them into realistic reform plans. In this fashion, operational support 
would  strengthen  the  relationship  between  the  Commission  and  the  Member  States,  and 
position  the  former  not  only  as  a  policy  and  surveillance  institution  (including  the  role  of 
launching  infringement  procedures  and  decide  on  fines),  but  also  increasingly  as  a  partner 

17 

 
 
 
providing operational and technical support to the Member States towards achieving growth 
and  jobs.  The  Programme  would  underpin  a  "collaborative"  aspect  in  the  effective 
implementation  of  Union  law  and  policy  by  Member  States  and  the  Union:  this  is  also 
because  the  implementation  of  a  particular  policy/reform  in  a  certain  country  can  strongly 
benefit from (and cross-fertilize in return) the experience of one or similar other countries that 
have implemented similar policy/reforms25. 

4.2.3.  Potential risks 

There  might  be  a  risk  regarding  the  actual  implementation  of  reforms  by  Member  States, 
receiving from technical support financed via the SRSP. Taking into account the division of 
competences between Member States and the Union, the implementation of the reforms is the 
responsibility  of  the  Member  States,  whereas  the  Commission  would  be  available  to 
advise/assist  the  national  authorities  where  requested.  While  the  responsibility  of  reform 
implementation  lays  on  the  Member  States,  the  Commission  in  close  cooperation  with  the 
beneficiary Member States would follow-up the reform progress in order to mitigate the risk 
of  the  non-implementation  of  reforms  receiving  support  by  the  SRSP.  In  this  respect,  the 
Programme also foresees monitoring and evaluation processes via specific indicators for the 
achievement of the specific Programme objectives. 

Regarding concerns related to the potential overlap of the Programme with an existing Union 
programme or substitution of national initiatives by a Union-level measure, the Commission 
and  the  Member  States  concerned,  within  their  respective  responsibilities,  should  ensure 
consistency,  complementarity  and  synergy  between  sources  of  funding  supporting  actions, 
specifically with measures being financed from the Union funds or other Union programmes 
in the Member States.  

Additionally, the Commission would ensure the necessary coordination at the Union level to 
ensure  consistency  and  avoid  duplication  at  the  programming  and  implementation  stages, 
between actions supported by this Programme and the measures carried out under other Union 
programmes.  This  would  occur  through  the  process  leading  to  the  adoption  of  the  Work 
Programme(s). The Commission would ensure that the actions proposed to be implemented in 
the Work Programme(s) of the SRSP are indeed complementary to and do not overlap with 
those  of  other  Union  programmes  and  funds  (including  the  Union  funds,  in  particular  the 
ESIF). In particular, the Commission will strengthen coordination within the internal working 
arrangements, with the creation of a coordination mechanism involving representatives of the 
services mostly concerned, so as to ensure that the support provided under Union programmes 
and funds is consistent and avoids duplication. In this respect, the decision to provide support 
to  a  Member  State,  would  inter  alia  take  into  account  the  existing  actions  and  measures 
financed by Union funds or other Union programmes.  

Additional  risks  may  apply  with  regard  to  the  quality  and  poor  implementation  of  selected 
projects which may reduce the expected programme's positive impact. Furthermore, risks may 
appear due to inadequate selection procedures, lack of expertise or insufficient monitoring. In 
order  to  mitigate  these  concerns,  the  Commission  will  apply  the  standard  evaluation 
Commission procedures ensuring that corrective measures are timely taken. 

25   Phedeon Nicolaides (2013) "Administrative Capacity for Effective Implementation of EU law". 

18 

 
 
                                                            
As  a  spending  Programme,  the  SRSP  bears  the  risks  of  inefficient  or  non-economic  use  of 
funds  awarded.  These  include  the  risk  of  incorrectly  declared  costs;  the  risk  of  undetected 
errors  or  uncorrected  imprecisions  in  tenders  or  tender  specifications;  risks  referring  to 
contractual  compliance,  process  and  performance  compliance.  With  regard  to  support 
provided  through  International  Organisations  and  Member  States'  national  agencies,  the 
framework agreements in force will provide a stable legal framework, which contains ex-ante 
and  ex-post  monitoring  and  assessment  system  compliant  with  the  Financial  Regulation 
obligations.  

Finally,  there  is  a  reputational  risk  for  the  Commission,  if  fraud  or  criminal  activities  are 
discovered.  The  risk  of  fraud  in  the  management  of  specific  expense  will  be  mitigated  by 
different  measures  that  will  be  put  in  place  for  the  programme  to  prevent  fraud  and 
irregularities.  Also,  in  line  with  the  Commission  Anti-fraud  strategy  covering  the  whole 
expenditure  cycle,  specific  anti-fraud  actions  for  these  expenses  will  be  undertaken  in  the 
implementation,  having  regard  to  the  proportionality  and  cost  benefit  of  the  measures  to  be 
implemented.  This  action  will  be  based  on  prevention,  effective  checks  and  appropriate 
response if fraud or irregularities are detected, consisting in the recovery of amounts wrongly 
paid and where appropriate, by effective, proportionate and deterrent penalties. The anti-fraud 
action will describe the system of ex ante and ex post checks based on a system of red flags, 
and specify the procedures to be followed by staff when fraud or irregularities are detected. It 
shall also provide information on the working arrangements with OLAF. 

5.  PLANNING OF FUTURE MONITORING AND EVALUATION  

The monitoring and evaluation of the Programme will be undertaken in line with the standard 
Commission procedures. The achievement of the specific objectives of the Programme will be 
monitored  and  evaluated  according  to  a  number  of  indicators  linked  to  the  activities  of 
technical  support.  This  will  include:  the  number  and  type  of  national  authorities  which 
received support, the number and type of support providers, the number and type of eligible 
actions  performed  (such  as  the  provision  of  experts,  training  actions,  seminars  etc.),  the 
number and type of policy and legal arrangements, the number of policy initiatives adopted 
(e.g.  action  plans,  roadmaps,  guidelines,  recommendations,  legislation  recommended),  the 
number of measures implemented by policy area and beneficiary Member State as a result of 
support actions.  

Feedback from the national authorities in receipt of support as well as the feedback from other 
support providers on the impact and/or results of the support by specific objective and policy 
area and beneficiary Member State will serve as qualitative indication of the expected results. 
Furthermore, the evolution of the view of relevant stakeholders regarding the contribution of 
the Programme to the achievement of the reforms will be sought. Appropriate quantitative or 
empirical data will also be used for evaluation purposes as available. 

These  indicators  could  be  used  according  to  data  and  information  available  and  could  be 
adjusted in the course of the Programme by the Commission, where relevant, on the basis of a 
delegated power (as proposed in the SRSP Regulation). 

In addition, the SRSP would be subject to an interim evaluation by mid of 2019 and to an ex-
post evaluation by the end of 2021. The interim evaluation would provide assessment of the 
achievement  of  the  Programme's  objectives,  the  efficiency  of  the  use  of  resources  and  the 
Programme’s European added value and assessment on whether funding in areas covered by 
the Programme needs to be adapted or extended after 2020. Furthermore, it will address the 

19 

 
 
continued relevance of all objectives and actions. The ex-post evaluation would examine the 
longer-term impact of the Programme. The evaluations will also take into account the views 
of all relevant stakeholders, at both Community and national level.  

All  beneficiaries  and  other  parties  involved  who  would  receive  Union  funds  under  this 
Programme  would  provide  the  Commission  with  the  appropriate  data  and  information 
necessary to permit the monitoring and evaluation of the measures concerned.  

6.  HELPING TO ACHIEVE EFFECTIVENESS AND COST EFFICIENCY 

Whilst effectiveness is defined as the ability of SRSP to reach the defined objectives, and thus 
address the defined problem, efficiency takes into account if SRSP responds to the identified 
problem at the least possible cost.  

Effectiveness 

First and foremost, the establishment of a dedicated Programme with secure and uninterrupted 
financing  would  allow  continuous  provision  of  support  and  appropriate  planning  of  support 
actions.  

Additional  elements  which  underpin  the  effectiveness  on  SRSP  are:  (i)  institutional 
knowledge  and  skills  are  built  within  national  administrations,  which  impacts  positively  on 
the  implementation  and  design  of  reforms;  (ii)  the  mobilisation  of  expertise  for  support  is 
faster  and  can  be  readily  available  when  requested;  and  (iii)  the  cost  is  covered  by  specific 
budget, thus limiting the time for long administrative arrangements. 

Cost efficiency 

The  Commission  will  strongly  strive  to  achieve  synergy  with  other  Union  policies  and 
instruments used to support the implementation of the relevant measures.  

In the case of some Member States, the assistance provided by the SRSP would be leveraged 
by the assistance and resources provided by other International Organisations, with which it 
would be closely coordinated. 

The  Programme  would  help  to  establish  and  sustain  inside  Member  States  the  appropriate 
institutional  and  administrative  structures  able  to  carry  out  growth-enhancing  reforms 
conducive  to  setting  economic  recovery  on  a  sustainable  path,  unlocking  their  economy's 
growth potential, and supporting the process of convergence. The cost for providing support 
via  the  SRSP  would  be  relatively  low  against  the  expected  scale  of  support  actions  and 
expected results. 

Also in the long term, SRSP would enable the development of appropriate technical expertise 
within the Commission and thus reduce reliance of the Commission and the Member States 
on other International Organisations for technical assistance.  

The budget proposed for the SRSP would be up to EUR 142 800 000 (current prices) over the 
period 2017-2020 and has been proposed taking into account: 

  The  extensive  operational  experience,  type  of  actions  and  projects  of  support  and 
implementing modes applied on the ground by the TFGR and SGCY, i.e. scoping reports, 

20 

 
 
Roadmaps  and  Action  plans,  training,  expertise  on  the  ground,  large  implementation 
projects, etc.; and 

  The  analysis  of  potential  reform  needs  for  some  Member  States  in  the  context  of 
economic  governance  processes,  in  particular  as  resulting  from  the  Country  Specific 
Recommendations (CSRs).  

The  planning  of  actions  to  be  implemented  follows  a  gradual  roll-out  of  support  to  EU 
Member States, starting in 2017 from 2-3 Member States, and then expanding the support to 
other Member States and broadening the scope of assistance. The estimate is then distributed 
across  each  specific  objective  as  detailed  in  the  Financial  Legislative  Fiche,  with  the 
following profile (in commitment appropriations expressed in EUR million): 

Year 
201726 

23.625 

Year 
2018 

Year 
2019 

Year 
2020 

TOTAL 

32.025 

40.425 

46.725 

142.800 

The volume of appropriations for human resources and other administrative expenditure to be 
allocated  is  estimated  based  on  the  previous  experience  of  the  Commission  services 
performing similar activities in particular related with the TFGR and SGCY, together with the 
assessment  of  the  management,  planning,  coordination  and  evaluation  tasks  that  the 
programme shall ensure in the SPP/ABM (strategic planning and programming and activity-
based management) cycles.  

The appropriations required for human resources and other expenditure of an administrative 
nature  will  be  met  by  appropriations  to  be  redeployed,  together  if  necessary  with  any 
additional allocation which may be granted to the managing Commission's services under the 
annual allocation procedure and in the light of budgetary constraints. 

Overall,  the  Programme  could  bring  along  a  very  positive  effect  compared  to  its  cost.  As 
indicated above (see section 2), the implementation of structural reforms can have important 
positive welfare effects. Therefore, with a relatively modest budget of up to EUR 142 800 000 
(current  prices)  to  support  growth-enhancing  reforms,  the  Programme  could  have  a 
considerable  positive  impact  on  increasing  economic  and  societal  welfare  in  the  Member 
States requesting such assistance and the Union as a whole. 

Of  course  the  ultimate  impact  of  the  reforms  supported  by  the  Programme  is  subject  to 
Member  States'  request  for  support  and  to  the  extent  they  assume  ownership  and  adhere  to 
reform implementation. 

26  Year N is the year in which implementation of the proposal/initiative starts. 

21