Evaluation of TAIEX instrument : final evaluation report.
Date: 2016-03-03
Institutions: Directorate-General for Neighbourhood and Enlargement Negotiations
Subjects: Croatia, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Türkiye, accession to the European Union, administrative cooperation, administrative reform, enlargement of the Union, exchange of information, harmonisation of standards, pre-accession aid, public administration, technical cooperation

Evaluation of the TAIEX Instrument 

Final Evaluation Report 

fNFNCP 

The European Union’s Instrument for Pre-Accession (IPA) 
FWC COM 2011 - Lot 1 – Studies and Technical Assistance in All Sectors 

Request for Services 2014/346665/1  

Evaluation of TAIEX Instrument 

Final Evaluation Report 

August 2015 

This project is funded by 

the European Union 

1 

A project implemented by 

AETS 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is 
responsible for the use which might be made of the following information. 

Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers  
to your questions about the European Union. 
Freephone number (*): 
00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 

(*)  The  information  given  is  free,  as  are  most  calls  (though  some 

operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you). 

More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://europa.eu). 
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2016 

Catalogue number: EZ-01-16-170-EN-N 
ISBN: 978-92-79-55190-1 
doi: 10.2876/943732 
© European Union, 2016 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation of TAIEX Instrument 

Contract N°2014/346665/1 

FWC COM 2011 - Lot 1 – Studies and Technical Assistance in all 
Sectors 

EuropeAid/129783/C/SER/Multi 

Final Evaluation Report 

August 2015 

Team Composition: 

Zehra Kacapor-Dzihic 

Marie Kaufmann 

Levent Sayan  

This publication has been produced with the assistance of the European Union. The contents of this 
publication are the sole responsibility of AETS and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the 
European Union institutions. The European Commission does not guarantee the accuracy of the data 
included in this Evaluation. Neither the European Commission no any other person acting on the 
Commission’s behalf may be held responsible for the use, which may be made of the information 
contained therein. 

AETS Consortium – August 2015 

i 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation of TAIEX Instrument 

Final Evaluation Report 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................ II 

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ....................................................................III 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................... 1 

1. 

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 4 

1.1.  PURPOSE OF THE EVALUATION ....................................................................................... 4 
1.2.  METHODOLOGY AND APPROACH..................................................................................... 4 
1.3.  EVALUATION SAMPLE .................................................................................................... 6 
1.4.  EVALUATION TOOLS AND THE DATA COLLECTION METHODS ............................................ 6 
1.5.  SWOT ANALYSIS – OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF TAIEX IN THE IPA REGION ....................... 9 
1.6.  EVALUATION CONSTRAINTS ............................................................................................ 9 

2.  BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT ..................................................................................10 

2.1  TAIEX INSTRUMENT ......................................................................................................10 
2.2  TAIEX STATISTICS FOR THE COUNTRIES IN THE SAMPLE FOR 2010-2014 ..........................11 

3.  KEY FINDINGS .............................................................................................................15 

RELEVANCE .......................................................................................................................15 

INTERVENTION LOGIC .....................................................................................................17 
3.1 
3.2  PROGRAMMATIC APPROACH ...........................................................................................19 

EFFICIENCY ........................................................................................................................20 

3.3  TIMELINESS OF IMPLEMENTATION ...................................................................................23 
3.4  TYPES OF EVENTS AND THEIR EFFICIENCY .......................................................................24 
3.5  PROJECT REPORTING/MONITORING AND QUALITY ASSURANCE ........................................27 
3.6  COMMUNICATION AND VISIBILITY ACTIVITIES ....................................................................29 

EFFECTIVENESS ................................................................................................................30 

3.7  APPROPRIATENESS OF THE TAIEX INSTRUMENT TO NEEDS (FROM AN IMPLEMENTATION 
PERSPECTIVE) .......................................................................................................................30 
3.8  OBSTACLES TO THE EFFECTIVENESS OF TAIEX EVENTS ..................................................33 
3.9  COMPLEMENTARITY/COHERENCE WITH OTHER DONOR AND EU-FUNDED PROGRAMMES AND 
INSTRUMENTS ........................................................................................................................34 

IMPACT ...............................................................................................................................37 

SUSTAINABILITY ................................................................................................................41 

SWOT ANALYSIS – OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF TAIEX IN THE IPA REGION ..............43 

4.  CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..............................................................45 

AETS Consortium – August 2015 

ii 

 
 
Evaluation of TAIEX Instrument 

Final Evaluation Report 

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 

Agriculture and food safety 
AGRI 
Beneficiary Administration 
BA 
Beneficiary Country 
BC 
Contact Point 
CP 
Directorate for European Integration 
DEI 
Delegation of European Union 
DEU  
Directorate General 
DG 
DG AGRI 
Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development 
DG DEVCO  Directorate  General  for  International  Cooperation  and  Development  - 

DG ENER 
DG ENTR 
DG ENV 
DG GROW 

DG NEAR 
DG SANTE 
DG TAXUD 

DPI 
EC 
EMCDDA 
EUD 
EU 
EUMS 
ERDF 
ESF 
EQ 
ETT 
FER 
FWC 
IBU 
IPA 
IPRs 
JHA 
JLS 
LAF 
MAFF 
MEUA 
MFEA 
MIFF 
MIPD 
MS 
M&E  
NCP 
NIP 
NIPAC 
NP 
OECD 
PAR 
SEI 
SIGMA 
SWOT 

EuropeAid 
Directorate General for Energy 
Directorate General for Enterprise and Industry 
Directorate General for Environment 
Directorate  General  for  Internal  Market,  Industry,  Entrepreneurship  and 
SMEs 
Directorate General for Neighbourhood and Enlargement Negotiations 
Directorate General for Health and Food Safety 
Directorate  General  for  Taxation  and  Customs  Union  (TAXe  et  Union 
Douanière) 
Directorate for Project Implementation 
European Commission 
European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction 
European Union Delegation 
European Union 
European Union Member State 
European Regional Development Fund  
European Social Fund 
Evaluation Question 
Environment-Transport & Telecommunications  
Final Evaluation Report 
Framework Contract 
Institution Building Unit (also referred to as the TAIEX Unit) 
Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance 
Intellectual Property Rights 
Justice & Home Affairs 
Justice, Liberty and Security 
Local Administration Facility (TAIEX) 
Multi-Annual Financial Framework 
Ministry of EU Affairs (Turkey) 
Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs (Croatia) 
Multi-Annual Indicative Financial Framework 
Multi-Annual Indicative Planning Document 
Member State 
Monitoring and Evaluation 
National Contact Point 
National Indicative Programme 
National IPA Coordinator 
National Programme 
Organisation for Economic Development and Cooperation 
Public Administration Reform 
Support Activities to Strengthen the European Integration Process 
Support for Improvement in Governance and Management 
Strengths-Weaknesses-Opportunities-Threats 

AETS Consortium – August 2015 

iii 

 
Evaluation of TAIEX Instrument 

Final Evaluation Report 

TA 
TAIB 
TAIEX 
TMS 
TORs 
UN 
UNSCR 

Technical Assistance 
Transition Assistance and Institution Building 
Technical Assistance and Information Exchange 
TAIEX Management System 
Terms of Reference  
United Nations 
United Nations Security Council Resolution 

AETS Consortium – August 2015 

iv 

 
 
Evaluation of TAIEX Instrument 

Final Evaluation Report 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Purpose and scope of the evaluation 
The  purpose  of  this  final  evaluation  has  been  to  assess  the  capacity  of  the  Technical 
Assistance and Information Exchange instrument of the European Commission (TAIEX). The 
assessment  has  specifically  covered  TAIEX‟s  capacity  in  making  available  the  expertise  of 
Member  States'  public  officials  and  administrations  to  countries  wishing  to  align  their 
standards with those of the European Union (EU) in the most relevant and effective way. The 
final  evaluation  covers  all  TAIEX  assistance  funded  by  the  Instrument  for  Pre-accession 
Assistance (IPA) from 2007 to date. 

Evaluation process and methodology 
The evaluation was structured into three phases: Inception (November 2014 -January 2015), 
Data  collection  (February  -  May  2015),  and  Analysis  and  Reporting  (March  –  June  2015). 
The  evaluation  addresses  a  sample  of  4  IPA  Countries  (Croatia,  the  former  Yugoslav 
Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro and Turkey) and TAIEX events (particularly workshops), 
expert  missions  and  study  visits  to  European  Union  Member  States  (EUMS).  The  exercise 
encompassed  a  range  of  evaluation  methods.  This  included  face-to-face  interviews  with 
thematic  Directorate  Generals  (DGs)  in  Brussels;  the  Czech  and  German  National  Contact 
Points (NCPs); one EUMS Expert for TAIEX; telephone interviews with Line Stakeholders in 
the  sampled  four  countries;  and  two  comprehensive  e-Surveys  with  line  beneficiaries  and 
NCPs in the four IPA countries. E-Survey 2 was conducted with the European Commission‟s 
relevant thematic DGs, European Union Delegations (EUDs) in the IPA countries and EUMS 
NCPs.  The  Strengths-Weaknesses-Opportunities-Threats  (SWOT)  analysis  was  also 
conducted  with  the  aim  of  providing  useful  insights  into  TAIEX  for  future  conceptualisation 
and programming. 

Key findings 

Relevance and design 
TAIEX  assistance  has  been  highly  relevant  in  view  of  existing  and  emerging  international 
and  national  commitments  of  IPA  country  governments,  with  respect  to  furthering  public 
administration and governance reforms and in light of the EU accession requirements. The 
evaluation  identified  several  strengths  and  no  significant  weaknesses  in  the  overall 
design of the Instrument. 

The  broad,  system-focused  design  of  the  TAIEX  instrument  is  appropriate  in  view  of 
the needs of the beneficiary governments and their respective institutions. TAIEX is a 
demand driven instrument, based on the recognised need of the Beneficiary Administrations 
(BA) for assistance in certain internal processes (legislative, implementation or procedural).  

Effectiveness 
TAIEX  contributions to  envisaged  reforms  are  almost  exclusively  positive.  There  is  a 
record  of  useful  results  being  delivered  in  beneficiary  countries,  which  supported  reform 
goals across the various sectors of support. This was achieved through informed strategies, 
improved legislation, enhanced institutional capacity, the modernisation of practices and new 
models  of  work,  but  also  behavioural  change.  There  is  evidence  of  a  contribution  to 
successful changes in legal frameworks, policies and strategies, through support provided by 
TAIEX  assistance  -  in  synergy  with  other  instruments  -  to  strengthen  the  respective  BAs‟ 
organisational capacities. TAIEX empowered positive changes and the ability of adjustments 
with the approximations into the EU acquis. 

Efficiency 
While it is difficult to assess cost-effectiveness of TAIEX (due to the fact that it is a demand 
driven instrument featuring a less systematic framework of outcome and impact indicators), 
there is evidence that TAIEX assistance has been delivered in a timely and efficient manner. 
Its management structures and approaches are appropriate and allow for the selection of the 

AETS Consortium – August 2015 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation of TAIEX Instrument 

Final Evaluation Report 

best  mechanisms  to  respond  to  the  needs  of  the  BA.  Despite  the  fact  that  TAIEX  is  a 
demand driven instrument by nature - which can cause fragmentation - it is in a good position 
to  overcome  this  obstacle  by  increasingly  ensuring  sequenced  events  that  have  been 
programmed  and  supported  within  sectors.  Some  positive  lessons  and  experiences  from 
such  examples  are  taken  into  account  and  used  to  inform  programming  of  new  TAIEX 
interventions.  TAIEX  has  a  strong  in-built  Monitoring  and  Evaluation  (M&E)  system  that 
provides  a  good overview  of  efficiency,  effectiveness  and relevance of  support  provided by 
the instrument. 

Impact 
TAIEX‟s  overall  contribution  to  EU  accession  must  be  looked  at  in  conjunction  with  other 
forms of EU (and other donor) assistance to individual countries. Nonetheless, available data 
on  TAIEX  and  data  gathered  through  this  evaluation  indicate  that  TAIEX  efforts  have 
contributed  to  moving  existing  change  processes  into  the  desired  direction  in  the  IPA 
countries.  This 
terms  of  behavioural  change  and 
legislative/institutional mechanisms development and reform.  

is  particularly 

the  case 

in 

Sustainability  
The 
instrument  helped  create  a  number  of  conditions  likely  to  support  the 
sustainability  of  results.  Good  foundations  for  sustainability  included  adopted  legislation 
and newly established mechanisms, as well as administrative and organisational structures, 
which are in place - ensuring the effective implementation of TAIEX assistance. While certain 
achievements are likely to be sustained without further support, others will require additional 
efforts  from  national  and/or  international  actors.  The  main  threat  to  sustainability  is  a  high 
turnover  of  staff  and  low  capacities  in  the  public  administrations.  This  is  compounded  by  a 
lack  of  political/senior  management  support  to  sustaining  changes  brought  about  by  the 
TAIEX instrument. 

SWOT Analysis of TAIEX 

Strengths 

Weaknesses 

  Relevance  of  TAIEX  to  most  ardent 

  Fragmentation of support. 

needs of the BAs; 

  Participatory approach to programming; 
  Expertise brought about by TAIEX; 
  Mobilisation and networking; 
  Synergy with other development efforts; 
  Flexible implementation framework; 
  Strong M&E system. 

Opportunities 

Threats 

  Sequencing of TAIEX assistance; 
  Knowledge management and learning; 
  Complementarity. 

  Deteriorating  situation  in  individual 

countries or in the region; 

  The  late  communication  of  logistical 
arrangements  to  the  participants  and 
the relevant BA.  

AETS Consortium – August 2015 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation of TAIEX Instrument 

Final Evaluation Report 

Recommendations 

The following table presents recommendations for TAIEX instrument. 

Strategic (S) 
S1 

Enhance  ownership  of  BAs  over  TAIEX 
through  encouraging 
instrument 
their 
leadership 
in  prioritisation  of  TAIEX 
assistance,  preparation  of  requests  and 
selection of implementing partners/experts.  

Governments, with 
the assistance of 
EUD and TAIEX 
management 

2015-2016 

Programming, delivery and co-ordination of the instrument (P) 
P1 

Continue  good  practice  of  sequencing 
assistance  through  combination  of  TAIEX 
events. 

NCPs and the TAIEX 
Unit 
the 
at 
Directorate  General 
for  Neighbourhood 
Enlargement 
and 
Negotiations 
(DG 
NEAR) 
NCPs and the TAIEX 
Unit at DG NEAR 

TAIEX  Unit  at  DG 
NEAR 

Planning and 
programming 
phase of 
TAIEX 

Planning and 
programming 
phase of 
TAIEX 
Ongoing 

EU Delegations 
National 
Coordinators 
(NIPACs)/NCPs 
BAs 

Permanently 

IPA 

Permanently 

TAIEX  Unit  at  DG 
NEAR 

Permanently 

TAIEX  Unit  at  DG 
NEAR 

Permanently 

TAIEX  Unit  at  DG 
NEAR 

Permanently 

TAIEX  Unit  at  DG 
NEAR 

2015-2016 

P2 

P3 

P4 

P5 

P6 

P7 

P8 

P9 

Continue approving study visits as a TAIEX 
support mechanism.  

Enable  access  to  M&E  data  gathered  and 
analysed in the system for internal users in 
EC  (e.g.  line  DGs)  to  contribute  to  shared 
understanding  of  the  value  added  and 
effectiveness  and  impact  of  the  TAIEX 
assistance. 
Increase  awareness-raising  concerning  the 
TAIEX 
the 
monitoring 
function  of  national  contact 
points. 
BAs  should  invest  their  efforts  to  build 
further  capacities for  prioritization  of  TAIEX 
support 
the 
requirements from the online form.  
Continue  ensuring  logistics  arrangements 
run smoothly.  

instrument 

activities 

support 

fulfilling 

and 

and 

Improve the application form by introducing 
analysis  of 
impact  and  sustainability 
prospects of the event (or series of events, 
if applicable). 
Strengthen  the  website  presentation  of  the 
TAIEX  instrument  –  to  be  used  also  as  a 
visibility tool. 
Consider stronger support through webinars 
as  a  good  practice  that  can  contribute  to 
sustainability of measures. 

AETS Consortium – August 2015 

3 

 
 
 
Evaluation of TAIEX Instrument 

Final Evaluation Report 

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

This  evaluation  report  summarises  the  key  evaluation  findings,  conclusions,  and  forward-
looking recommendations deriving from the evaluation of the TAIEX Instrument. 

1.1.  Purpose of the Evaluation 

According  to  the  Terms  of  Reference  (ToR)  (page  4,  Annex  1),  the  purpose  of  the 
‘Evaluation  of  TAIEX  instrument’  is  „to  assess  the  capacity  of  the  TAIEX  Technical 
Assistance  and  Information  Exchange  in  making  available  the  expertise  of  Member  States' 
public officials and administrations to countries wishing to align their standards with those of 
the EU in the most relevant and effective way.‟ The overall objective is to enhance EU value 
added  and  cost-effectiveness  in  delivering  assistance  while  addressing  beneficiary  needs. 
The  European  Commission  (DG  NEAR,  Unit  A.3  Inter-institutional  Relations,  Planning, 
Reporting  and  Evaluation)  has  contracted  an  external  contractor  –  AETS  -  to  carry  out  the 
evaluation, which took place during the period October 2014 – June 2015.  

The specific objectives of the assignment are to provide an assessment of the relevance, 
added value and cost effectiveness (efficiency) of TAIEX assistance by: 

  Assessing  the  relevance,  effectiveness,  efficiency,  impact,  sustainability  of  TAIEX 

assistance; 

  Providing  Lessons  Learnt  and  Recommendations 

for  decision-making  on 

improvements of future financial assistance. 

An  additional  requirement  of  the  evaluation  was  to  conduct  a  SWOT  analysis  on  targeted 
acquis assistance funded by TAIEX in the IPA region; and to assess the cost-efficiency of its 
management mode.  

The evaluation has been carried out by the following Evaluation Team: 

  Ms  Zehra  Kacapor-Dzihic,  Lead  drafter  of  the  Evaluation  Report  on  the  TAIEX 

Instrument;  

  Ms Marie Kaufmann, Junior Expert 2; 
  Mr Levent Sayan, Junior Expert 3. 

1.2.  Methodology and Approach 

Evaluation Phases 

The  evaluation  has  been  carried  out  in  three  consecutive  phases:  Inception  (desk)  Phase, 
Main assessment Phase and a Synthesis Phase, with a flexible borderline and overlapping in 
order  to  ensure  maximum  effectiveness  and  to  avoid  the  impractical  constraints  of  a  rigid 
timeframe/work plan. 

Inception  (desk)  Phase.  The  Evaluation  started  with  the  kick-off  meeting  conducted  in 
Brussels  on  22  October  2014,  and  other  follow-up  meetings  conducted  with  the  Evaluation 
Unit  and 
the  Evaluators  conducted 
comprehensive face-to-face interviews with several thematic line DGs1, the Czech NCP, the 

the  TAIEX  Unit.  During 

inception  phase, 

the 

1 Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development (DG AGRI), Director ate General for International Cooperation and 
Development  (DG  DEVCO),  Directorate  General  for  Neighbourhood  and  Enlargement  Negotiations  (DG  NEAR),  Directorate 
General  for  Energy  (DG  ENER),  Directorate  General  for  Enterprise  and  Industry  (DG  ENTR),  Directorate  General  for 
Environment (DG ENV), Directorate General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs(DG GROW), Directorate 
General for Health and Food Safety (DG SANTE) and the Directorate General for Taxation and Customs Union (DG TAXUD). 

AETS Consortium – August 2015 

4 

 
                                                      
Evaluation of TAIEX Instrument 

Final Evaluation Report 

External  Contractor  for  TAIEX  Logistics  and  Belgium‟s  Federal  Training  Centre2  on  12,  13, 
14, 20 and 21 November 2014 (see Annex 7). The minutes of these face-to-face interviews 
are attached in Annex 16 (Brussels meetings) and Annex 17 (Czech NCP).  

The Final Inception Report was submitted on 21 January 2015. 

a)  Main  assessment  Phase.  The  assessment  Phase  took  place  between  January-May 
2015.  It  was  used  to  collect  information  from  the  countries  in  the  sample,  the  line  DGs, 
EUMS,  the  TAIEX  Unit  (through  semi-structured  interviews),  the  two  e-surveys,  and 
telephone interviews based on the Evaluation Matrix and the sample. 

The  ToR  of  this  Evaluation  did  not  envisage  field  missions  to  the  target  countries  and  as 
such,  telephone  interviews  were  held  with  officials  from  key  ministries  and  other 
governmental bodies that were beneficiaries of TAIEX, line DGs and EUMS representatives 
involved  in  TAIEX  relevant  to  the  TAIEX  evaluation.  Telephone  interviews  were  essentially 
conducted simultaneously with, or after, the e-Surveys and were used for corroborating and 
confirming  the  desk  research  findings.  In  addition,  when  appropriate,  they  were  used  for 
collecting  additional  information,  which  could  in  turn  be  used  for  reporting  and  generating 
recommendations, and lessons learnt. 

b)  Synthesis Phase. Information and facts collected during the first two phases have been 
analysed and integrated in this Evaluation Report. The Final Evaluation Report incorporates 
the feedback received from the stakeholders following a presentation event held on 18 May 
2015 in Brussels. 

The  Evaluation  has  followed  a  participatory  process  with  active  involvement  of  as  many 
relevant  line  beneficiaries  and  stakeholders  as  possible  both  in  Brussels  and  the  four  IPA 
countries, who contributed directly and indirectly to the management and implementation of 
TAIEX activities. 

Evaluation Matrix 

The  five  generic  Evaluation  Questions  (EQ),  which  frame  the  evaluation  methodological 
approach reflect  and focus on,  42  sub-questions  broken  down  into  each of the  evaluation 
criteria as indicated in the assignment‟s ToR. However, after careful review of the ToR, the 
Evaluators reshuffled the list of those questions to link them more accurately to each of the 
proposed criteria, which was approved in the inception phase (see Annex 3 for the detailed 
list  of  reshuffled  Evaluation  Questions  with  cross-references).  Moreover,  several 
questions were added to Interview Guide N°1 prepared for the telephone interviews with the 
line beneficiaries and the TAIEX NCPs in the 4 IPA countries (Annex 4). Question were also 
added to  Interview  Guide  N°2  (Annex  5)  prepared for the  meetings  with the  thematic  line 
DGs in Brussels and the telephone interviews with the EUMS NCPs. 

Finally, on the basis of their analysis and findings under each of the evaluation criteria, the 
Evaluators  provided  Conclusions  and  Recommendations  that  shall  be  considered  for 
future TAIEX interventions under the next IPA programming cycles. 

The Final Evaluation Report structure fully reflects the questions indicated in the ToR against 
the Evaluation Criteria. A matrix including the generic Evaluation Questions, their Sub-
Questions,  Judgement  Criteria  and  Indicators  has  been  prepared  and  is  attached  in 
Annex  6  to  the  present  Final  Evaluation  Report.  The  matrix  follows  the  evaluation  sub-
questions indicated in the ToR. Those sub-questions have been consolidated into the various 
chapters and sub-chapters of the Final Evaluation Report. 

2 Home organisation of the EUMS Expert for TAIEX. 

AETS Consortium – August 2015 

5 

 
                                                      
Evaluation of TAIEX Instrument 

Final Evaluation Report 

1.3.  Evaluation Sample 

The  chief  criterion  considered  for  selecting  the  evaluation  sample  has  been  to  make  it  as 
representative as possible of all the TAIEX events implemented in the IPA Region from 2007 
to  present.  The  rationale  for  this  approach  is  that  the  Evaluation  eventually  needs  to 
extrapolate  validated  findings  to  the  entire  EU-funded  TAIEX  instrument  in  the  IPA  Region 
from 2007 to present. 

Sampling approach 

This  evaluation  addresses  a  sample  of  4  IPA  Countries,  which  consists  of  one  new  EU 
Member  State  (Croatia3)  and  three  Candidate  Countries  (the  former  Yugoslav  Republic  of 
Macedonia, Montenegro and Turkey). The four-country sample represents just above 60% of 
the total number of TAIEX requests in the IPA Region for 2010-2014 and slightly more than 
55%  of  the  total  number  of  TAIEX  events  in  the  IPA  Region  over  the  same  period.  This 
Evaluation covers workshops, expert missions and study visits to EUMS as types of TAIEX 
events for the focus of the assessment.  

In  accordance  with  the  ToR,  the  present  Evaluation  focuses  on  Relevance,  Efficiency, 
Effectiveness,  Impact  and  Sustainability  issues.  The  ToR  (p.4)  also  specify  that  „the 
Evaluation focuses on a sample of IPA Financial Decisions, more particularly IPA Financial 
Decisions 2011 and 2013 (see Annex 1 to the TORs), which means that the Experts should 
cover  TAIEX  support  provided  by  the  EU  via  its  latest  Financing  Decisions  (IPA/2011/022-
928; IPA/2011/022-964; IPA/2011/022-852; IPA/2013/023-746)‟. However, this question was 
also discussed further by the Evaluation Unit and the Evaluators in the subsequent meetings 
of 12-13 November 2014.  

As  agreed  during  the  kick-off  meeting  and  subsequent  discussion  with  DG  NEAR,  for  the 
Desk Research Phase, the Evaluators focused on the years 2011-2014, i.e. the most recent 
events.  Moreover,  the  Evaluation  Team  also  analysed  how  TAIEX  evolved  in  the  IPA 
countries over the period under consideration, i.e. from 2007 to date. Therefore, in order to 
gain a full understanding of the design of EU sector support/assistance, main achievements 
to  date  and  particularly  where  and  why  the  TAIEX  instrument  has  worked  well,  and  where 
and  why  it  has  worked  less  well  were  covered.  This  Evaluation  covers  the  IPA-I  (2007-13) 
and  IPA-II  periods  (2014)  with  a  particular  focus  on  TAIEX  assistance  from  mid-2012 
onwards. 

The  broad  priority  sectors  for  this  Evaluation  were  indicated  in  the  Terms  of  Reference for 
this  assignment  and  were  discussed  between  the  Evaluators  and  DG  NEAR‟s  Evaluation 
Unit  and  its  Reference  Group  during  the  kick-off  meeting  conducted  in  Brussels  on  22 
October  2014.  They  correspond  to  the  internal  division  of  sectors  of  the  Unit  managing 
TAIEX: 

  Agriculture & Food Safety; 
  Freedom, Security & Justice (JLS), also referred to as Justice & Home Affairs; 
  Environment, Transport and Telecommunications, Energy; 
 

Internal Market (and others). 

1.4.  Evaluation Tools and the Data Collection Methods 

Preliminary face-to-face interviews with thematic DGs in Brussels, the Czech NCP and 
one EUMS Expert for TAIEX 

3 Croatia joined the EU as Member State since 1 July 2013, but has continued to benefit from TAIEX activities. To date, Croatia 
is the EU‟s 28th Member State. 

AETS Consortium – August 2015 

6 

 
                                                      
Evaluation of TAIEX Instrument 

Final Evaluation Report 

Evaluators  conducted  comprehensive  face-to-face  interviews  with  several  line  thematic 
DGs4,  the  Czech  NCP,  the  External  Contractor  for  TAIEX  Logistics  and  Belgium‟s  Federal 
Training  Centre5  on  12,  13,  14,  20  and  21  November  2014,  and  the  German  NCP  (see 
Annex 7). The minutes of those face-to-face interviews are attached in Annex 16 (Brussels 
meetings), Annex 17 (Czech NCP), and the German NCP (Annex 27). 

Telephone Interviews with the Line Stakeholders 

Two Interview Guides were developed for the telephone interviews. One was intended for the 
line  beneficiaries  and the other  was intended for  the  line  thematic  DGs and the five EUMS 
NCPs.  Both  interview  guides  are  attached  in  Annex  4  and  Annex  5.  The  final  lists  of 
interviewees  can  be  found  in  Annex  8.  Minutes  of  the telephone  interviews  with  the  4  IPA 
countries can be found in Annexes 12-15. 

The two e-Surveys 

Two comprehensive e-Surveys were conducted within the scope of this Evaluation. The e-
Survey 1 was conducted with line beneficiaries and NCPs in the four IPA countries. The 
e-Survey  2  was  conducted  with  the  European  Commission’s  relevant  thematic  DGs, 
EUDs in the IPA countries and EUMS NCPs. 

The questionnaires for these two e-Surveys are attached to the present Evaluation Report in 
Annex  9  and  Annex  10.  DG  NEAR‟s  Evaluation  Unit  provided  the  Evaluators  with  a 
supporting  certificate  to  be  sent  to the  line  stakeholders  prior  to  the  launch  of  e-Surveys 
and the ensuing telephone interviews. The Evaluation Unit‟s certificate is attached in Annex 
11. 

Both  e-Survey  questionnaires  were  based  upon  the  ToRs  for  the  present  evaluation 
assignment (evaluation questions, judgement criteria and indicators) and are in line with the 
telephone and face-to-face Interview Guides attached respectively in Annex 4 and Annex 5.  

Both e-Surveys normally cover all TAIEX assistance from 2007 to date within the framework 
of IPA I and IPA II. 

Contact details for the e-Survey target groups were harvested from the relevant documents 
received from DG NEAR‟s Evaluation Unit (e.g. reports on informal/formal visits, suggestions 
made by the Reference Group, etc.). 

Both e-Surveys consisted of close-ended and open-ended statements and questions. Their 
final  versions  were  also  fine-tuned  during  the  Field  Phase  for  the  above-indicated  target 
groups. Those surveys were shared with the Reference Group and comments received from 
DG NEAR were integrated into the final versions of both e-Surveys. 

Both e-Surveys were prepared in the English, Croatian, Macedonian and Turkish languages. 
Targeted respondents were able to select their preferred language on the start-up screen for 
the four target countries. 

A web-based interface, QuestionPro, was used for the preparation of the forms, direct and 
indirect distribution (via dedicated link) to participants via e-mail, and collection and analysis 
of  their  responses.  Microsoft  Excel  was  used  for  aggregating  the  data,  carrying  out 
quantitative frequency analysis and preparing the graphs. 

4 DG AGRI, DG DEVCO, DG NEAR, DG ENER, DG ENTR, DG ENV, DG GROW, DG SANTE and DG TAXUD. 
5 Home organisation of the EUMS Expert for TAIEX. 

AETS Consortium – August 2015 

7 

 
                                                      
Evaluation of TAIEX Instrument 

Final Evaluation Report 

Both e-surveys were launched on 12 February 2015 and ended on 6 March 2015. They were 
distributed to approximately 500 individual e-mail addresses via QuestionPro with an official 
DG  NEAR  support  letter  to  encourage  participation.  All  the  queries  made  by  participants 
were answered via e-mail.  

The e-Survey 1 participants were a rather uniform group of BAs in the four target countries. 
Within  three  weeks,  the  webpage  for  e-Survey  1  was  visited  more  than  758  times.  262 
participants  registered;  following  the  elimination  of  incomplete  forms,  there  were  a  total  of 
246 filled-in forms, which were used for this Evaluation. Five respondents declared that they 
had not heard of the TAIEX instrument before and were thus removed. 214 responses were 
quite  satisfactory  and  the  participation  rates  were  balanced  amongst  target  countries. 
Specifically,  in  Croatia,  it  was  agreed  that  the  NCP  disseminate  the  information  about  the 
survey  among  all  the  relevant  BAs  in  order  to  invite  them  to  participate  -  and  thus  support 
their willingness to provide feedback. 

Excel  was  used  to  analyse  the  data  and  to  prepare  the  graphs  and  tables.  E-Survey  data 
was aggregated into one single report and also processed via quantitative frequency analysis 
and  qualitative  analysis  of  the  open-ended  comments,  relevant  tables  and  the  various 
comments made. Below is the breakdown of the home countries of respondents (based upon 
their place of residence for each target country): 

Table 1 – breakdown of home countries of respondents (e-survey 1) 

Where do you currently 
reside?* 

Albania 
Croatia 
the former Yugoslav Republic of 
Macedonia  
Montenegro 
Serbia 
Turkey 
Total 

Number of respondents 

% 

1 
57 
41 

21 
1 
120 
241 

0,41% 
23,65% 
17,01% 

8,71% 
0,41% 
49,79% 
100% 

* Certain participants included in the survey currently reside in countries outside of the four 
target  countries  which  consist  of  one  new  EU  Member  State  (Croatia)  and  3  Candidate 
former  Yugoslav  Republic  of  Macedonia,  Montenegro  and  Turkey). 
Countries  (the 
Nevertheless, they were involved with TAIEX in one of the target countries and as such their 
responses  were  included.  The  current  place  of  residence  is  reflected  in  the  survey  (e.g. 
Albania or Serbia). 

E-Survey 2 for line DGs, NCPs and  European  Union Delegations in the four IPA Countries 
was  distributed  to  approximately  110  addresses  and  only  31  responses  (fully  filled-in 
questionnaires) were received, i.e. approximately 30% of the total target population. Overall, 
the website for e-Survey 1 received 137 visits. 

AETS Consortium – August 2015 

8 

 
Evaluation of TAIEX Instrument 

Final Evaluation Report 

Table 2 – persons in distribution list and participants per group (e-Survey 2) 

Line DGs 
4 IPA Beneficiary 
Countries (BC)  
Other IPA BCs 
EUMSs 
Other  
TOTAL 

Number of persons in the e-
Survey distribution list 
14 
15 

e-Survey 2 participants per 
group 
5 
8 

12 
61 
5 
107 

1 
16 
1 
31 

% 

36 
53 

8 
26 
50 
29 

The  list  of  e-Survey  2  participants  can  be  found  in  Annex  19.  The  e-Survey  Summary 
Reports are attached in Annex 20 (e-Survey 1) and Annex 21 (e-Survey 2). The answers to 
the  open-ended  questions  of  both  e-Surveys  were  used  for  compiling  the  present  Final 
Evaluation Report. The full overview concerning the number of institutions per country which 
were  addressed  by  the  survey  and  the  number  of  responses  finally  received  is  provided  in 
Annex 26. 

1.5.  SWOT analysis – overall assessment of TAIEX in the IPA Region 

Within  the  framework  of  the  Evaluation,  a  SWOT  analysis  was  developed  to  sum  up 
opinions,  comments,  remarks,  recommendations  and  key  messages  received  from  the  line 
stakeholders in the IPA Region, European Commission services in Brussels, EU Delegations 
to  IPA  countries  and  EUMS.  It  also  brings  together  answers  to  the  evaluation  questions 
within an overall assessment of the TAIEX Instrument, reflecting views and feedback by the 
Line  Beneficiary  Institutions  in  the  IPA  Region.  This  SWOT  analysis  may  provide  useful 
insights into TAIEX for future conceptualisation and programming. 

As such, the Evaluators have conducted a SWOT analysis on targeted EU acquis chapters, 
assessed  the  cost-effectiveness  (efficiency)  of  the  TAIEX  management  mode,  appreciated 
the  strengths  and  weaknesses  of  the  TAIEX-specific  demand-driven  modalities,  assessed 
the  feasibility  of  making  TAIEX  more  instrumental  to  a  sectoral  approach  and  also  its 
complementarity  with  the  sectoral  approach  in  IPA-II  (i.e.  complementarity  of  TAIEX  with 
budget support operations; TAIEX instrumentality for designing a new programme). 

1.6.  Evaluation constraints 

The following constraints were encountered by the evaluation team: 

Given that a large number of TAIEX events were completed more than one year ago, several 
line  beneficiary  institutions  have  restructured  and  several  of  their  representatives  who  had 
direct  hands-on  experience  of  the  events  under  evaluation  left  their  positions  for  various 
reasons:  retirement,  resignation,  promotion  or  assignment  to  another  institution  or  other 
duties. As a result, some of the beneficiaries to be contacted were replaced by other relevant 
persons from a given BA. 

It was not possible to reach EUMS experts even though they have a crucial role in the TAIEX 
events.  It  is  mentioned  that  it  was  not  possible  to  send  e-mail  invitations  to  this  group 
because  of  the  limitations  in  the  TAIEX  Management  System  (TMS)  related  to  data 
protection constraints. For the same reason, it was not possible to reach the participants of 
the TAIEX events for the period of 2007-2014; only e-mails of the participants of the TAIEX 
events were provided by the TAIEX Unit for a 6 month period.  

AETS Consortium – August 2015 

9 

 
 
 
Evaluation of TAIEX Instrument 

Final Evaluation Report 

2. 

BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT 

2.1 

TAIEX Instrument 

In June 1993, the European Council meeting of Copenhagen identified alignment with the EU 
acquis,  in  particular  with  regard  to  the  internal  market,  as  one  of  the  main  elements  of  the 
pre-accession  strategy.  The  European  Commission  White  Paper  on  „Preparation  of  the 
Associated Countries of Central and Eastern Europe for Integration into the Internal Market 
of  the  Union‟  emphasised  the  importance  of  the  implementation  and  control  structures,  the 
establishment  of  which  must  support  the  adoption  of  legislation  in  the  internal  market.  The 
White  Paper  suggested  the  establishment  of  a  Technical  Assistance  Information 
Exchange Office (TAIEX) „…within the Commission in order to provide for the exchange of 
information and to give direct advice to associated countries‟. 

The TAIEX Office was created on 5th July 1995 and commenced operations in January 1996. 
It  was  originally  set  up  for  a  two-year  period  to  provide  complementary  and  focussed 
technical assistance (TA) to public administrations in the areas of legislation covered by the 
White Paper. Importantly, following the adoption of the Agenda 2000, the remit of TAIEX was 
extended to cover the entire acquis. Subsequently TAIEX was made available to Cyprus and 
Malta (2001), Turkey and the Western Balkans (2003), and to the Turkish Cypriot community 
(2004) and has since then become an integral feature of the pre-accession strategy. In 2006, 
TAIEX‟s original scope in candidate countries and potential candidates was extended to the 
European Neighbourhood countries.  

TAIEX activities are directly linked to the implementation of the overall cooperation objectives 
of the European Union with these partners: it provides short-term EU public sector expertise 
to  beneficiary  countries.  The  expertise  assists 
transposing  and 
implementing the EU acquis. 

in  understanding, 

Although TAIEX is a demand driven instrument, the requests submitted by beneficiary public 
administrations  largely  matched  the  policy  priorities  set  by  the  European  Union.  In  recent 
years,  the  enlargement  strategy  policy  papers  have  attached  increasing  importance  to 
strengthening  the  rule  of  law  and  countering  corruption  and  organised  crime.  In  particular, 
assistance  requests  submitted  by  IPA  beneficiaries  have  focused  precisely  on  this  policy 
area,  i.e.  freedom,  security  and  justice.  TAIEX  assistance  has  also  covered  other  areas, 
namely  internal  market  (IM),  agriculture  and food  safety  (AGRI)  and  environment, transport 
and telecommunications (ETT), etc.  

In IPA countries, TAIEX relies on a network of National Contact Points at the level of national 
public institutions implementing or enforcing EU legislation. TAIEX then shares the expertise 
of  EUMS  public  officials  with  beneficiary  countries  to  „fill  the  gaps‟  in  their  knowledge  and 
understanding of EU rules and procedures via the exchange of experience and best practice 
– thereby fostering networks between public officials and civil servants in EUMS and partner 
countries.  TAIEX  delivers  peer-to-peer  assistance  and  contributes  to  the  delivery  of 
appropriate tailor-made expertise to address problems at short notice. 

TAIEX provides four types of assistance: 

  Expert missions to Beneficiary Countries: maximum five days in principle, to provide 
guidance on legislative projects and on the functioning of the administrative process, 
to  advise  on  legislative  acts  and  on  their  implementation,  to  explain  the  EU  acquis 
and to present EU Best Practice examples; 

  Workshops or seminars in Beneficiary Countries: average duration of approximately 
two days to present and explain the EU acquis-related and EU best practice issues to 
a large audience (selected by the Beneficiary Country) from the same country or from 

AETS Consortium – August 2015 

10 

 
Evaluation of TAIEX Instrument 

Final Evaluation Report 

several countries, regarding issues of common interest. Regional workshops can also 
be organised (for several countries at a time); 

  Study visits to EUMS: maximum five days in principle, to train a maximum of three 
BC officials on how  MS  deal  with practical issues related to the implementation and 
enforcement of the EU acquis; 

  Assessment  missions  involving  several  EUMS  experts  to  provide  feedback  on 
legislative,  institutional  and  administrative  gaps  in  areas  identified  to  produce 
analytical peer reports and recommendations. However, this fourth type of assistance 
is usually considered as part of the Expert Missions.  

The  beneficiaries  of  TAIEX  assistance  include  those  sectors  having  a  role  to  play  in  the 
beneficiary countries in the transposition, implementation and enforcement of EU legislation, 
or in the case of ENP countries, in deepening economic and political cooperation by sharing 
the  experience gained  during  the  enlargement  process.  TAIEX  does  not  provide  any  direct 
capacity  building  support  to  civil  society  organisations,  private  citizens  or  to  individual 
companies. 

2.2 

TAIEX statistics for the countries in the sample for 2010-2014 

It  is  possible  to  derive  a  specific  breakdown  reflecting  „submitted  vs.  accepted  TAIEX 
requests  per  country  per  sector‟;  the  following  tables  provide  insightful  breakdowns  for  the 
IPA region. It must be noted that on average,  Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) is the sector 
where most applications have been received (1200 requests) and has the highest approval 
rating  (88%,  i.e.  1055  approvals)  for  2010-2014.  However,  the  approval  rate  for  JHA 
requests declined to 76% in 2014. The number of TAIEX applications and approval rates are 
almost  similar  for  the  Agriculture  and  Internal  Market  sectors.  The  approval  rate  for  ETT  is 
slightly  lower,  while  the  number  of  ETT  applications  is  considerably  smaller  in  comparison 
with the other sectors. 

AETS Consortium – August 2015 

11 

 
Evaluation of TAIEX Instrument 

Final Evaluation Report 

Table 3 – TAIEX operations 2010-2014 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

TOTAL 

S* 

A* 

Rejecti
on Rate 
% 

S 

A 

198 

140 

29% 

153 

124 

Rejec
tion 
Rate 
% 
19% 

S 

A 

180 

157 

Rejec
tion 
Rate 
% 
13% 

S 

A 

130 

112 

Rejec
tion 
Rate 
% 
14% 

S 

A 

107 

97 

Rejec
tion 
Rate 
% 
9% 

S 

A 

Rejection 
Rate % 

392 

271 

31% 

212 

143 

33% 

256 

227 

11% 

236 

205 

13% 

175 

135 

23% 

1271 

Montenegro 

83 

58 

30% 

74 

50 

32% 

72 

58 

19% 

100 

76 

24% 

167 

121 

169 

122 

28% 

157 

119 

24% 

231 

196 

15% 

207 

185 

11% 

184 

149 

842 

591 

596 

436 

739 

638 

673 

578 

633 

502 

3483 

2745 

30% 

24% 

14% 

14% 

21% 

* S – submitted; A - accepted 

768 

28% 

19% 

496 

948 

630 

981 

363 

771 

18% 

23% 

27% 

19% 

21% 

Croatia 

fYRoM 

Turkey 

Total 

Average 

AETS Consortium – August 2015 

12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation of TAIEX Instrument 

Final Evaluation Report 

Table 4 – TAIEX statistics for the IPA Region per sector for 2010-14 based on the Accepted (A)/Submitted (S) requests 

2010 

A 

56 

S 

89 

148 

228 

244 

266 

143 

259 

591 

842 

Approved 
Rate % 

2011 

Approved 
Rate % 

2012 

Approved 
Rate % 

63% 

65% 

92% 

55% 

70% 

A 

57 

107 

166 

106 

436 

S 

68 

148 

208 

172 

596 

84% 

72% 

80% 

62% 

73% 

A 

67 

169 

245 

157 

638 

S 

78 

191 

265 

205 

739 

86% 

88% 

92% 

77% 

86% 

2013 

A 

69 

S 

85 

115 

145 

272 

292 

122 

151 

578 

673 

Approved 
Rate % 

81% 

79% 

93% 

81% 

86% 

2014* 

A 

59 

S 

83 

133 

168 

153 

193 

157 

189 

502 

633 

Approve
d Rate % 

Total 

Approved 
Rate % 

A 

308 

672 

S 

403 

880 

1080 

1224 

685 

976 

2745 

3483 

71% 

79% 

79% 

83% 

79% 

76% 

76% 

88% 

70% 

79% 

ETT 

AGRI 

JHA 

IM 

Total 

AETS Consortium – August 2015 

13 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
Evaluation of TAIEX Instrument 

Final Evaluation Report 

Table 5 - Number of participants (2007-2014) 

Croatia 
the former 
Yugoslav Republic 
of Macedonia 
Montenegro 

Turkey 

IPA I 

2007 

4784 

2008 

3716 

2009 

4078 

2010 

4337 

2011 

3301 

2012 

3232 

2013 

4380 

IPA II 

2014 

2184 

Total 

30012 

704 

1196 

2240 

3589 

3269 

3433 

4313 

3446 

22190 

529 

574 

3428 

6239 

1008 

8836 

792 

8707 

673 

5429 

1312 

4681 

2144 

6705 

2544 

3144 

9576 

47169 

Total 

9445 

11725 

16162 

17425 

12672 

12658 

17542 

11318 

108947 

IPA I Annual 
Average  
IPA II Annual 
Average  

13947 

11318 

Table 6 - Overall number of TAIEX requests per year and per country (2010-2014) 

IPA Beneficiaries 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

Croatia 
the  former  Yugoslav  Republic  of 
Macedonia 
Montenegro 

Turkey 

198 

392 

83 

169 

153 

212 

74 

157 

180 

256 

72 

231 

130 

236 

100 

207 

107 

175 

167 

184 

Total 

768 

1271 

496 

948 

Sub-total 

3483 

AETS Consortium – August 2015 

14 

 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
Evaluation of TAIEX Instrument 

Final Evaluation Report 

3. 

KEY FINDINGS 

IMPORTANT  NOTE:  Overall,  it  must  be  pointed  that  TAIEX  is  a  unique6,  EU-funded 
institutional  capacity  building  instrument  with  no  equivalent  to  be  found  in  other 
donors’  portfolios  of  international  multilateral  and  bilateral  technical  cooperation 
programmes  and  instruments.  Therefore  the  present  evaluation  of  the  TAIEX 
Instrument’s  performance  in  the  IPA  region  aims,  above  all,  to  demonstrate  the 
reasons  why  TAIEX  has  been  and  remains  so  popular  and  successful  amongst  line 
users.  It  will  highlight  -  via  its  recommendations  and  lessons  learnt  -  what  could  be 
undertaken to improve the instrument where appropriate and necessary.  

RELEVANCE 

EQ1  –  Relevance:  To  what  extent  are/have  the  intervention  logic,  strategy,  approach 
and the objectives of TAIEX actions been consistent with, and contributed adequately 
to, beneficiaries' requirements, IPA country needs, global priorities and partners' and 
EU policies? 

The  relevance  level  of  TAIEX  during  the  period  2007-2014  was  particularly  high.  TAIEX 
provided  technical  assistance  in  the  form  of  events  focusing  on  pre-accession  process, 
particularly in the field of approximation, application and enforcement of the EU  acquis and 
related issues. In that sense, TAIEX support has been extremely relevant as it is in line with 
the  aspirations  and  efforts  of  enlargement  countries  for  EU  membership.  The  accession 
agenda, steered by the national programmes for integration and regular EC progress reports, 
has  been  the  driving  force  in  the  programming  of  TAIEX  and  reflects  to  great  extent  the 
needs of BAs for capacity building and technical assistance in different areas of acquis. The 
increasing  commitment  and  recognition  of  TAIEX  as  useful  assistance  by  BAs  and 
structuring  the  programming  of  it  in  some  countries  (e.g.  the  former  Yugoslav  Republic  of 
Macedonia)  have  assisted  in  streamlining  TAIEX  and  its  evolution  into  a  functional  and 
valuable instrument. TAIEX is an ad hoc and quick instrument, triggered by direct requests 
submitted  by  beneficiaries‟  central  public  administrations.  As  such,  it  allows  for  quick 
responses  and  ways  to  address  the  arising  needs  of  BAs,  with  best  expertise  and 
experiences from the EUMS. 

In Croatia, TAIEX is perceived as a very valuable instrument and the possibility to benefit 
from TAIEX assistance in Croatia both as a candidate country and the EU member country 
was highly appreciated by the all interviewed stakeholders. The use of TAIEX in Croatia has 
significantly  evolved  over  the  years.  This  relates  to  the  change  of  priorities  and  needs  for 
TAIEX  assistance  in  Croatia  pre-  and  post-accession,  the  use  of  TAIEX  for  providing 
expertise to other beneficiary countries and  changes in types of event priorities. In the pre-
accession  period,  as  a  candidate  country,  the  Croatian  Government  adopted  the  National 
programme  for  EU  accession  on  an  annual  basis,  establishing  a  plan  of  harmonisation  of 
Croatian  legislation  with  that  of  the  EU  acquis.  Since  2014,  the  Croatian  government  has 
been  preparing  a  Programme  for  the  Adoption  and  Implementation  of  the  acquis 
communautaire  –  a  document  containing  the  obligations  arising  from  EU  membership.  The 
programme  is  no  longer  divided  into  chapters,  but  is  divided  according  to  the  government 
bodies responsible for the adoption of regulations, which incorporates the EU acquis. 

The  consulted  BAs  are  primarily  focused  on  TAIEX  activities  that  ensure  the  most  suitable 
insight  into  best  practices,  relevant  implementation  experiences  and  links  to  the  present 
legal,  political  and  economic  framework.  The  most  urgent  needs  pertain  to  information 
regarding  legislation  and  examples  of  best  practices  in  specific  fields.  As  a  new  Member 

6  The  Dutch  MATRA  facility  offers  an  intervention  scope  somewhat  similar  to  that  of  TAIEX  and  targets  the  IPA  countries: 
http://www.government.nl/issues/matra/grant-for-strengthening-democracy-matra-rule-of-law,  but  it  does  not  have  the  same 
level of access to human and financial resources as TAIEX.  
AETS Consortium – August 2015 

15 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
Evaluation of TAIEX Instrument 

Final Evaluation Report 

State, with short-term and limited experiences in certain practices, Croatia highly appreciates 
receiving  expertise  and  opportunities  to  visit  Member  States  in  order  to  learn  more  about 
practical solutions for the implementation of legislation. Currently, Croatia is focusing on the 
implementation of the acquis and Council decisions, which require action from MS related to 
the  ongoing  acquis  transposition  in  order  to  ensure  full  and  effective  implementation  of  the 
harmonised  legislation  arising  from  membership  (in  accordance  with  the  deadlines  for 
transposition  of  the  acquis).  The  administrations  need  to  understand  how  to  apply  the  new 
rules and how to adapt to the impending changes to the legal system. They are seeking the 
best  model  to  choose.  Hence,  the  current  focus  is  on  improving  their  activities  within  the 
given  circumstances  (budget,  resources),  more  focus  on  the  implementation  of  the  law, 
collecting  information  and  data,  reporting,  learning  different  implementation  models  and 
exchanges of information to fulfil their legal obligations. 

In  the  former  Yugoslav  Republic  of  Macedonia,  as  confirmed  by  all  interviewed 
stakeholders  and  as  per  findings  of  the  e-survey,  TAIEX  is  perceived  as  very  relevant  for 
the country‟s EU accession aspirations and overall work towards modernisation of the public 
administration  and  legislative  and  policy  framework.  In  the  former  Yugoslav  Republic  of 
Macedonia, the BAs have shown an outstanding interest in TAIEX assistance on their path to 
modernisation and reform of legislation and public administration7. The BAs have requested 
TAIEX  support  in  all  sectors  of  relevance  for  EU  accession  and  overall  modernisation  of 
processes  and  procedures.  Strong  interest  was  recorded  in  the  areas  of  personal  data 
protection, health, food safety and agriculture, etc. Interviewed BA representatives - but also 
the NCP and EUD - agree that the TAIEX activities requested are needs-based and reflect 
the strategic but also ad-hoc needs of BAs. The requests cover various issues, including the 
transposition of EU legislation and its development (and this is where most TAIEX assistance 
in terms of expert missions and workshops is requested), to the implementation of legislation 
and  policies  but  also  mechanisms  and  procedures  set  up  (where  BAs  usually  request 
primarily  study  visits).  As  such,  the  TAIEX  instrument  is  in  line  and  responsive  to 
governmental  needs  for  aligning  its  legislation,  institutions  and models  of  work  with  EU.  E-
surveys  show  that  almost  80%  of  survey  respondents  agree  or  strongly  agree  that  TAIEX 
events  responded  to  the  needs  of  participants.  Over  31%  of  respondents  from  the  former 
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia requested TAIEX to strengthen networks with EU Member 
States and other IPA countries. 25% requested TAIEX to carry out assessment missions for 
the EU acquis transfer or any other capacity building purpose, and 22% requested TAIEX to 
identify 
in  Governance  and 
Management (SIGMA), BS and other TA projects within the framework of EU acquis transfer 
activities.  

future  Twinning,  Support 

Improvement 

issues 

for 

for 

The  TAIEX  instrument  has  been  relevant  in  view  of  national  and  international 
commitments and priorities of the Montenegrin government, as well as in view of existing 
knowledge and capacity gaps in different areas of reforms in the country. The instrument is 
aligned  with  EC  priorities  for  the  accession  of  Montenegro.  TAIEX  is  aligned  with  existing 
international commitments of the government under the strategic documents adopted within 
the context of the EU integration process, including the 2014-2018 EU accession programme 
the  2013-2016  pre-accession  economic  programme  and  the  2014-2018  strategy  for 
informing  the  public  on  the  EU  accession  process.  TAIEX  contributes  to  the  government‟s 
continued  focus  on  the  objective  of  EU  membership.  Montenegro  has  started  fulfilling 
requirements  for  accession  as  outlined  in  the  EU  acquis8  and  ensuring  capacities  and 
mechanisms  are  being  developed  to  align  with  EU  standards.  In  Montenegro,  BAs  have 
requested  TAIEX  support  in  various  sectors  of  relevance  for  EU  accession  and  the  overall 
modernisation  of  processes  and  procedures.  Strong  interest  was  recorded  in  the  areas  of 
agriculture  and  food  safety,  freedom,  security  and  justice,  environment,  free  movement  of 
capital, intellectual property rights, financial services and public health etc.9. Interviewed BA 
representatives  -  but  also  the  NCP  and  EUD  -  agree  that  the  TAIEX  activities  requested 

7 European Commission (2013); TAIEX and Twinning Activity Report 2012, p. 1. 
8 See: http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/policy/conditions-membership/chapters-of-the-acquis/ 
9 Data from e-Survey 1 (Question 7). 
AETS Consortium – August 2015 

16 

 
 
 
                                                      
Evaluation of TAIEX Instrument 

Final Evaluation Report 

are needs based and reflect the strategic but also ad-hoc needs of BAs. The requests 
come for various issues, transposing EU legislation and its development (and this is  where 
most  TAIEX  assistance  in  terms  of  expert  missions  and  workshops  is  requested),  to 
implementation  of  legislation  and  policies  but  also  mechanisms  and  procedures  set  up 
(where BAs  usually  request  primarily  study  visits).  As  such, the TAIEX  instrument  is  in line 
and responsive to governmental needs for aligning its legislation, institutions and models of 
work  with EU.  E-Survey  1  shows  that  almost  94%  of survey  respondents from  Montenegro 
agree  or  strongly  agree  that  TAIEX  events  responded  to  the  institutional  needs10,  while  all 
respondents state that TAIEX events are very useful with regard to the priorities stated in the 
national  pre-accession  country  strategies11.  Over  37%  of  respondents  of  the  e-Survey  1 
requested  TAIEX  to  carry  out  assessment  missions  for  EU  acquis  transfer  or  any  other 
capacity  building  purpose;  while  25%  requested  TAIEX  respectively  for  Identification  of 
issues for future Twinning, SIGMA, and other TA projects within the framework of EU acquis 
transfer  activities  and  for  strengthening  networks  with  EU  Member  States  and  other  IPA 
countries. 

In Turkey, there is a close link between the enlargement strategy and the priorities for 
TAIEX  assistance  according  to  the  documentary  review  and  interviews  with  BAs  and  the 
EUD. In 2014, the Ministry of EU Affairs (MEUA) announced a new National Action Plan, a 
roadmap laying down Turkey‟s priorities to further the political reforms and socio-economic 
transformation  within  the  context  of  the  ongoing  EU  accession  process  and  Turkey‟s  new 
European Union strategy. It is a reference for Turkish BAs for the current TAIEX applications 
as  well.  In the  TMS  application  system  and  the  MEUAs‟  internal  application  system,  there 
are  specific fields,  which  need  to be  addressed by  each applicant.  They  have  to  establish 
relevance to the aforementioned strategic documents; such conditions were an obligation for 
IPA I and will also be applicable for the IPA II period. 

According to the interview and e-Survey results, the Turkish BAs agree that TAIEX rules and 
procedures are, in general, well designed and they contribute to the achievement of TAIEX 
objectives and expected results. They are in line with the IPA and other strategic documents 
for Turkey in particular in terms of preparations for the EU  acquis. The involvement of line 
stakeholders,  including  the  Turkish  NCP  and  BAs  in  the  project  preparation  phase  was 
adequate and contributed effectively to project relevance.  

The  interviewed  line  DG  officials  appreciate  the  TAIEX  instrument  and  usually  provided 
positive  observations.  Similarly,  the  EUMS  NCPs  also  find  TAIEX  as  relevant  and 
appropriate  instrument  to  address  the  needs  of  governments  in  the  Western  Balkans  and 
Turkey within their EU accession negotiations. 

3.1 

Intervention Logic 

The  broad,  system-focused  design  of  the  TAIEX  assistance  is  appropriate  in  view  of  the 
needs and priorities of the BAs in the  target countries. It provides the possibility to address 
the needs quickly and with relevant expertise. The activation of TAIEX assistance is largely 
based  on  the  recognised  need  of  the  BA  for  assistance  in  a  certain  internal  process 
(legislative,  implementation  or  procedural).  Previously,  there  were  no  questions  about  the 
type of event in the application form. TAIEX has now streamlined clear questions through the 
online application form – encouraging the beneficiaries to explain their reasons for selecting 
the specific type of event and presenting a clear description of their expectations. 

According to the experience of the TAIEX stakeholders in Croatia, the structures of requests 
for  TAIEX  technical  assistance  fit  the  fundamental  TAIEX  purpose  as  short-term  technical 
assistance  with  a  straight-forward  procedure  for  submitting  requests.  The  experience  was 
that  with  the  use  of  guidelines  for  the  application  for  TAIEX  technical  assistance  and  the 

10 Data from the e-Survey 1 (Question 23). 
11 Data from the e-Survey 1 (Question 23). 
AETS Consortium – August 2015 

17 

 
 
                                                      
Evaluation of TAIEX Instrument 

Final Evaluation Report 

presentation of some very good examples of requests, they managed to ensure the quality of 
the  requests  submitted.  Even  though  during  the  pre-accession  period  there  were  more 
TAIEX  events  organised  in  Croatia,  events  in  the  current  period  (post-accession)  are 
considered to be more focused and better targeted towards concrete, practical experiences. 
The  public  administration  in  Croatia  is  already  familiar  with  and this  is  in line  with the  TMS 
that requires clear and focused requests. The BAs in Croatia feel more experienced and self-
confident. They already possess significant know-how about the preparation of applications 
and they also provide their expertise to other beneficiary countries. According to the NCP, all 
lessons  learnt  from  previous  TAIEX  events  and  the  experience  of  the  NCP  working  with 
beneficiary  is  transferred  into  new  TAIEX  requests.  The  NCP  transfers  the  experience  and 
shares  best  practices  with  other  potential  beneficiary  institutions.  The  BAs  usually  try  to 
integrate lessons learnt into new TAIEX requests by making the requests more focused and 
by  providing  more  necessary  background  information.  However,  the  TAIEX  events  have 
been  mostly  used  on  an  ad  hoc  basis  in  order  to  satisfy  training  needs  that  the  national 
budget and/or the planned or ongoing projects were not meeting. 

In  the  former  Yugoslav  Republic  of  Macedonia,  the  BA,  in  close  coordination  with  NCP 
and wider NIPAC office, develops the application and submits it to NCP and through online 
application  system  to  the  TAIEX  desk  and  EUD.  The  online  application  system,  despite  its 
technical  challenges  reported  by  some  BAs,  is  generally  functional  and  allows  good 
description  of  needs  and  outline  of  desired  type  of  assistance  from  TAIEX.  The  BAs  also 
have  the  freedom  to  propose  countries  and/or  experts  with  whom  they  would  like  to  work, 
which  constitutes  an  added value  and  contributes  to  the  effectiveness  of  the  instrument. In 
the  former  Yugoslav  Republic  of  Macedonia,  the  NIPAC  office  has  established  a  system 
through  which  the  mapping  and  the  prioritisation  of  needs  for  TAIEX  assistance  for  the 
coming  year  is  made  at  the  end  of  each  year.  This  system  is  effective  in  ensuring  that 
relevant ideas are taken forward and developed, but also helps the BAs and the NIPAC and 
the EUD to adequately plan the events and know what priorities are for the year to come. 

In  Montenegro,  the  BA  prepares  the  application  and  submits  it  to  the  NCP  and  through 
online the application system to the TAIEX desk and the EUD. The online application system, 
despite the technical challenges reported by some BAs, is generally functional and gives the 
possibility to provide a good description of needs and an outline of desired type of assistance 
from TAIEX. The BAs also have the freedom to propose countries and/or experts with whom 
they  would  like  to  work,  which  constitutes  an  added  value  and  contributes  to  the 
effectiveness  of  the  instrument.  In  Montenegro,  there  is  no  devised  specific  procedural 
approach  to  the  mapping  and  prioritisation  of  needs  for  TAIEX  assistance  for  the  coming 
year. However, the requests are submitted by BAs and then verified or further developed in 
coordination with the NCP.  

In  Turkey,  according  to the  interview  results, the  Turkish  BAs  agree that  TAIEX  rules and 
procedures  are,  in  general,  well  designed.  The  majority  of  the  Turkish  e-Survey  1 
participants (80%, 79 respondents out of 99) agreed that the TAIEX setup and methodology 
(intervention logic, strategy and approach) are well defined to contribute to the achievement 
of  TAIEX  objectives  and  expected  results  and  are  in  line  with  the  IPA  and  other  strategic 
documents in Turkey – particularly in terms of preparations for the EU acquis. Furthermore, 
the majority of the Turkish e-Survey 1 participants (79%, 79 respondents out of 100) thought 
that  the  TAIEX  implementation  modalities  are  sufficiently  developed.  It  is  stated  by  one 
participant  that  in  general,  all  EU  facilities  including  the  definition  and  implementation  of 
procedures,  monitoring  and  evaluation  are  systematically  well  designed  and  implemented 
and that indicators are well chosen.  

The majority of the Turkish e-Survey 1 participants (75%, 74 people) thought that BCs and 
Bas  have  been  directly/indirectly  involved  in  the  design  of  TAIEX  assistance  and  their 
involvement is regarded as sufficient. 

AETS Consortium – August 2015 

18 

 
 
Evaluation of TAIEX Instrument 

Final Evaluation Report 

More  than  half  of  the  Turkish  e-Survey  1  participants  (58%,  56  respondents)  thought  the 
technical activities supported by the TAIEX assistance and the country strategies under the 
IPA and other strategic documents are relevant to the risks and assumptions. 

3.2  Programmatic approach 

According to the consulted TAIEX stakeholders in Croatia, the TAIEX modalities, rules and 
procedures are coherent and relevant in addressing the needs of the Croatian administration. 
The BAs think there is no need for a more programmatic approach to TAIEX, since it is best 
suited  for  providing  short-term  help  for  very  specific  topics/problems  that  are  encountered. 
The  flexible  nature  of  TAIEX  is  highly  appreciated.  Other  instruments  such  as  projects 
financed from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the European Social 
Fund  (ESF)  provide  a  programmatic  approach  for  longer-term  help.  TAIEX  is  used  as 
immediate assistance and as a complementary tool when there is a gap identified. 

The approach of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia government, in cooperation 
with  the  EUD,  may  be  regarded  as  a  best  practice  for  the  programmatic  approach  of 
TAIEX. The mapping and prioritisation  exercise that is conducted at the end of each year - 
for  the  upcoming  year  -  functions  well  and  requires  BAs  to  think  strategically  and  plan  in 
accordance with their annual planning. Another good example of a strategic approach comes 
from  the  Environment  sector.  The  Ministry  of  Environment  has  prepared  a  request  for 
sequenced TAIEX assistance events that will provide for longer term and more quality-based 
assistance. 

There  are  examples  of  a  programmatic  approach  of  TAIEX  in  Montenegro,  particularly  in 
recent years. As an example, the work of the government under Chapter 23 includes annual 
training  mapping  for  TAIEX,  whereby  a  total  of  10  TAIEX  events  have  been  planned  for 
2015  to  assist  the  process  of  establishment  of  the  Anti-Corruption  Agency  and  related 
exchange  and  peer  learning  and  training  events.  Nevertheless,  this  approach  is  not 
consistent  and  systematic  across  all  sectors  and  as  such  represents  an  area  for 
improvement. 

According  to  the  Turkish  BAs,  TAIEX  is  a  well-adapted  mechanism  and  particularly  useful 
given its fast and flexible nature. It is also emphasized that TAIEX would be more effective if 
it  was  used  together  with  other  instruments,  such  as  the  Twinning.  From  a  conceptual 
perspective,  the  Turkish  e-Survey  1  participants  state  that,  in  general,  TAIEX  is  a  well-
designed  and  well-implemented  program  and  that  it  is  a  good  instrument  for  EU  acquis 
alignment and as a technical and networking facility. 

According  to  the  interview  results  of  the  Turkish  NCPs  and  EUD,  all  TAIEX  requests  were 
reviewed  by  the  relevant  sections  in  the  MEUA  and  EUD  in  order  to  check  whether  the 
requested  activities  are  meaningful  or  not  as  far  as  their  objectives  are  concerned  and 
whether  they  are  coherent  with  the  other  types  of  EU  assistance  and/or  bilateral  donor 
assistance  to  avoid  duplication.  In  such  cases,  the  requests  were  rejected,  sent  back  for 
revision or some suggestions  were made to combine or consider these activities with other 
activities. 

Furthermore, the Turkish BAs state that the TAIEX requests are based on their requirements. 
The  idea  of  a  programming  approach  for  the  TAIEX  assistance  is  not  supported  as  it  can 
harm the flexibility of the system. It is also argued that sectoral approaches are in  line  with 
the  scope  of  TAIEX  assistance  and  that  they  should  not  harm  the  flexibility  of  the 
mechanism. The Turkish BAs mentioned that country strategies and progress reports of the 
EC  are  useful  but  they  are,  in  some  cases,  insufficient  to  reflect  the  complex  issues  in 
Turkey.  Almost  all  Turkish  e-Survey  1  participants  stated  that  they  requested  all  TAIEX 
events themselves (93%, 88 respondents out of 95). 

AETS Consortium – August 2015 

19 

 
Evaluation of TAIEX Instrument 

Final Evaluation Report 

In  line  with  country  level  findings,  84%  of  the  e-Survey  1  respondents  agree  or  strongly 
agree that the TAIEX modalities have been sufficiently developed. Furthermore, 74% agree 
or  strongly  agree  that  Beneficiary  Countries  and  Beneficiary  Administrations  have  been 
directly/indirectly  involved  in  the  design  of  TAIEX  assistance  and  their  involvement  is 
regarded  as  sufficient.  Another  important  area  which  is  positively  regarded  by  BAs  is  that 
the TAIEX setup and methodology (intervention logic, strategy and approach) is well defined 
to contribute to the achievement of TAIEX objectives and expected results and in line with 
the  IPA  and  other  strategic  documents  in  the  target  countries  –  particularly  in  terms  of 
preparations  for  the  EU  acquis  alignment  (81.46%  „agree‟  or  „strongly  agree‟  to  this 
statement) (See Graph 1 below). 

Graph 1 – What do you think about the following statement about TAIEX assistance? 

70,00%
60,00%
50,00%
40,00%
30,00%
20,00%
10,00%
0,00%

Strongly
Disagree

Disagree

Neither
disagree nor
agree

TAIEX implementation modalities are sufficiently developed

Agree

Strongly Agree

N/A

Beneficiary Countries (BCs) and Beneficiary Administrations (BAs) have been directly / indirectly involved
in the design of TAIEX assistance and their involvement is regarded as sufficient.

The technical activities supported by the TAIEX assistance and the country strategies under the IPA and
other strategic documents are relevant to the risks and assumptions.

TAIEX setup and methodology (intervention logic, strategy and approach) are well defined to contribute to
the achievement of TAIEX objectives and expected results and in line with the IPA and other strategic
documents in the target countries in particular

E-Survey  2  respondents  also  agree  that  TAIEX  implementation  modalities  are  sufficiently 
developed  (81  „agree‟  or  „strongly  agree‟).  Furthermore,  75%  of  them  „agree‟  or  „strongly 
agree‟  that  TAIEX  setup  and  methodology  (intervention  logic,  strategy  and  approach)  are 
well defined to contribute to the achievement of TAIEX objectives and expected results. It is 
also in line with the IPA and other strategic documents in the target countries in particular in 
terms  of  preparations  for  the  EU  acquis  and  that  TAIEX  assistance  is  coherent  with  other 
activities.  

EFFICIENCY 

EQ2 – Efficiency: To what extent have the event activities been delivered and achieved 
adequately  to  IPA  beneficiaries  of  TAIEX?  To  what  extent  have  things  been  done 
right? 

In general, the cost-effectiveness of TAIEX is very difficult to assess due to the fact that it is a 
demand  driven  instrument  with  not  such  a  systematic  framework  of  outcome  and  impact 
indicators,  which  does  not  help  in  adequately  measuring  and  quantifying  the  results  of  an 
intervention. In addition, it is a small-scale and short duration activity that can only contribute 
AETS Consortium – August 2015 
20 

 
 
Evaluation of TAIEX Instrument 

Final Evaluation Report 

to  overall  reform  to  some  extent,  but  cannot  drive  it  to  the  extent  necessary  to  reach 
conclusions  on  overall  cost-effectiveness.  On  the  other  hand,  all  BAs  agree  that  TAIEX, 
despite  its  short  duration  and  limited  numbers  of  people  included  in  some  form  of  activity 
(e.g. study visits), brings high value and benefits which BAs could not  obtain through 
other instruments. Specifically, assistance the in form of support to legislation development, 
learning  about  new  modalities  of  work  and  introducing  new  quality  standards  is  definitely 
cost-effective as it provides value at low costs. This is particularly the case where BAs offer 
training premises for TAIEX events. 

The  evaluation  also  looked  at  the  cost-effectiveness  of  study  visits  as  a  form  of  TAIEX 
support event. While no financial cost-benefit study could be conducted within the scope of 
the  evaluation,  the  team  explored  views  of  BAs  and  other  interviewees  regarding  the  cost-
effectiveness  of  this  type  of  event.  All  BAs  agree  that  study  visits  are  significantly 
valuable.  Primary  value  is  found  in the  opportunity  for  BAs  to see  - first  hand  -  how  some 
models of work function in EUMS. Additionally, they have an opportunity to talk to their peers 
on  how  to  operationalise  new  models  and  approaches  to  work  and  see  these  in  practice. 
Finally,  they  network  with  a  wider  range  of  their  peers  and  build  links  to  be  further 
strengthened  and  utilised  once  they  begin  implementing  the  desired  model  of  work.  The 
downside  of  the  study  visits  is  the  restriction  to  have  a  five-day  study  tour  with  three  staff 
members of a given BA. Interviewees consider these numbers as being too low for a study 
visit, which negatively affects the real understanding of how things work and how they could 
be transferred to their context. BAs have various suggestions  regarding the increase of the 
number of participants; decreasing the number of days in favour of the number of people to 
attend the event (e.g. three days for five people), etc. In Croatia, for example, funds for an 
additional  participant  to  participate  in  a  study  tour  were  covered  by  the  national  public 
administration,  in  agreement  with  the  host  EUMS.  Both  respondents  to  e-Survey  1  and 
interviewees agreed that the effects of the study tours exceeded the costs entailed. 

The management  structures  and approaches  used  by  TAIEX  are appropriate  and, together 
with  the  technical  competence  and  mechanisms  that  allow  for  the  selection  and  choice  of 
experts  and  type  of  event  that  will  best  suit  the  needs  of  BAs,  contributes  to  the  effective 
implementation  of  the  instrument.  There  is  centralised  and  readily  available  monitoring 
data  on  various  perspectives  of  TAIEX  assistance  (e.g.  types  of  activities,  type/number  of 
activities as per priority area, events‟ reports, etc.), which enables better understanding of the 
real scope and depth of TAIEX support to various sectors. However, the system is for TAIEX 
internal use only, and as such, few external stakeholders are aware of the wealth of data this 
system  contains  and  the  opportunity  it  provides  for  further  analysis  and  learning.  The 
efficiency  of  TAIEX  is  linked  to  the  constant  improvement  of  the  IT  system;  currently,  an 
authorisation is provided by the system (electronic signatures) for the Head of Unit and since 
recently,  for  other  levels  too.  The  interviewed  TAIEX  Unit  officials  provided  examples  of  its 
contribution to time saving and economies in terms of administration costs. 

TAIEX assistance was implemented largely in line with expectations although the contracting 
process remains too long for the sometimes rapidly evolving beneficiary needs in a transition 
country  environment.  Most  activities  were  appropriately  prepared  and  organised,  although 
some concerns were raised by individual interviewees with the logistics. However, the TAIEX 
evaluation  data  shows  that  vast  majority  of  participants  in  all  types  of  events  are  satisfied 
with all aspects of logistics (interpretation, conference venue and hotel) (see Annex 28 with 
elaborated  data  from  the  TAIEX  monitoring  system).  The  evaluation  found  that  the 
assistance provided responded to the real needs when the beneficiary institution had a clear 
vision of what it wanted. 

According  to  the  e-Survey  1  respondents,  the  overall  quality  of  TAIEX  interventions 
(organisation,  logistics,  flow  of  information,  cost-effectiveness/value  for  money,  results  and 
fulfilment  of  objectives)  in  the  fields  of  capacity  building  and  Public  Administration  Reform 
(PAR), as compared to other donors supporting similar activities rated as follows: 

AETS Consortium – August 2015 

21 

 
Evaluation of TAIEX Instrument 

Final Evaluation Report 

Table 7 - Overall quality of TAIEX interventions as compared to other donors 

Much better 
A little better 
A little worse 
Much worse 
No opinion 
Total 

43 
57 
9 
0 
30 

30,94% 
41,01% 
6,47% 
0,00% 
21,58% 

139 

According to the data received regarding the IPA financing decisions, in general there are no 
significant  deviations  in  terms  of  the  expenditures  of  IPA  funds.  The  only  major  difference 
between  allocated  and  eventually  disbursed  funds  may  be  found  in  the  IPA/2013/023-746 
decision (see Table 8 below). 

Table 8 – IPA (incl. TAIEX) Budget Allocation - IPA Region12 

Decision No 

Allocated  

Contracted  

Paid 

IPA/2007/018-666 
9.280.000,00 
IPA/2010/022-334  17.000.000,00 
IPA/2008/019-896  12.900.000,00 
IPA/2009/021-466 
9.000.000,00 
IPA/2011/022-852  12.000.000,00 
IPA/2013/023-746  12.000.000,00 
IPA/2007/018-665 
7.830.000,00 
IPA/2008/020-025  16.388.797,85 
IPA/2010/022-028  56.857.382,59 
IPA/2011/022-964  102.582.500,00 
IPA/2011/022-928  12.000.000,00 
267.838.680,44 

Total 

9.260.521,20 
16.979.000,00 
12.900.000,00 
9.000.000,00 
12.000.000,00 
11.903.247,40 
7.351.132,31 
15.994.387,50 
56.835.623,89 
102.169.394,13 
11.999.798,80 
266.393.105,23 

9.260.521,20 
15.167.468,10 
12.900.000,00 
9.000.000,00 
12.000.000,00 
2.320.618,45 
7.351.132,31 
15.943.785,39 
51.093.796,74 
84.957.357,06 

10.996.850,22 

230.991.529,47 

For the IPA Region, approximately €82.1 million was allocated for the different type of TAIEX 
activities for the years 2010-13. Available data exists in an aggregated format as budgetary 
allocations per year for the target countries. Yet there are no data available about the actual 
expenditures per country per year for the period under consideration according to the various 
types  of  supported  TAIEX  activities.  Thus,  it  is  not  possible  to  provide  findings  about  the 
cost-effectiveness based on the budget allocation/actual spending per year for the statistics 
below: 

  Per activity type; 
  Per number of events; 
  Per number of participants; 
  Per number of EUMS experts; 
  Per sectors. 

As the BAs are not directly involved in TAIEX expenditure, they were not able to provide any 
comments.  As  such,  they  expressed  their  gratitude  in  not  having  to  deal  with  such  issues 
(covered by the TAIEX system). 

Regarding  the  TAIEX  budgetary  commitments,  it  can  be  observed  that  IPA/2010/249-928 
had the highest allocation for the period 2010-2013, with an amount of €16.7 million, followed 
by IPA/2008/167-823, with €12.9 million (see Table 9 below). 

12 IPA (incl. TAIEX) budget allocation 2007-2013, provided by the TAIEX Unit. 
AETS Consortium – August 2015 

22 

 
 
                                                      
Evaluation of TAIEX Instrument 

Final Evaluation Report 

Table 9 - TAIEX Budget Allocation - IPA Region (2010-2013)13 

Decision No 

Budget Allocation 

Commitments (EUR) 

IPA/2007/18666 
IPA/2010/22334 
IPA/2008/19896  
IPA/2009/21466  
IPA/2011/22852  
IPA/2013/23746  
IPA/2011/22939  
IPA/2010/22028  
IPA/2011/22964  
IPA/2012/22928  

7,320,000.00  
16,770,000.00  
12,900,000.00  
9,000,000.00  
12,000,000.00  
11,500,000.00  
100,000.00  
1,139,087.00  
337,816.68  
11,041,178.08  
Total                                                     82,108,081.76 

3.3  Timeliness of implementation 

7,320,000.00  
14,958,468.10  
12,900,000.00  
9,000,000.00  
12,000,000.00  
7,050,647.61  
97,499.68  
1,139,087.00  
337,816.68  
11,041,178.08  
75,844,697.15 

Evaluation findings with respect to the TAIEX Management System‟s operations are almost 
entirely positive. In addition, communication is considered as ‘adequate’. There were no 
missing  links  in  the  communication  loop  between  the  line  institution,  the  NCP,  the  TAIEX 
Unit, line DGs, EUMS NCPs and Experts. All applications are submitted to the TAIEX Unit, 
with prior liaison with the NCP and country NIPAC office. The Institution Building Unit of DG 
NEAR, managing the TAIEX instrument, takes the final decision. TAIEX can quickly deliver 
the requested assistance, albeit with some deviations reported in Turkey (see below). From 
the submission of the application, a minimum of four to five weeks for the dispatching of an 
expert  is  necessary  and  about  eight  weeks  for  the  organisation  of  a  seminar.  However,  a 
very  short  timeframe  is  foreseen  for  the  recruitment  of  experts  and  as  such  this  can 
constitute  an  obstacle  to  recruit  the  desired,  highly  qualified  expert.  TAIEX  covers  all  the 
costs related to the provision of its assistance, while  it can also consider  the opportunity to 
co-organise events together with Institutional stakeholders and/or other donors (e.g. with the 
Office for Combating Drugs Abuse in Croatia). 

The proposed duration (in principle, five days maximum) of each type of technical assistance 
is generally sufficient and is in line with the purpose of the TAIEX technical assistance as a 
model  of  a  short-term  assistance.  The  consulted  stakeholders  are  usually  content  with  the 
current duration format, while interviewed stakeholders believe that longer lasting events of 
six  or  seven  days  would  be  beneficial  in  case  of  specific  wide  area  topics.  Sometimes  the 
duration of events is modified by intervention of the TAIEX unit, and experiences from these 
events could provide good inputs for approval of other potential similar requests. 

The  main  reasons  for  the  rejection  of  TAIEX  requests  were  principally  due  to  overlapping, 
duplicates or repeats, and exploring areas that were not relevant or that had been previously 
addressed. In addition, requests from the private sector were a cause for rejection. 

More specifically, the Croatian NCP reports on good contacts with line institutions, as well as 
with  the  TAIEX  unit,  especially  with  the  national  contact  point  for  Croatia,  who  was  always 
very cooperative and ready to tackle all issues that arose. During the pre-accession phase, 
the contacts in line DGs - who were always consulted - were the experts working on Croatian 
negotiations;  communication  and  consultations  with  them  were  always  in  line  with  the 
ongoing  negotiation  priorities.  The  Croatian  NCP  also  experienced  very  good  cooperation 
through the regular meetings with the contacts at the EUD in Zagreb. 

13 IPA TAIEX budget allocation 2010-2013 provided by the TAIEX Unit. 
AETS Consortium – August 2015 

23 

 
                                                      
Evaluation of TAIEX Instrument 

Final Evaluation Report 

In  the  former  Yugoslav  Republic  of  Macedonia,  TAIEX  is  generally  perceived  as  an 
instrument  that  offers  timely  and  adequate  support,  both  from  a  management  and  an 
expertise perspective. The time lapse between the submission and approval of an application 
is short (usually not longer than one month), and the mechanism established by the NIPAC 
office to prioritise needs and areas of support for the upcoming year facilitates the efficiency 
of  this  process.  BAs  are  satisfied  with  the  way  in  which  the  process  of  requesting  and 
receiving the assistance takes place and they value its efficiency and consistency. 

In  Montenegro,  TAIEX  is  generally  perceived  as  an  instrument  that  offers  timely  and 
adequate  support,  both  from  a  management  and  expertise  perspective.  The  time  lapse 
between the submission and approval of an application is acceptable, even though there are 
cases  when  the  approval  time  took  longer  than  envisaged,  which  affected  the  planning 
schedule  of  the  BAs.  The  main  issue  is  the  level  of  capacity  for  filling  in  the  online 
application. Before the introduction of the online application tool, the process was such that 
the BAs would submit an application in a word document and then the NCP would manually 
upload it on to the system. The NCP insisted that the BAs submit applications in a draft form 
to the  NCP, so the former  can  ensure good quality  of  applications  before they  are  officially 
submitted; this also serves as a means of verification. Since the online application has been 
introduced,  the  procedure  has  been  simplified  and  the  NCP  does  not  need  to  verify  the 
application any more, even though there are many cases where the NCP needs to assist the 
BAs to fill them in. 

The  available  statistics  for  TAIEX  activities  in  Turkey  do  not  indicate  the  date  of  approval 
and actual implementation date. Turkish participants raised the issue whereby even though 
TAIEX  approval  procedures  are  quick,  during  the  implementation  period,  there  have  been 
cases  of  delays  in  the  actual  implementation  of  activities  (examples  were  made  of  some 
activities whose implementation was delayed for two months or longer, and even - in some 
extreme cases - two years). Some of them were cancelled by the applicants and the TAIEX 
Unit for varying reasons. 

3.4  Types of events and their efficiency 

Interviewed BAs agree that various types of events are useful and that each of them has 
its specific value in accordance with the different stages of institution building work. This is 
confirmed  by  the  post-six  month  evaluation  questionnaire  data,  indicating  that  70%  of 
respondents state that TAIEX events‟ usefulness is  „excellent‟,  whereas the remaining 29% 
find  it  „very  good‟.  While  expert  missions  and  workshops  are  useful  for  legislation/policy 
development, BAs agree that study visits are important when BAs begin the implementation 
of new mechanisms or models brought in by the legislation/policies. Workshops are suitable 
to  clarify  general  topics  to  a  broader  audience;  expert  missions  help  to  work  on  specific 
subjects with a small group of people and study visits can show how certain institutions or 
systems work in practice. 

The decision of TAIEX not to fund study visits extensively - unless there is strong justification 
- is generally not seen as a good step by BAs. Whilst it is understandable that such support 
is  costly,  it  may  still  bring  about  value  for  money,  particularly  for  BAs,  which  proceed  with 
putting  innovative  models  of  work  in  place,  for  which  there  is  no  adequate  in-country 
expertise.  The  workshops  and  expert  missions  are  a  substitute  for  this,  but  not  sufficiently 
strong enough as they do not provide the opportunity to BA representatives to observe and 
understand  how  certain  processes  work  and  how  models  operate.  The  feedback  from  e-
Survey  1  respondents  confirm  the  preference  of  the  interviewed  BAs,  where  the  highest 
rating goes to study tours where 92.7% of respondents rate it with 4 or 5 (5 being the most 
relevant).  This  is  followed  by  workshops,  rated  by  74.5%  of  respondents  as  4  or  5  (see 
Graph 2 below). 

AETS Consortium – August 2015 

24 

 
Evaluation of TAIEX Instrument 

Final Evaluation Report 

Graph 2 – In your opinion, what is the type of TAIEX event most relevant to your 
institution? Rating from 1 (least relevant) to 5 stars (most relevant) 

100,00%

80,00%

60,00%

40,00%

20,00%

0,00%

Expert missions

Workshops/seminars

Study tours

2

3

4

5

“The most appropriate type of event for learning and applying the new harmonized analytical 
method  is  study  visit  where  hands-on  training  is  performed,  and  participants  are  involved 
directly  in  the  whole  procedures  from  sample  preparation  to  final  identification  and 
determination.  This  type  of  experience  has  shown  to  be  very  valuable  in  transposing  the 
methodology. In a few occasions, it could be beneficial to extend the duration of the visits.” 

e-Survey 1 respondent 

Another  issue  raised  regarding  the  study  visits  was  that  sending  three  participants  for  a 
period of five days was inadequate. Proposals for changing this vary, but the most prominent 
is to „swap the numbers‟ and have five persons for a three-day study visit. 

“I  do  not  see  any  obstacle  to  successful  TAIEX  event  implementation.  What  we  would 
appreciate is that (in addition to our most frequent request for on-the-job training) also study 
visits to an Intellectual Property office from the region could be approved (because we could 
exchange experience and practice and discuss some concrete practical issues.” 

e-Survey 1 respondent 

“Expert Mission does not provide enough different views. It is the knowledge and attitude of 
one  expert,  which  does  not  have  to  be  a  generally  accepted  one.  Workshops  sometimes 
have  a  tendency  to  deviate  from  the  desired  direction.  Study  visit  provides  for  the  entire 
cycle, the user gets more insight and complete picture of the whole process.” 

e-Survey 1 respondent 

With regards to specific country by country assessments, in Croatia, among the three types 
of  standard  TAIEX  events,  study  visits  and  expert  missions  are  the  most  requested, 
especially  over  the  past years. The  majority  of  interlocutors  consider  that  the most  efficient 
types  of  TAIEX  events  are  combinations  of  study  visits  with  expert  missions,  covering 
practical  issues  with  theoretical  and  legal  aspects,  thus  providing  a  clear  and  integrated 
picture.  All  stakeholders  consider  workshops  as  a  valuable  and  most  efficient  model  of 
assistance even though half of consulted BA do  not intend to request workshops anymore. 
Workshops,  in  particular,  had  a  significant  impact  at  the  beginning  of  Croatian  accession 
process when it was essential to explain the fundamentals of EU policy and acquis to a wide 
audience  of  civil  servants  and  all  concerned  parties  and  stakeholders.  Expert  missions  are 
considered  as  a  very  important  element  of  practical  assistance  in  drafting  legislation 
transposing  the  EU  acquis.  The  study  visits  are  useful  with  regards  ensuring  proper 
implementation  of  newly  adopted  legislation,  learning  from  the  best  practices  of  other 
member states. These are prioritised in the current configuration of EU membership. 

AETS Consortium – August 2015 

25 

 
 
Evaluation of TAIEX Instrument 

Final Evaluation Report 

Croatian  institutions  were  mostly  focused  on  practical  knowledge,  i.e.  insights  into  the  best 
and  most  appropriate  implementation  practices.  Therefore,  study  visits  were  preferred  by 
most BAs, and expertise was also appreciated with a view to applying best practices in the 
relevant legal, political and economic areas. 

All interviewed Macedonian BAs agree that a variety of events are useful and that each of 
them has its specific value in accordance with the different stages of institution building work. 
There are cases of BAs in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia where sequenced 
TAIEX events have been requested and received (e.g. environment), and the feedback from 
beneficiaries  was very  positive.  Such  a  combination  of  events  and  the  possibility  to  have a 
range  of  follow  up  learning  experiences  gave  the  BAs  the  opportunity  to  learn  and  apply 
newly acquired knowledge with mentorship by the expert/institution from the Member State.  

The most popular type of event in Montenegro is study visits. This largely owes to the fact 
that  Montenegro has  succeeded  in adopting  a  majority  of  laws  and  policies  in line  with  EU 
acquis  with  implementation  now  being  the  focus.  Within  the  process  of  building  capacities 
and strong mechanisms for the implementation of mechanisms and legislative solutions, BAs 
urgently  need  to  learn  and  apply  new  work  approaches  and  study  visits  can  provide  the 
necessary  time  and  space  for  BA  representatives  to  see  -  first  hand  -  how  the  work  is 
organised  in  a  Member  State.  It  also  offers  more  in-depth  peer-to-peer  learning  and 
exchanges.  Expert  missions  and  workshops  are  also  perceived  as  useful  and  valuable, 
particularly if the assistance is sequenced and can include different expert perspectives and 
combinations of in-country and site visit events. One critical aspect for Montenegro - raised 
by  interviewed  stakeholders  -  is  the  language  issue.  Public  Administration  officials  in 
Montenegro - in the majority of cases - do not speak foreign languages and this weakness 
affects  the  effectiveness  and  efficiency  of  exchanges  and  peer-to-peer  learning.  As  such, 
Montenegrin BAs prefer to cooperate with Croatia or Slovenia as countries, which have the 
possibility to speak in the same language. There is also a sense of  common history, which 
also brings with it an understanding of the old system out of which Montenegrin institutions 
have  developed.  An  additional  reason  for  cooperation  with  these  countries  is  their  recent 
experience of accession and the ensuing reform process, constituting a valuable channel for 
sharing lessons learned. 

In  Turkey,  study  visits  are  the  most  relevant  type  of  TAIEX  events  for  the  Turkish  BAs 
(average  score  4.64  out  of  5  (5  being  the  most  relevant))  followed  by  workshops/seminars 
(average score 4.09). Expert missions are the least relevant type (average score is 3.87). On 
average,  all  three  types  score  4.20,  constituting  a  very  satisfactory  result.  This  result  also 
explains the increased trend to request study tours in comparison to the other types of TAIEX 
assistance in 2014. Six Turkish e-Survey 1 respondents claim that all of the types of TAIEX 
assistance are appropriate tools for their institutions‟ needs. 

“I  work  for  the  Ministry of  Customs  and Trade  of  Turkey.  The Ministry's  working  areas  are 
widely covered by the TAIEX's tools and working areas. So, I think that TAIEX's three events 
are quite relevant and useful for this Ministry.” 

e-Survey 1 respondent 

15  Turkish  e-Survey  1  participants  also  re-stated  that  study  visits  are  the  most  useful  and 
effective type of TAIEX events because it enables them to observe concrete practices, the 
implementation of EU legislation and ask questions to the relevant MS experts directly.  

“During  the  study  visits  you  might  contact  many  experts  during  the  event  because  of  the 
availability of the experts. For instance, in one of my study visit at Italy we have contacted 
with almost 10 experts which is very good not only have different approaches but also have 
a “good networking with the EU experts for the follow up studies.” 

AETS Consortium – August 2015 

26 

 
Evaluation of TAIEX Instrument 

Final Evaluation Report 

e-Survey 1 respondent 

Another  important  issue  with  the  efficiency  of  the  TAIEX  activities  is  related  to  expert 
selection.  BAs  agree  that  positive  outputs  of  TAIEX  events  come  in  cases  where  BAs 
indicate the experts with whom they already have worked or had previous informal contact in 
the requests. However, cases do exist where BAs do not have a specific expert in mind. In 
the majority of cases, the expertise received is considered as good; there have nevertheless 
been cases where experts did not deliver good results. In some cases, the NCP and the BAs 
were  faced  with  a  very  short  timeframe  to  indicate  participants  or  experts  for  some  TAIEX 
events.  It  should  also  be  noted that  the  identification  of  EUMS  experts  is  still  based  on  the 
available experts on the roster. 

“It is useful to have an instrument such as TAIEX that is demand-driven and relatively easy 
and  fast  to  use.  The  problematic  aspect  of  it  is  the  lack  of  transparency  in  the  experts’ 
selection process, so that the beneficiary institution can never be sure in advance whether 
the  experts will  meet  its  expectations.  In such  a  system  it  can  occur  that  the  beneficiary 
institution  gets  an  expert  based  on  the  sole  criterion  of  his/her  availability  at  a  given 
moment.” 

Interview respondent 

The  European Commission‟s  DGs  also  have  their  respective pools  of  experienced  experts. 
However, TAIEX does not in principle invite such experts to participate, as they often tend to 
be independent consultants. Several line DG officials expressed concerns with the fact that 
their  „sector  experts‟  could  not  be  involved  due  to  the  limited  indemnities  paid  by  TAIEX 
(€250/day). 

3.5  Project reporting/monitoring and Quality Assurance 

The TAIEX monitoring and evaluation system is extremely well organised and enables 
TAIEX teams to conduct extensive analyses of TAIEX events and their contribution through 
the TMS. The M&E consists of a very well organised system whereby each TAIEX event is 
followed  up  with  the  following  M&E  instruments:  a)  participants  and  experts  lists;  b)  a 
questionnaire for experts to rate the event in terms of participation and potential for follow up 
on  the  topic  on  the  side  of  BA/government;  c)  a  questionnaire  for  participants  to  rate  the 
quality of the event and the expert(s) but also the logistics; and importantly, d) the evaluation 
questionnaire  that  is  filled  in  six-months  after  the  finalisation  of  an  event  by  a  designated 
correspondent for that respective event. The system allows for easy access to data on each 
individual  event  with  overall  ratings  on  a  number  of  questions  stated  in  the  questionnaires 
and also allows for filtering as per country/year/type of event/expert/sector, etc. The system 
is  also  very  well  organised  and  the  presentation  of  data  is  easy  to  follow  and  allows  for 
comparative analyses and cross tabulation with other types of events/country/expert/sector, 
etc. The  system  also allows  for  internal  assessment  of  experts,  even  though this  is  treated 
very  confidentially  and  may  only  be  shared  with  an  expert  if  need  be.  The  analysis  of  the 
tools  available  within  the  system  and  the  approach,  which  facilitates  data  collection, 
presentation  and  analysis  constitutes  a  best  practice  example  for  such  a  type  of 
international assistance mechanism. The main potential weakness of the system is that it 
is  not  accessible  to  all  interested  parties  within the  Commission  (line  DGs for  example);  as 
such, they rely on six-monthly or annual TAIEX reports for additional data. Nevertheless, the 
line  DG  officials  interviewed  within  the  scope  of  this  evaluation  largely  expressed  their 
satisfaction with the functioning of the information system. 

In  addition  to  the  questionnaire for  experts,  the  TAIEX  system  contains  a  format  for  expert 
mission  reports.  There  is  no  format  for  study  visit  reports  to  be  filled  in  by  participating  BA 
teams, as it is expected that they draft reports in accordance with their internal processes for 
their line management and peers. However, an analysis shows that not all TAIEX events are 

AETS Consortium – August 2015 

27 

 
Evaluation of TAIEX Instrument 

Final Evaluation Report 

necessarily  followed  up  by  written  reports  from  experts.  There  are  cases  where,  even  if 
reports  are  provided,  they  are  not  consistently  used  for  follow  up  or  for  planning  further 
initiatives. There is also no system whereby all parties have access to reports in order to use 
them.  The  main  reason  for  the  lack  of  a  consistent  system  for  sharing  and  accessing  the 
expert reports resides with factors: 1) while there is a format for such reports and it is very 
simple  and  straightforward,  the  quality  or  reports  received  from  experts  varies  (with,  at 
times, very poor levels of quality and an insufficient degree of detail regarding the event and 
its context); and 2) some experts provide analyses that may be controversial and can lead to 
debates  between 
long  and  unnecessary 
correspondence  between  parties  (experts  and  BAs  or  even  governments).  The  lack  of 
consistent  follow  up  on  the  reports  affects  the  motivation  -  both  of  experts  and  BAs  -  to 
improve them and turn them into a knowledge tool. Interviewees and e-Survey 1 respondents 
emphasise that the reports from experts are in most cases not shared with BAs and as such 
cannot be used as a reference for further learning. 

the  experts,  which  cause 

the  BA  and 

“Report  must  be  sent  to  the  agency  with  which  the  event  was  made  not  only  a  national 
contact point.” 

e-Survey 1 respondent 

“Expert  missions  (to  be  clear,  mission  of  experts  in  trademarks  and  designs  which  provide 
general and practical training for our staff) are of great importance for us because the experts 
who  visited  our  Office  provided  both  general  information  of  expert  IPR  topics  together  with 
practical  advices  on  concrete  issues  (cases  from  our  practice).  Study  tours  are  desirable 
form  of  exchange  of  experience  and  practice  because  they  always  result  in  enhanced 
knowledge of our staff in specific areas (work flow, details on latest practical cases, etc.).” 

e-Survey 1 respondent 

The  monitoring  of  TAIEX  is  conducted  through  the  systematic  database  of  events,  which 
provide comprehensive data on types of events, thematic areas of focus, results and follow 
up actions.  

There are several periodic reports provided by the TAIEX Unit and these are considered to 
be useful. Nevertheless, there is an expectation to increase not only their frequency but also 
the consistency of data presented in order to increase their benefits and to generate greater 
visibility of the achievements made and the added value of the instrument. 

The application forms do not contain sections dedicated to impact and sustainability issues at 
the planning level and applicants are not required to provide information at this point (setting 
their targets and indicators). 

Yearly TAIEX Activity Reports 

Since  2003,  DG  NEAR has  published TAIEX  Activity  Reports for the  public  via their  official 
website  on  an  annual  basis;  they  encompass  basic  TAIEX  activities  per  country  and  per 
sector  with  straightforward  statistics  and  success  stories.  The  2012  and  2013  editions  also 
cover  Twinning  activities.  Since  2012,  the  aggregated  results  of  the  six  month  evaluation 
surveys were included in the content of the report. There used to be a small section for the 
budget  of  TAIEX  entitled  „Financial  Implications‟  till  2010;  this  was  removed  from  later 
editions. These reports are useful, even if their main area of improvement is the consistency 
of data presented. The reports do not enable a comparative analysis of achievements and/or 
events  for  subsequent  years  (or  longer  periods),  as they  present  different  data  sets  across 
different years. This may present an obstacle to grasping the overall value and achievements 
of the instrument for external readers who cannot access the TAIEX M&E system.  

AETS Consortium – August 2015 

28 

 
Evaluation of TAIEX Instrument 

Final Evaluation Report 

Bi-annual Flash Report for the IPA BCs and EUMs 

The  TAIEX  Unit  publishes  bi-annual  flash  reports  presenting  data  on  a  number  of 
implemented activities and participants per semester and per beneficiary country.  

Event Reports Prepared by BAs 

Although  it  is  not  common  practice,  some  BAs  stated  that  depending  on  the  importance of 
the  subject  and  event,  ad  hoc  reports  are  produced  -  mainly  for  administrative  and 
information  purposes  –  and  these  are  shared  with  the  relevant  stakeholders  in  the  country 
via e-mail and official websites. 

3.6  Communication and visibility activities 

The general opinion of the interviewed BAs is that TAIEX assistance contributed greatly to 
enhancing the visibility of EU funding among public institutions. Interviewed stakeholders 
agree  that TAIEX  has  become  an  increasingly  popular  and  visible instrument - filling  in the 
gaps in some sectors and reform areas in BAs. The visibility of TAIEX is high among the e-
Survey  1  respondents  and  interviewed  BAs.  The  TAIEX system  is  appreciated  for  its focus 
and  clear  support  in  the  transfer  of  know-how.  The  EU  Delegations  and  the  NCPs  do  hold 
visibility  events  for  TAIEX  and  also  promote  and  encourage  the  BAs  to  use  TAIEX  as  an 
instrument when they need additional support in some areas - especially where peer learning 
can bring about added value. These events also serve a purpose in improving the familiarity 
and  capacities  of  BAs  to  adequately  prioritise  and  fill  out  the  applications.  In  general,  the 
visibility of TAIEX activities is good, particularly for workshops. Expert visits and study visits 
are most visible within the BA, and among the teams focusing on a given area. Conferences 
usually tend to increase the visibility of TAIEX as senior officials and media participate. It is 
important to note that such a „small‟ instrument does have high visibility, thus contributing to 
the positive image of EU assistance in the region.  

An  example  of  visible  and  effective  TAIEX  assistance  was  presented  by  the  Croatian 
Ministry  of  Interior  in  the  case  of  the  Border  Police  evaluation  training  obtained  through 
sequential  study  visits  (a  small  group  of  officials  visit  a  neighbouring  EU  country),  expert 
missions  (the  identified  experts  come  to  Croatia)  and  the  workshops  from  which  police 
officials working in the field - and other organisational units - could benefit. This sequence of 
TAIEX events lasted two years. 

In  the  former  Yugoslav  Republic  of  Macedonia,  informative  sessions  are  organised  with 
BAs  (e.g.  in  2014,  the  Country  Contact  Point  from  Brussels  participated  in  the  informative 
session  for  TAIEX)  and  needs,  problems,  best  practices  and  possibilities  for  mutual 
cooperation were presented. This is an important investment both to encourage BAs to use 
all instruments at hand for the improvement of their capacities and for the promotion of EU 
support arrangements in the respective countries.  

AETS Consortium – August 2015 

29 

 
 
Evaluation of TAIEX Instrument 

Final Evaluation Report 

EFFECTIVENESS 

EQ3  –  Effectiveness:  To  what  extent  are/have  TAIEX  results  and  specific  objectives 
been achieved? Have the right things been done? 

Evaluation findings on TAIEX contributions to envisaged reforms are almost exclusively 
positive.  Since  2007,  TAIEX  has  delivered  useful  results  in  beneficiary  countries,  which 
supported  the  reform  goals  across  various  sectors  of  support  through  informed  strategies, 
improved legislation, enhanced institutional capacity, the modernisation of practices and new 
models of work, but also behavioural change. While the available data does not enable the 
measurement  of  the  extent  to  which  TAIEX  contributed  to  the  overarching  goal  of  opening 
the  EU  accession  negotiations  (and  in  the  case  of  Croatia,  its  accession  to  EU),  it 
nevertheless  indicates  that  it  has  made  meaningful  contributions  to  strengthening  the 
capacities of key actors and their efforts to this end, as well as to strengthening the overall 
enabling environment for change in the country.  

TAIEX  positively  contributes  to  the  achievement  of  improvements  in  the  BAs,  and  there  is 
evidence of contributions of TAIEX in the progression towards envisaged reform outcomes in 
different  sectors  within  the  countries.  Consulted  national  stakeholders  in  countries  in  the 
sample  attributed  successful  changes  in  legal  frameworks,  policies,  strategies,  also  to  the 
broader support provided by TAIEX assistance as complementary to other instruments and 
to  strengthen  the  respective  BAs‟  organisational  capacities.  TAIEX  empowered  positive 
changes  and  the  ability  of  adjustments  with  the  approximations  into  the  EU  acquis.  TAIEX 
and EU assistance in general was mostly goal-oriented and supportive to beneficiaries and 
sectors concerned. It induced both a sustainable behavioural change and a development of 
the  stakeholders'  administrative  capacities  in  the  beneficiary  country.  Another  important 
added value of TAIEX is the opportunity for BAs to establish networks, working relations and 
durable  partnerships  with  their  colleagues  in  the  EU  Member  States.  An  elaborate  M&E 
system  developed  for  the  instrument  enables  systematic  monitoring  and  evaluation  for 
TAIEX assistance. However, the official TAIEX website has a search function for current and 
past events based on chapters of the acquis and other criteria, but is not easily accessible or 
easy to navigate. 

Line DGs see TAIEX as an effective mechanism to tackle issues of importance for their own 
areas of work. Cooperation between line DGs and TAIEX is such that ideas on areas to be 
supported are taken by TAIEX and operationalized through events of different type.  

“The  main  benefit  from  realized  TAIEX  study  visits  is  that  laboratory  professionals,  who 
participated,  became  familiar  with  analyses  of  vitamins  in  food,  allergens,  additives,  trace 
elements,  food  contact  materials,  contaminants.  Training  in  some  topics  such  as  method 
validation,  measurement  uncertainty,  and  internal  control  (as  requirements  of  ISO  17025) 
was also achieved through TAIEX workshops”. 

e-Survey 1 respondent  

“The  knowledge  and  experiences  that  EU  experts  shared  with  us,  along  with  their  passion 
and enthusiasm, contributed immeasurably to the success of TAEIX projects”. 

e-Survey 1 respondent 

3.7  Appropriateness  of 

the  TAIEX 

instrument 

to  needs 

(from  an 

implementation perspective) 

As  discussed  in  the  section  on  Efficiency  above,  the  TAIEX  instrument  is,  overall,  a  very 
appropriate  instrument  to  address  the  (immediate)  needs  of  BAs.  TAIEX  has  been 
considered as a useful instrument for technical assistance for all EU acquis chapters. TAIEX 

AETS Consortium – August 2015 

30 

 
Evaluation of TAIEX Instrument 

Final Evaluation Report 

positive influence is visible in all successfully developments on strengthening administrative 
capacities  in  state  institutions  and  administration  and  by  upgrading  the  knowledge  on  EU 
legislation.  In  terms  of  implementation,  it  may  be  argued  that  different  types  of  TAIEX 
activities bring different values. Each type of event has its specific use at a specific stage of 
the development/reform process. TAIEX monitoring data show that participants in each type 
of  TAIEX  event  are  very  satisfied  with  their  effectiveness.  80%  of  workshop  participants14 
confirmed that workshop enabled them to improve their knowledge, while 17.7% stated that 
workshop  partially  enabled  them  to  improve  their  knowledge.  Over  92%  of  study  tour 
participants consider that the overall aim of the study visit they participated in was achieved 
and 7.7% of them considered it as partially achieved15. Finally, 88% of participants consider 
that  the  overall  aim  of  the  expert  mission  was  achieved,  and  10.6%  consider  them  as 
partially achieved16. A general remark made by many BAs is that the value and purpose of 
study  visits  is  understated/underestimated  by  the  European  Commission  and  that  the 
decision not to promote and fund it more extensively should be reconsidered. 

According  to  the  TAIEX  beneficiaries,  TAIEX  assistance  was  of  great  help  and  vastly 
contributed  to  various  sector  focus  areas  for  this  evaluation,  as  well  as  administration 
capacity  development  and  strengthening.  Dozens  of  projects  led  to  various  improvements 
and  developments,  not  only  from  a  legal  standpoint,  but  also  in  terms  of  practical 
implementation of adopted legislation. 

“Since  events  organised  by  TAIEX  can  be  relatively  quickly  organised,  it  is  an  excellent 
instrument for providing assistance in specific areas or on specific topics to the experts in 
our country when the need arises.” 

“Over  the  years  we  realised  that  TAIEX  positively  affects  the  capacity,  competence  and 
expertise of our experts in Ministry so we increased number of TAIEX events.” 

Interview respondents 

Each  type  of  technical  assistance  has  its  own  purpose;  however,  logical  sequencing  is 
justified and there is always a possibility for follow up events if necessary. There is a strong 
potential  for  activity  sequencing  -  as  a  part  of  systematic  activities  -  connected  to  ongoing 
projects and activities. 

In  Croatia,  interviewed  BAs  consider  the financial  assistance  as very  effective in achieving 
the desired results. The achievement of the desired results was sometimes hampered by  a 
lack of national stakeholder will to put the possible solutions recommended by TAIEX experts 
into practice in certain cases. The experience of Croatia is that in some areas, the BAs have 
prepared  their  internal  plans  in  coordination  with  the  line  institutions  on  the  usage  of  the 
TAIEX  assistance.  An  example  is  the  areas  of  agriculture  and  food  safety,  where  the  line 
ministry  prepared  a  yearly  plan  for  the  sequencing  of  requests  for  TAIEX  assistance.  This 
was  not  done  in  all  areas  -  but  in  these  very  demanding  areas  –  such  an  approach  was 
demonstrated as constituting good practice and was recommended by the NCP. The TAIEX 
Unit pointed out a valuable example of a successful series of two years of seminars tackling 
corruption and the fight against drugs in Croatia. 

In  the  former  Yugoslav  Republic  of  Macedonia,  within  the  strategic  prioritisation  of  the 
TAIEX  assistance  exercise  that  is  conducted  at  the  end  of  the  year  (for  the  forthcoming 
year),  teams  discuss  the  sequencing  of  assistance  and  plan  for  this  accordingly.  For 
example, as a result of the initiative to start a more systematic sequencing of assistance, an 
application for the environment sector was elaborated for a sequenced approach of activities 

14 TAIEX data for period 01/2011-31/05/2015 analysed. 
15 Ibid. 
16 Ibid. 
AETS Consortium – August 2015 

31 

 
                                                      
Evaluation of TAIEX Instrument 

Final Evaluation Report 

that  will  assist  reforms  in  this  sector.  This  is  an  example  of  good  practice  that  could  be 
replicated in other sectors/countries. 

Other  countries/sectors  also  have  experience  of  sequencing  TAIEX  activities  and  all 
experiences have led to positive overall results. Nevertheless, it should be noted that these 
activities  were  not  always  systematically  planned  and  programmed  but  were  a  result  of 
demand-driven  initiatives  that  resulted  in  a  range  of  activities  that  followed  on  from  each 
other. 

Overall,  the  relevant  stakeholders  participating  in  e-Survey  1  agree  or  strongly  agree  that 
TAIEX events are well targeted to their country, administrative structure and specifics of their 
institutions  (78.4%).  TAIEX  events  are  very  useful  with  regards  to  the  priorities  stated  in 
countries‟  national  pre-accession  country/new  Member  State  (Croatia)  strategies  as  per 
confirmation of 78% of survey respondents (see Graph 3 below). 

E-Survey 1 demonstrates rather positive feedback on EUMS TAIEX experts. Almost 82% of 
respondents  either  „agree‟  or  „strongly  agree‟  that  EUMS  TAIEX  experts  have  delivered  all 
the  activities  as  planned,  and  their  expertise  has  been  adequately  aligned  to  BAs‟ 
expectations  (74%)  (see  Graph  3  below).  This  is  a  very  positive  finding  and  points  to  a 
generally high satisfaction rate and relevance of TAIEX to countries‟ needs.  

Graph 3 - What do you think about the following statements about TAIEX events and 
EU Member State (EUMS) expertise? 

70,00%

60,00%

50,00%

40,00%

30,00%

20,00%

10,00%

0,00%

Strongly
Disagree

Disagree Neither
disagree
nor agree

Agree

Strongly
Agree

N/A

Scope of the events  of TAIEX events have responded to our institution’s needs 

Results of TAIEX events have responded to our institution’s needs 

Frequency of TAIEX events have responded to our institution’s needs 

TAIEX EUMS Expertise delivered have  been adequate to our expectations 

EUMS TAIEX experts have delivered ALL the activities as planned 

TAIEX events are very useful with regard to the priorities stated in your national pre-accession country/new Member State (Croatia) 
strategies? 
TAIEX events are well-targeted to your country, administrative structure and specifics of your institution ? 

AETS Consortium – August 2015 

32 

 
 
 
Evaluation of TAIEX Instrument 

Final Evaluation Report 

3.8  Obstacles to the effectiveness of TAIEX events 

The  main  issues  raised  relating  to  the  effectiveness  of  TAIEX  events  are  linked  to  the 
selection  of  the  right  participants  for  events  (on  the  side  of  the  BA),  the  selection  of 
right  experts/host  institutions  and  the  language  skills  of  BA  teams  (the  issue  raised 
particularly in Montenegro). As reflected by the interview stakeholders, language is very often 
an important obstacle to the full use of the TAIEX events; in some cases, it even a caused 
lack  of  extensive  interest  in  participation.  In  Montenegro,  this  has  been  overcome  by 
requesting expertise from neighbouring countries (Slovenia and Croatia), which subsequently 
proved to be beneficial on many levels (language, recent memory of reform steps, common 
history  and  familiarity  of  the  starting  point  of  Montenegro).  Another  issue  relates  to  the 
importance of selecting the right participants, as a TAIEX event can potentially miss its target 
in cases where the right participants are not adequately selected. This is a relevant concern, 
particularly  as  BAs  request  the  event.  This  is  beyond  the  immediate  control  of  the  TAIEX 
mechanism per se, and responsibility lies primarily on the BAs to capitalise upon what TAIEX 
is  able  to  offer.  Similar  issues  arise  with  the  selection  of  experts.  While  BAs/NCP  may 
provide inputs for the selection of experts (suggest a suitable candidate), other experts can 
also be selected. Notable examples included cases where experts did not match the specific 
needs of the request or had weaknesses (e.g. language skills) that affected the event and its 
overall added value.  

E-Survey  1  respondents  identify  different  obstacles  to  the  successful  TAIEX  event 
implementation  (Table  14  below).  Over  15%  of  respondents  respectively  think  the  main 
obstacle is owed to a lack of absorption capacity of the line beneficiary, while 19.8% consider 
it  to be  a  lack  of  political  or  institutional  commitment, followed  by  16.5%  who  think  it  is  the 
lack of preparation or a resistance to change (13.5%). 

Table 10 - As far as you know, what is/are the major obstacle(s) to successful TAIEX 
event implementation? (Question 24) 

Resistance to change  
Lack of absorption capacity demonstrated by the line beneficiary 
Inadequate type of event selected 
Lack of political or institutional commitment 
Lack of preparation 
Poor formulation of requested activities remaining pervasive 
Lack of commitment to the ultimate project ownership goal 
If other, could you please specify 

13.5% 
15.2% 
9.57% 
19.8% 
16.5% 
8.2% 
9.6% 
7.6% 

On  the  other  hand,  e-Survey  2  respondents  listed  a  lack  of  political  and  institutional 
commitment  and  poor  formulation  of  requested  activities  remaining  pervasive  as  the  main 
obstacles: 

AETS Consortium – August 2015 

33 

 
Evaluation of TAIEX Instrument 

Final Evaluation Report 

Table 11 - As far as you know, what is/are the major obstacle(s) to successful TAIEX 
event implementation? (Question 5) 

Lack of political or institutional commitment 
Poor formulation of requested activities remaining pervasive 

Lack of absorption capacity demonstrated by the line beneficiary 
Resistance to change 
Lack of commitment to the ultimate project ownership goal 
Inadequate type of event selected 
Lack of preparation 
If other, could you please specify: 

19% 
19% 

15% 
13% 
11% 
9% 
7% 
7% 

Other obstacles are listed as follows:  

  Poor expertise of the selected expert; 
  Personnel and time capacities, security risks; 
  TAIEX compensation (expert fee, host fee) is insufficient; 
  Lack of involvement of EU Delegations in the preparation of requests/events. 

The  Turkish  NCP  pointed  out  that  it  was  difficult  to  manage  all  TAIEX  applications  before 
2010, as there were four rounds in a year and all the aforementioned screening was done via 
offline  application  forms  in  Turkey.  Such  a  procedure  created  difficulties  in  receiving  the 
feedback  from  all  relevant  parties  and  caused  an  enormous  workload  for  certain  periods, 
whereas  for  the  rest  of  the  period  there  was  no  activity.  Presently,  the  whole  process  is 
running more smoothly and the workload is much more balanced throughout the whole year. 
The waiting and implementation period has been shortened which makes the whole process 
much more effective. Furthermore, the Turkish BAs as well as BAs in other countries agree 
that the current application system is more practical and useful and they are able to provide 
guidance to the application owners much more efficiently.  

The  Turkish  NCP  mentioned  that  there  are  some  problems  related  to  the  host  institutions 
within the context of TAIEX activities. Other common complaints are related to logistics (i.e. 
location  of  events,  accommodation  and 
that  service 
subcontractors  should  be  able  to  find  competent  personnel  for  the  workshops  and  expert 
missions.  Furthermore,  the  NCP  at  the  EUD  in  Turkey  stated  that  they  had  serious  issues 
with the previous service contractors before 2009 and several complaints were made to the 
TAIEX  Unit.  However,  with  the  new  service  contractor,  they  have  not  encountered  any 
problems.  

is  suggested 

translation). 

It 

BAs  have  been  directly  involved  in  the  design  of  TAIEX;  the  EUD  has  nevertheless  raised 
concerns  regarding  the  effects  of  a  lack  of  timely  consultation  in  the  preparation  of 
requests/events and a selection of relevant participants. 

3.9  Complementarity/coherence with other donor and EU-funded programmes 

and instruments 

The  assessment  of  complementarity/coherence of  TAIEX  assistance with other  donors  and 
the EU funded programmes and instruments shows that this instrument is complementary to 
other interventions. Additionally, countries integrate mechanisms to ensure the minimisation 
of overlaps and complementarity. 

During  the  pre-accession  period  in  Croatia,  the  coherence  of  TAIEX  technical  assistance 
with  other 
the  coordination  mechanisms  and 
communication with the EUD, as well as with the responsible national authorities. Currently, 

instruments  was  guaranteed 

through 

AETS Consortium – August 2015 

34 

 
Evaluation of TAIEX Instrument 

Final Evaluation Report 

there is no mechanism for enhancing complementarity/coherence with other instruments, but 
there is a mechanism that is already integrated within the application form. When preparing 
TAIEX applications and requests, the BAs usually try to avoid overlaps. TAIEX is more often 
used  as  a  stand-alone  instrument,  while  there  are  cases  where  the  TAIEX  assistance  was 
provided  as  a  complementary  initiative  to  other  EU  projects  (e.g.  if  the  component  on  the 
transposition  of  legislation  was  not  included  or  covered  in  some  IPA  technical  assistance 
project, then the beneficiary institution could apply for TAIEX assistance). Within the Ministry 
of  Labour  and  Pension  Systems,  for  example,  TAIEX  is  used  more  as  a  complementary 
instrument,  covering  the  needs  for  specific  training  that  is  not  covered  by  larger  technical 
assistance projects. The needs of that ministry are currently covered through ESF and World 
Bank projects. 

A Case study, Office for Combating Drugs Abuse 
Example  of  synergy  of  TAIEX  and  other  donors  including  sequencing  of  TAIEX 
activities: 
In  2011,  an  independent  evaluation  of  the  national  drugs  strategy  was  needed  and  the 
agency had limited financial resources. They approached the European Monitoring Centre 
for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) and enquired co-financing what was supported 
by  the  EMCDDA.  TAIEX  covered  experts‟  missions  used  for  data  collection.  The  BA 
financed the analysis and the report. This was considered as an excellent combination of 
the  three  sources  (Croatia,  TAIEX,  EMCDDA)  and  an  effective  use  of  TAIEX  assistance 
(expert  missions  and  follow-up  in  workshops).  The  result  was  an  outstanding  evaluation 
report. A TAIEX workshop was organised based on the findings of the evaluation. 

Series of 5 inter-connected TAIEX events – 2014/2015 
A series of events related to the monitoring of intoxication has been organised, starting by 
a  study  visit  to  Italy,  followed  by  an  expert  mission  to  Croatia  and  two  subsequent 
workshops. 

There  are  strong  mechanisms  set  up  by  the  Macedonian  NIPAC  in  coordination  with  BAs 
and  the  EUD  to  avoid  overlaps  and  also  to  ensure  synergies  and  complementarity.  The 
process of prioritisation of needs and requests for TAIEX assistance is done in such a way 
that  BAs  provide  their  ideas  and  needs,  while  also  stating  the  existing  or  planned 
Twinning/TA  or  other  types  of  support  through  IPA  or  other  donors.  The  NIPAC  and  BAs 
ensure that priorities are justified and that they do not overlap with some other interventions 
before the BAs develop applications and submit them officially. The decision process is such 
that the EUD provides their opinion on the validity of applications, which is another filter for 
potential overlaps. Finally, TAIEX approves or rejects an application, based on their devised 
criteria. This approach is resulting in decrease of rejections of TAIEX requests based on the 
ground  of  overlaps,  as  confirmed  by  the  EUD.  The  consulted  BAs  state  that  their 
complementarity  and coherence  with other  donors  has  increased,  and TAIEX serves as an 
excellent,  quick,  ad-hoc  and  complementary  instrument  to  ongoing  support  received  from 
other sources.  

The  TAIEX  approval  system  in  Montenegro  appears  to  be  quite  strong  and  successful  in 
ensuring that there is no overlap or a duplication of efforts. All BAs are requested to ensure 
that  the  TAIEX  event  does  not  overlap  with  another  similar  event  implemented  through 
Twinning or another IPA or other donor intervention. The application is verified by the NCP, 
the  EUD  and finally  by  the  TAIEX  office in Brussels. The  decision  process  is  such  that  the 
EUD  provides  their  opinion  on  the  validity  of  applications,  which  is  a  filter  for  potential 
overlaps. Finally, the TAIEX office approves or rejects an application, based on their devised 
criteria.  In  this  specific  case,  TAIEX  serves  as  a  quick,  ad  hoc  and  complementary 
instrument to ongoing support received from other sources. 

According to the Turkish BAs, TAIEX events are better in comparison to other types of EU-
funded and other donors‟ projects in the fields of EU  acquis transfer. The interviews reveal 

AETS Consortium – August 2015 

35 

 
 
 
Evaluation of TAIEX Instrument 

Final Evaluation Report 

that  over  78%  of  e-Survey  1  BA  respondents  confirm  that  there  are  no  overlaps  between 
TAIEX assistance and other EU funded cooperation activities/projects17 implemented in their 
country. Nevertheless, over 89% of respondents from BAs believe that complementarity with 
other  EU  funded  activities  could  be  further  improved.  Furthermore,  almost  80%  of 
respondents „agree‟ or „strongly agree‟ that TAIEX is coherent with other programmes, while 
68%  of  respondents  agree  or  strongly  agree  that  there  is  a  clear  and  well-established 
mechanism  (operational  or  envisaged)  for  optimising  the  additional  and  coordinated 
implementation of the TAIEX assistance and/or other multi- and bi-lateral donors (see Annex 
20 for a detailed overview of e-Survey 1 responses). 

17 Activities such as Twinning, SIGMA, classical TA, Grant Schemes, Community Programmes, Framework Contracts (FWCs), 
procurement, etc. 
AETS Consortium – August 2015 

36 

 
 
 
                                                      
Evaluation of TAIEX Instrument 

Final Evaluation Report 

IMPACT 

EQ4  –  Impact:  To  what  extent  will/have  the  objectives  of  TAIEX  events  be/been 
achieved  as  intended,  in  particular  the  planned  overall  objective,  in  terms  of  policy 
advice, capacity building, legal approximation (e.g. EU Acquis), economic integration 
institutional 
into 
modernisation?  To  what  extent  was  the  achieved  outcome  of  effects  due  to  TAIEX 
activities? 

international  markets,  and 

internal  and/or  global 

the  EU 

The TAIEX instrument is a short term and rather ad hoc instrument, and as such it is very 
difficult to assess the real impact of the instrument on overall reforms in a given country. 
However, as outlined in previous chapters, TAIEX has made important contributions both in 
view  of  influencing  the  enabling  environments  for  such  changes  in  a  country,  through 
assisting  the  development  transposition  of  EU  legislation,  and  supporting  capacity  building 
for  the  implementation  of  legislation  and  new  mechanisms.  The  results  delivered  by  the 
TAIEX instrument across the region have contributed to positive impacts. This is particularly 
the  case  for  improved  legislation  and  better  informed  strategies,  a  more  functional 
institutional  framework,  strengthened  capacities  to  deliver  the  strategic  priorities  in  various 
segments of EU accession, as well as the overall modernisation of public administrations. 

The  effects  of  TAIEX  can  be  best  considered  in  conjunction  with  other  forms  of  EU 
assistance  in  general.  In  this  regard,  interviews  confirm  that  TAIEX  and  EU  assistance  in 
general  has  positively  affected  country  administrations  by  helping  them  to  become  more 
professional  and  client  oriented.  It  has  been  assessed  that  the  outcomes  of  TAIEX 
assistance are highly appreciated and implemented – on a large scale - by beneficiaries. EU 
assistance has been supported and implemented by the beneficiary institutions through  the 
implementation  of  various  project  activities  and  the  application  of  lessons  learned  in  their 
everyday work, albeit to varying degrees at the level of countries and sectors. In support to 
„Post-6  month‟  evaluation 
these 
questionnaire,  which  shows  generally  high  satisfaction  with  the  usefulness  of  TAIEX  (with 
90.6%  of  the  total  of  1030  respondents  considered  it  „excellent‟  or  „very  good‟),  which 
indicates  that  knowledge  of  EU  legislation  and  internal  procedures  have  improved  (72%), 
while new laws have improved in 45% of cases (see Graph 4 below).  

feedback  received 

findings  goes 

through 

the 

the 

Graph 4 - Following TAIEX assistance, what type of result was achieved?  

1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0

* data presented in Graph 4 above covers all countries in the WBT region 

AETS Consortium – August 2015 

Yes

No

37 

 
 
Evaluation of TAIEX Instrument 

Final Evaluation Report 

E-Survey  1  illustrates  that  a  higher  percentage  (75%)  of  laws  drafted  with  the  support  of 
TAIEX  have  been  adopted  than  the  post-6  month  evaluation  questionnaire.  This  is 
understandable  as  legislation  changes  require  more  time  and  indicate  positive  impacts.  As 
per  the  e-Survey  1  responses,  23.2%  of  laws  are  fully  implemented;  61.6%  are  partially 
implemented and 15% are not implemented. Concomitantly, 69% of amendments to the laws 
developed  with  the  support  of  TAIEX  have  been  adopted,  out  of  which  18.6%  are  fully 
implemented;  58.1%  are  partially  implemented  and  23.2%  are  not  implemented.  By-laws 
supported  by  TAIEX  also  have  high  rate  of  adoption  (77.5%),  out  of  which  26.4%  are  fully 
implemented;  62%  are  partially  implemented  and  11.3%  are  not  implemented.  Finally,  the 
adoption of amendments to by-laws supported through TAIEX assistance is 74%, and their 
implementation is „full‟ for 13.5%, „partial‟ for 67.5% and „non-existent‟ for 19% (see Annex 20 
for an overview of e-Survey 1 responses). 

The  TAIEX  instrument  was  also  of  great  value  within  the  processes  of  development  of 
country  strategies  for  various  sectors  of  importance  for  EU  accession.  62%  of  those 
strategies  have  been  adopted,  out  of  which  16%  are  fully  implemented,  66%  are  partially 
implemented and 18% are not implemented. 

E-Survey 1 respondents consider TAIEX events as having high impacts. Being asked about 
impacts of events (including all activities that have contributed to the development of skills, 
including for instance advice to senior management, etc.), 70.5% respondents state that their 
knowledge  has  been  enhanced  „totally‟  or  „a  lot‟,  while  almost  half  of  them  state  that  their 
skills have enhanced „totally‟ or „a lot‟. In terms of behavioural changes, 37% state that their 
behaviour has changed (quality at  work has improved)  „totally‟ or „a lot‟,  while 42.7% see a 
moderate change in this domain (see Graph 5 below). 

Graph 5 – TAIEX Event Impact Assessment 

50,00%
45,00%
40,00%
35,00%
30,00%
25,00%
20,00%
15,00%
10,00%
5,00%
0,00%

Totally

Your knowledge has been enhanced

Moderate

A little

A lot

Not at all

N/A

Your skills have improved

Your behaviour has changed (quality at work has improved)

Another important finding from e-Survey 1 relates to major institutional changes as a result of 
TAIEX assistance. As per the e-Survey 1 results, internal procedures changed for 44.8% of 
institutions;  administrative  structures  were  improved  or  modified  for  27.8%,  and  the 
systematisation of acts were changed in 14.2% of cases (see Annex 20 for an overview of e-
Survey 1 findings).  

AETS Consortium – August 2015 

38 

 
 
Evaluation of TAIEX Instrument 

Final Evaluation Report 

According to the experiences of the interviewed BAs and the NCP in Croatia, EU assistance 
overall had a positive effect on the facilitation of the enlargement process. The evidence is to 
be seen in the fully harmonised legislation with the EU acquis, which was the precondition for 
the  closure  of  negotiations,  as  well  as  enhanced,  administrative  capacities 
for 
implementation.  During  the  EU  accession  process,  EU  assistance  ensured  that  Croatian 
beneficiaries‟ knowledge was enhanced via the sharing of experiences and insights into good 
practices, legislation and frameworks. Therefore, other candidate countries are also aware of 
the overall positive effect on the facilitation of the  enlargement process. EU assistance has 
contributed  to  change  at  the  national  state  and  public  administration  levels.  In  some 
segments,  it  has  had  a  positive  impact  on  the  administrative  culture  of  beneficiary 
institutions.  Interviewed  officials  believe  TAIEX  events  positively  affected  the  corporate 
culture in the beneficiary administration. TAIEX provided Croatian officers with examples of 
successful  acquis  implementation,  practical  case  studies  and  experiences.  It  therefore 
contributed  to  a  change  in  the  system  -  not  only  in  practice  -  but  also  in  corporate  culture. 
Administrative culture in Croatia has evolved  fairly significantly over the  last 10 year period 
thanks to TAIEX and EU assistance in general - helping it to become more professional and 
client-oriented. However, the beneficiary institutions have used TAIEX events on an ad hoc 
basis, and this is not sufficient to mark a significant change in its corporate culture as a result 
of TAIEX assistance per se. 

In  the  former  Yugoslav  Republic  of  Macedonia,  interviewed  stakeholders  agree  that  the 
main impact of TAIEX work can be seen in improved legislation and the approach to work in 
various  sectors  (particularly  highlighted  are  improvements  in  approaches  and  standards  in 
the  work  of  institutions  and  agencies).  E-Survey  1  shows  that  internal  procedures  were 
improved  thanks  to  TAIEX  (45%  of  respondents)  and  administrative  structures  (32.5%). 
TAIEX  also  contributed  to  the  transposition  of  EU  legislation,  as  evidenced  by  the  (non-
exhaustive)  list  of  legislation  that  was  developed  thanks  to  TAIEX  support  (Annex  25). 
Overall,  consulted  stakeholders  widely  agree  that,  while  progress  has  been  made  in  the 
reforms, considerably more time and efforts are needed to influence overall changes in the 
public administration to adequately implement legislation, policies and mechanisms. 

Similarly,  over  half  of  Montenegrin  stakeholders  participating  in  e-Survey  1  agree  that 
internal procedures in their institutions have improved as a direct result of TAIEX assistance 
(58%),  while  one  quarter  of  respondents  state  that  their  administrative  structures  have 
improved  (26.3%).  Another  important  contribution  of  TAIEX  is  the  improvements  to  the 
institutional and legal framework in Montenegro – the list of which can be found in Annex 25 
of  this  report.  Respondents  reflect  that  the  main  impact  of  TAIEX  events  happened  on  the 
level of knowledge and on skills (100% stated that it helped „totally‟ or „a lot‟). Furthermore, 
the impact on behavioural changes was relatively high, and over a half of respondents state 
the  level  of  change  of  behaviour  was  „total‟  or  that  it  changed  „a  lot‟,  whereas  46.67%  of 
respondents claimed moderate or low changes in behaviour. 

According to interviews and e-Survey 1 results, TAIEX events have fulfilled - to a great extent 
- the various needs of the Turkish BAs in terms of legal approximation and alignment with 
the EU acquis. Three quarters of the Turkish e-Survey 1 participants (75%, 68 respondents 
out of 90) state that the results of TAIEX events have responded to their institution‟s needs. 
Only 4% did not agree (4 respondents), and 10% had no idea (9 respondents). The majority 
of  the  Turkish  e-Survey  1  participants  (60%,  54  people  out  of  89)  states  that  the  TAIEX 
events are very useful with regard to the priorities stated in Turkey‟s national pre-accession 
country  strategy  and  19%  were  neutral  (17  respondents).  A  further  20%  had  no  idea  (18 
respondents). Half of the Turkish e-Survey 1 participants (50%, 61 respondents out of 123) 
were  satisfied  with  the  TAIEX  events  as  they  responded  to  their  institution‟s  needs,  45% 
were neutral (56 respondents out of 123). Only 5% did not agree (6 respondents out of 123). 

There is also evidence of the successful delivery of the planned outputs and for achieving the 
TAIEX  events‟  objectives.  It  is  widely  acknowledged  in  Turkey  that  TAIEX  activities  have 
contributed  considerably  to  the  adoption  and  implementation  of  the  EU  acquis  and  the 

AETS Consortium – August 2015 

39 

 
Evaluation of TAIEX Instrument 

Final Evaluation Report 

development  of  Turkish  democracy  by  paving  the  way  to  public  discussions  over  taboo 
issues, which could not be questioned before, e.g. issues of Romany Citizens in Turkey. In 
addition  to  the  financial  benefits,  the  EU  has  been  providing  Turkish  beneficiaries  with 
programmes serving as a means of integration into their respective fields. TAIEX assistance 
has provided a visible contribution to the institutional capacity building objectives required by 
the  pre-accession  process.  The  main  impact  of  TAIEX  events  occurred  at  the  level  of 
knowledge and - to some extent - on skills. However, the impact on changed behaviour was 
not so high compared to knowledge and skills. More than one third of the Turkish e-Survey 1 
respondents selected „Internal procedures‟ as the major institutional changes that have been 
implemented directly as a result of TAIEX events with 29% selecting „improved or modified 
Administrative structure‟ as the second major change. 

The  Turkish  BAs  have  drafted  or  adopted  new  strategies,  laws,  by  laws  or  made 
modifications  and  standards  enabling  them  to  align  with  the  EU  acquis.  According  to  the 
Turkish  participants  three  quarters  of  the  documents  have  been  adopted  already  and 
majority of them stated that at this moment they are partly implemented (see Annex 25). 

Interviewed  line  DGs  are  satisfied  with  concrete  outputs  of  TAIEX  and  its  help  to  the 
countries. Some of these impacts, such as adoption of laws can be measured, but it is hard 
to measure all areas of assistance provided by TAIEX.  

AETS Consortium – August 2015 

40 

 
 
 
Evaluation of TAIEX Instrument 

Final Evaluation Report 

SUSTAINABILITY 

EQ5 – Sustainability: To what extent have/are the positive outcomes of TAIEX events 
and  the  flow  of  benefits  continued/likely  to  continue  after  external  funding  ends/has 
ended? 

Overall, consulted stakeholders agree that adopted legislation and new mechanisms in place 
are  a  strong  input  for  the  sustainability  of  reform  results.  TAIEX  support  is  instrumental  to 
supporting BAs to adequately implement these new mechanisms; this constitutes a valuable 
sustainability  input.  Another  important  contribution  to  sustainability  is  administrative  and 
organisational  structures,  which  are  in  place  and  ensuring  the  effective  implementation  of 
TAIEX  assistance.  Line  beneficiaries  are  directly  involved  in  the  formulation  of  their  TAIEX 
requests,  which  contributes  to  needs-based  activities  -  bringing  with  them  sustainable 
results. 

Line DGs expressed concern with the lack of sustainability of TAIEX results due its demand 
driven nature. As such, knowledge is provided but the issue lies with its overall sustainability. 
Evaluation  findings  indicate  that  the  main  hindering  factor  for  the  sustainability  of  the 
TAIEX  instrument  is  the  high  staff  turnover  in  the  concerned  public  administrations  and 
low capacities in terms of language skills. In Turkey, as confirmed by the Turkish BAs, there 
is still a high degree of political commitment from the Turkish administration; however, this is 
negatively influenced by the slow progress in the accession negotiations.  

A  good  example  of  a  low  staff  turnover  fluctuation  in  relation  to  TAIEX  activities  was 
observed in Croatia‟s public administration with NCP officials in their positions since the early 
stages of the  enlargement  process.  It  should  also be  noted  that  the  individual  BAs  request 
colleagues who participate in TAIEX events to develop an internal report after the completion 
of  such  an  event.  These  reports  are  monitored  by  a  TAIEX  co-ordinator  and  the  relevant 
superior  official.  They  are  used  for  information  dissemination  and  the  formulation  of  an 
eventual TAIEX request. 

According to interviewed BAs across the sample, it is expected that the outcomes of TAIEX 
assistance will continue to produce constructive effects after the end of EU funding within the 
extent  of  technical  assistance.  There  is  overall  agreement  that  that  outcomes  of  EU 
assistance  will  last  over  and  beyond  EU  funding,  as  administrative  cultures  have  evolved. 
TAIEX  induced  both  a  sustainable  behavioural  change  and  a  development  of  the 
stakeholders'  administrative  capacities  in  the  beneficiary  countries.  However,  sustainability 
will also depend on the development policy of national institutions and on their administrative 
and  financial  capacities.  Financial  resources  and  the  financial  obligations  may  hamper 
sustainability,  as  in  some  cases  huge  investments  are  required.  At  a  time  of  financial 
restrictions,  this  is  not  always  and  entirely  possible.  For  example,  budgetary  restrictions 
negatively  affected  the  organisation  of  one  expert  mission  in  Croatia,  as  the  BA  could  not 
financially contribute by covering the catering expenditures. Beneficiaries with strategic/policy 
and management responsibility have and still are demonstrating an ownership of the results, 
but they also need continuous communication and eventual training. 

Networking and improved know-how of public servants have been recognised as sustainable 
effects  of  the  TAIEX  assistance.  The  direct  contact  with  experts,  easy  exchanges  of 
knowledge  and  experience  and  the  further  strengthening  of  the  administrative  capacities 
have  been  appreciated.  Consulted  stakeholders  agree  that  TAIEX  events  contribute  to 
building links between experts and professionals in a given reform area. 

As  seen  from  the  Table  12  below,  e-Survey  1  and  e-Survey  2  respondents  agree  that 
continued  networking  with  EUMS  Experts  and/or  partner  institutions  after  TAIEX  event 
completion  are  a  good  means  for  strengthening  the  sustainability  of  TAIEX  results.  An 
additional  means  is  continued  institutional  commitment  by  a  Line  Beneficiary  after  event 
completion  via  further  internal  training  in  order  to  ensure  continued  enhancement  of 
AETS Consortium – August 2015 
41 

 
Evaluation of TAIEX Instrument 

Final Evaluation Report 

administrative  capacity,  followed  by  full  project  ownership  of  results  through  further  TAIEX 
events. 

Table 12 - Which of the following measure can ensure sustainability of TAIEX results? 
(Question 42) 

Full  project  ownership  over  results  to  be  continued  via  further 
TAIEX events  
Continued institutional commitment by the Line Beneficiary after 
event  completion  via  further  training  in  order  to  ensure  the 
continued  enhancement  of  administrative  capacity 
(and 
absorption capacity) 
Financial  budget  allocated  by  the  Line  Beneficiary  to  continue 
the results 
Continued  networking  with  EUMS  Experts  and/or  partner 
institutions after TAIEX event completion  
Further dissemination of documents produced by TAIEX events 
(e.g. “Training of Trainers” Manuals, etc.) 

e-Survey 1  e-Survey 2 

21.4% 

21% 

22.82% 

9.3% 

27.6% 

18.8% 

21% 

10% 

28% 

21% 

A lack of sustainability was expressed by some of the interviewed DGs, especially due to the 
demand driven nature of TAIEX. It is recognised that knowledge is transferred but there is a 
residual problem with sustainability. It is difficult to find evidence regarding the sustainability 
of the assistance. 

AETS Consortium – August 2015 

42 

 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation of TAIEX Instrument 

Final Evaluation Report 

SWOT ANALYSIS – OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF TAIEX IN THE IPA REGION 

In order to summarise all opinions, comments, remarks, recommendation and key messages 
received  from  the  line  stakeholders  in  the  IPA  Region,  European  Commission  services  in 
Brussels,  EU  Delegations  to  IPA  countries  and  EUMSs  as  well  as  the  answers  to  the 
evaluation  questions  into  an  overall  assessment  of  the  TAIEX  Instrument,  the  Evaluators 
have  hereinafter  put  forward  a  SWOT  analysis  reflecting  views  and  feedback  by  the  Line 
Beneficiary  Institutions  on  the  TAIEX  Instrument  as  implemented  in  the  IPA  Region.  This 
SWOT  analysis  may  provide  useful  insights  into  TAIEX  for  future  conceptualisation  and 
programming. 

A reminder of the SWOT analysis concept as an evaluation method:  

Strengths:  Characteristics  of  the  programme  that  give  it  an  advantage  over  others. 
Aspects that have been working well and that line stakeholders are happy to 
talk about. 

Weaknesses: Characteristics that place the programme at a disadvantage relative to others. 

Aspects that have not been working so well. 

Opportunities: Elements that the programme could exploit to its advantage. Ideas on how to 

overcome the weaknesses observed and how to build on strengths. 

Threats:  

Elements  in  the  environment  that  could  cause  trouble  for  the  programme  by 
constraining or threatening the range of opportunities for change. 

SWOT Analysis – TAIEX Instrument 

The strengths of TAIEX assistance delivered during 2007-2014 have been the following: 

  Relevance  –  TAIEX  addresses  the  most  ardent  needs  of  the  BAs  and  respective 
through  offering 
governments, 
assistance  in  terms  of  policy  advice,  capacity  building,  legal  approximation  (EU 
acquis), economic integration into the EU internal and/or global international markets, 
and institutional modernisation; 

towards  EU  membership, 

their  aspirations 

in 

  Participatory  approach  to  programming  –  opportunity  for  BAs  design  the 
applications and participatory mechanisms for programming of IPA assistance (e.g. in 
the  former  Yugoslav  Republic  of  Macedonia)  informs  adequately  the  programming, 
creates ownership and commitment over the process; 

  Expertise – there is evidence of positive impact brought about by TAIEX through the 
deployment  of  top  technical  expertise  and  dissemination  of  good  practices  as 
benchmarks for reforms in various sectors in IPA countries. Also, a strong expertise 
has developed within the TAIEX unit; 

  Mobilisation  –  TAIEX  events  contribute  to  building  networks  and  communities  of 
interests  between  beneficiary  and  EUMS  towards  common  development  goals  and 
offer possibility to pool together best intelligentsia in the planning, programming and 
implementation of support; 

  Synergy  –  TAIEX  complements  other  development  efforts  supported  by 
governments, EU and other donors. In recent years, there have been efforts to fully 
integrate principles of complementarity and subsidiarity in programming of TAIEX; 
  Flexible implementation framework - allowing for quick deployment of experts and 

response to new needs or unmet assumptions; 

  Strong  M&E  system  –  allowing  for  extensive  analysis  of  efficiency,  effectiveness, 

relevance and impacts of the assistance.   

AETS Consortium – August 2015 

43 

 
 
Evaluation of TAIEX Instrument 

Final Evaluation Report 

The weaknesses of TAIEX during 2007-2011 have been the following: 

  Fragmentation  of  support  –  TAIEX  is  by  nature  an  ad-hoc  and  short  term 
intervention  which  may  deter  the  possibility  to  achieve  and  understand  ultimate 
impacts on overall reforms in BCs. 

Opportunities for TAIEX are the following: 

  Sequencing  of  TAIEX  assistance  -  Examples  of  sequenced  TAIEX  assistance 
through various types of events for various needs (e.g. in fYROM with Environment) 
offers insights on how such an approach could be beneficial for the BAs and overall 
reforms in a given sector. For example, the TAIEX strategy would consist in an expert 
mission  in  order  to  conduct  a  gap  analysis.  Then  a  workshop/seminar  would  be 
organised to address the priority needs in order to fill the gaps and only when and if 
appropriate, a study visit to an EUMS partner institution would take place; 

  Knowledge  management  and learning  –  TAIEX  has gathered  a range  of  success 
stories,  good  models  of  work  and  lessons  learned.  Designing  a  good  approach  for 
knowledge management  and  learning  may  contribute to  better  understanding  of  the 
instrument‟s value, its achievements and attribution of results; 

  Complementarity  -  Already  effective  complementarity  with  other  EU  classical  TA 
projects  should  be  extended  to  ensuring  synergies  with  other  donors.  This  may  be 
done  through  already  established  mechanisms  for  donor  coordination  by  NIPAC 
offices in the region. 

Threats for TAIEX are the following:  

  Deteriorating situation in individual countries or in the region – EU assistance in 
general  and  TAIEX  in  particular  face  threat  of  overall  deterioration  of  political, 
economic  and  social  situation  in  countries  or  regionally.  Such  situation  would 
negatively affect results of the assistance in terms of reversion of positive effects of 
instruments on the reformist processes. 

It is clear from the above that the TAIEX Instrument‟s positive aspects considerably exceed 
those  that  are  negative.  TAIEX  is  and  remains  a  very  popular  capacity-building  tool, 
notwithstanding  several  weaknesses,  for  which  corrective  actions  may  be  introduced  on  a 
flexible basis. 

AETS Consortium – August 2015 

44 

 
 
Evaluation of TAIEX Instrument 

Final Evaluation Report 

4. 

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

Conclusions 

Relevance.  The  relevance level  of  the TAIEX  instrument  during the  period  2007-2014  was 
particularly  high.  TAIEX  assistance  has  been  in  line  with  national  sector  strategies  and 
actions  plans,  as  well  as  with  countries‟  aspirations  for  EU  membership.  The  accession 
agenda has been the driving force behind the requests and approvals of assistance provided 
by TAIEX to complement other types of assistance implemented both EU and other donors. 
This  agenda  has  naturally  included  legal  approximation  (EU  acquis),  economic  integration 
into  the  EU  internal  and/or  global  international  markets  and  institutional  modernisation 
steered  by  the  national  action  plans  for  accession  and  regular  EC  progress  reports.  The 
approach  whereby  BAs  -  in  consultation  with  NCPs  -  elaborate  requests  and  also  their 
increasing  involvement  in  the  programming  of  TAIEX  has  embedded  the  needs-based 
dimension of this type of support. 

Effectiveness.  Since  2007,  TAIEX  has  delivered  useful  results,  which  have  supported  the 
reform  goals  across  various  sectors  through  improved  strategies  and  legislation,  enhanced 
institutional  capacity,  modernisation  of  practices  in  institutions  and  overall  improvements  to 
public  administrations.  The  extent  to  which  these  results  have  boosted  the  continuation  of 
reforms is hard to assess, in consideration of the short-term nature of TAIEX. 

Efficiency.  With  few  exceptions,  TAIEX  assistance  has  been  delivered  in  a  timely  and 
efficient  manner.  Its  management  structures  and  approaches  are  appropriate  and  allow  for 
the  selection  of  the  best  mechanism  to  respond  to  the  needs  of  BAs.  Efficiency  has  been 
affected  by  the  natural  fragmentation  of  TAIEX  into  short-term  and  generally  small 
interventions  set  against  sometimes  long  approval  frameworks.  TAIEX  has  a  systematic 
approach  to  M&E,  which  facilitates  the  tracking  of  interventions  in  terms  of  their  approach, 
efficiency, effects and contributions made towards reforms in BAs. 

Impact.  TAIEX  has  contributed  to the  development  of  a  legal  and  institutional  environment 
enabling  structural  reforms  in  the  countries,  contributing  to  an  accelerated  pace  of  change 
and  direction  of  reforms.  The  increased  professionalism  of  staff  and  public  administrations 
serves as a contribution for a better implementation of the reforms. The impact of assistance 
has  nevertheless  been  uneven,  as  this  depends  on  the  various  levels  of  commitment  and 
interest  of  the  government  counterparts  (BAs)  to  take  on  the  positive  effects  of  assistance 
and  transform  them  into  long  lasting  impacts  -  for  their  institutions  and  for  the  overall 
development of their countries. 

Sustainability. TAIEX has invested important resources in developing national capacities to 
lead  the  reforms;  develop  and  implement  new  laws  and  strategies  and  use  new  practices, 
methodologies  and  tools.  However,  staff  turnover,  frequent  institutional  changes  and  -  at 
times  -  low  commitment  for  using  the  newly  acquired  competences,  skills  and  knowledge 
reduce the benefits of capacity building investment. 

AETS Consortium – August 2015 

45 

 
 
Evaluation of TAIEX Instrument 

Recommendations 

Final Evaluation Report 

The findings and conclusions of the evaluation point to the following recommendations, as elaborated in this section. Each recommendation has 
an addressee and a proposed timeframe. For ease of reference, recommendations are divided into two categories, as follows: 

S - Strategic recommendations (1)  

P - Programming, delivery and coordination 
recommendations  (9) 

No 
Strategic (S) 
S1 

Recommendation 

Addressee 

Timing 

Enhance ownership of BAs over TAIEX instrument through encouraging their leadership in 
prioritisation  of  TAIEX  assistance,  preparation of  requests  and selection  of  implementing 
partners/experts 

NIPACs/NCPs should further enhance BAs leadership role throughout the prioritisation of TAIEX 
assistance, preparation of requests and their selection.  

This  may  include  the  development  of  screening  procedures,  based  on  agreed  and  transparent 
selection  criteria,  which  ensure  the  strategic  relevance  of  selected  TAIEX  requests  with  strong 
inputs and leadership by BAs. 

Programming, delivery and co-ordination of the instrument (P) 
P1 

Continue good practice of sequencing assistance through a combination of TAIEX events 

During the evaluation, the benefits of sequential assistance were noted, particularly in terms of the 
development of legislation and further implementation through the establishment of strengthening 
mechanisms and services. For areas where support is needed for a longer period to achieve the 
estimated  impact  (improvement  of  institutional  practices,  implementation  of  new  laws  and 
regulations) and which would need further support than one-off TAIEX assistance, it is suggested 
to develop an application form elaborating overall needs for support in order to provide a holistic 

Governments, with 
the assistance of 
EUD and TAIEX 
management 

2015-2016 

and 

NCPs 
the 
TAIEX  Unit  at  DG 
NEAR 

Planning and 
programming 
phase of 
TAIEX 

AETS Consortium – August 2015 

46 

 
  
Evaluation of TAIEX Instrument 

Final Evaluation Report 

No 

P2 

P3 

P4 

Recommendation 
view of what is required to achieve the envisaged impact. Ideally, this  would be followed by the 
preparation  of  a  pipeline  of  well-sequenced  events.  For  example,  the  TAIEX  strategy  would 
consist 
to  conduct  a  gap  analysis.  Subsequently,  a 
workshop/seminar would be organised to address the priority needs in order  to fill the gaps and 
only when and if appropriate, a study visit to an EUMS partner institution would take place.  
Continue approving study visits as a TAIEX support mechanism 

in  an  expert  mission 

in  order 

These are valued highly by BAs and bring considerable added values, particularly when BAs are 
tasked with the implementation of new mechanisms and the implementation of adopted legislation 
and strategies. Study Visits to Member States preferably need to be approved when the existence 
of a supporting sectoral strategy and appropriate Government legislation is in place. 
Enable access to M&E data gathered and analysed in the system for internal users in EC 
(e.g. line DGs) to contribute to shared understanding of the value added and effectiveness 
and impact of the TAIEX assistance 

The  M&E  system  in  place  for  the  TAIEX  instrument  is  impressive  and  presents  a  wealth  of 
information  and  data  on  TAIEX  relevance,  efficiency,  effectiveness  and  also  impacts.  However, 
the system is used only internally, within the TAIEX Unit. As such, this system is not widely known 
and/or  used. The  TAIEX  Instrument‟s  visibility  would be  enhanced  if  the  system  would be  more 
accessible to other actors in the EC (e.g. line DGs, decision makers) as it would provide hands-on 
knowledge of the instrument, its effectiveness and contribution to overall reforms in the BCs. The 
system  could  put  a  „read-only‟  option  in  place  for  internal  users,  with  restrictions  on  confidential 
data (e.g. ratings of experts and comments), but would enable cross-tabulation and filtering as per 
country/type of event/sector, etc.  
Increase awareness raising concerning the TAIEX instrument and support the monitoring 
function of national contact points 

The  evaluation  noted  that,  while  BAs  are  generally  aware  and  familiar  with  TAIEX  assistance, 
there  is  still  insufficient  information  concerning  the  available  funding  through  TAIEX.  The  NCPs 
and EUDs are trying hard to disseminate information, but do not have enough capacity to do it in 
a more systematic and regular way. It is therefore of importance that possibly interested BAs are 
aware and ideally guided in finding the right stream of support to ensure successful participation 
and benefits from the assistance. In this respect, improvements in the system should be made to 
establish a more systematic electronic platform with all available funding opportunities, monitoring 
data for countries and sectors as well as types of assistance. In order to improve the monitoring of 

Addressee 

Timing 

and 

NCPs 
the 
TAIEX  Unit  at  DG 
NEAR 

Planning and 
programming 
phase of 
TAIEX 

TAIEX  Unit  at  DG 
NEAR 

Ongoing 

EU Delegations 

Permanently 

NIPACs/NCPs 

AETS Consortium – August 2015 

47 

 
Evaluation of TAIEX Instrument 

Final Evaluation Report 

No 

P5 

P6 

P7 

P8 

Recommendation 
assistance, BAs should notify the relevant national contact points, as an obligatory requirement on 
results  of  events,  supported  also  by  expert  reports.  At  the  same  time,  information  on  best 
practices  and  success  stories  should  be  posted  by  the  EC  on  its  websites  and  should  be  as 
comprehensive as possible. 
BAs  should  make  efforts  to  build  further  capacities  regarding  the  prioritisation  of  TAIEX 
support activities and fulfilling the requirements of the online application form 

Feedback  received  during  interviews  is  that  BAs  -  in  some  cases  -  struggle  with  the  online 
application  and as such,  the  NCP  needs to  be  assisted.  BAs  should  ensure  their  capacities are 
strengthened to fill in the survey, even via requesting separate training on this topic. 
Continue ensuring that logistical arrangements run smoothly  

The  TAIEX  Unit  -  the  service  provider  -  should  take  measures  to  ensure  that  the  logistical 
arrangements run smoothly and do not affect the implementation of an event. Travel, translation 
(if  applicable)  and  venue  arrangements,  ensuring  event  participants  are  fully  aware  about  an 
event‟s  preparation  is  critical  in  order  to  provide  better  response  and  generate  greater  benefits 
from the event.  
Improve  the  application  format  by  introducing  analysis  of  impact  and  sustainability 
prospects of the event (or series of events, if applicable) 

Integration of the sections on impact and sustainability  would enable BAs to reflect and analyse 
potential  sustainability  and  impacts  of  the  event,  linking  them  to  higher  level  of  reforms  and 
initiatives  within  the  structures.  This  approach  would  also  introduce  setting  targets  and 
(potentially) indicators of success that could be measured through a more systematic M&E to be 
established for TAIEX.  
Strengthen the website presentation of the TAIEX instrument as a visibility tool 

Potential  and/or  current  TAIEX  users,  but  also  EU  and  other  international  and  national 
stakeholders  interested  in  the  instrument,  use  the website as  a first-hand information source for 
the  Instrument.  Improvements  to  the  website  could  include  a  more  efficient  search  function 
(allowing  options  to  search  per  country,  per  sector,  per  BA,  etc.)  including  best  practices, 
examples  of  good  applications  and  more  comprehensive  statistics  would  ensure  a  better 
understanding and visibility of the instrument. 

Addressee 

Timing 

BAs 

Permanently 

TAIEX  Unit  at  DG 
NEAR 

Permanently 

TAIEX  Unit  at  DG 
NEAR 

Permanently 

TAIEX  Unit  at  DG 
NEAR 

Permanently 

AETS Consortium – August 2015 

48 

 
 
 
Evaluation of TAIEX Instrument 

Final Evaluation Report 

No 
P9 

Recommendation 
Consider  stronger  support  through  webinars  as  a  good  practice  example  that  can 
contribute to sustainability of measures 

Addressee 
TAIEX  Unit  at  DG 
NEAR 

Timing 
2015-2016 

TAIEX  is  already  supporting  some  forms  of  ongoing  follow  up  support  to  BAs  in  various  ways, 
primarily  through  enabling  sequenced  events  and  support  through  preferred  experts.  Another 
avenue  of  support  that  could  be  explored  by  TAIEX  are  web-based  seminars  (webinars),  which 
could provide requested follow up support after a „classical‟ TAIEX event takes place.  

AETS Consortium – August 2015 

49 

 
 
HOW TO OBTAIN EU PUBLICATIONS 

Free publications: 

•  one copy: 

via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu); 

•  more than one copy or posters/maps: 

from the European Union‟s representations (http://ec.europa.eu/represent_en.htm);  
from the delegations in non-EU countries (http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/index_en.htm);  
by contacting the Europe Direct service (http://europa.eu/europedirect/index_en.htm) or 
calling 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (free phone number from anywhere in the EU) (*). 

(*)  The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or 
hotels may charge you). 

Priced publications: 

•  via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu). 

Priced subscriptions: 

•  via one of the sales agents of the Publications Office of the European Union 

(http://publications.europa.eu/others/agents/index_en.htm). 

Catalogue number: EZ-01-16-170-EN-N 
ISBN: 978-92-79-55190-1 
doi: 10.2876/943732 
 Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union 
© European Union, 2016