COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT on the mid-term evaluation of the Programme for exchange, assistance and training for the protection of the euro against counterfeiting ('Pericles 2020' Programme)
Date: 2017-12-06
Institutions: Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs, European Commission
Subjects: EU financing, EU programme, counterfeiting, cross-border cooperation, euro, fraud, fraud against the EU

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 6.12.2017  SWD(2017) 443 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT on the mid-term evaluation of the Programme for exchange, assistance and training for the protection of the euro against counterfeiting ('Pericles 2020' Programme)   {COM(2017) 741 final} - {SWD(2017) 444 final}  
 
 
Contents 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

Introduction .................................................................................................................. 4 

Background to the initiative ......................................................................................... 5 

Evaluation Questions ................................................................................................... 7 

Method ......................................................................................................................... 9 

Implementation state of play (Results) ...................................................................... 11 

Answers to the evaluation questions .......................................................................... 14 

Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 23 

ANNEX 1: Procedural Information ......................................................................................... 26 

ANNEX 2: Stakeholder Consultation ...................................................................................... 30 

2 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS 

AWP 
CBCDG 
CfP 
CNA 
DG ECFIN 
DG HOME 
DG JUST 
DG NEAR 
ECB 
ECEG 
EQ 
Eurojust 
Europol 
Interpol 
ISSG 
MS 
OLAF 
OPC 
SWD 
TAIEX 
TOR 

Annual Work Programme 
Central Bank Counterfeit Deterrence Group  
Call(s) for proposals 
Competent National Authority 
Directorate General for Economic and Financial Affairs 
Directorate General for Migration and Home Affairs 
Directorate General for Justice and Consumers 
Directorate General for Neighbourhood and Enlargement Negotiations 
European Central Bank 
Euro Counterfeiting Experts Group 
Evaluation Question(s) 
European Union's Judicial Cooperation Unit 
European Police Office 
International Criminal Police Organization 
Inter-Service Steering Group 
Member State(s) 
European Anti-fraud Office 
Open Public Consultation 
Staff Working Document 
Technical Assistance and Information Exchange 
Terms of Reference 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1.  INTRODUCTION   

Pericles 2020 is an exchange, assistance and training programme aiming at promoting actions 
for  the  protection  and  safeguarding  of  the  euro  against  counterfeiting.  The  budget  for  the 
Programme's implementation is approximately EUR 1 million per year.  

The  Pericles  2020  programme  runs  for  the  period  2014-2020  and  replaced  the  Pericles 
programme, which was established by Council Decision 2001/923/EC of 17 December 2001 
for  a  period  of  four  years  (1  January  2002  to  31  December  2005)  and  it  was  extended  by 
Council Decision 2006/849/EC of 20 November 2006 until 31 December 2013.  

The Programme is a multiannual action programme to promote actions for the protection and 
safeguarding of the euro against counterfeiting and related fraud. It is an exchange, assistance 
and training programme aiming at preventing and combating counterfeiting and related fraud, 
thus  enhancing  the  competitiveness  of  the  EU's  economy  and  securing  the  sustainability  of 
public finances.  

The Programme actively encourages and entails an increase in transnational cooperation for 
the  protection  of  the  euro  against  counterfeiting  both  inside  and  outside  the  EU.  Particular 
attention is paid to those Member States or third countries that have the highest rates of euro 
counterfeiting,  as  shown  by  the  relevant  reports  issued  by  the  competent  authorities.  Such 
cooperation  contributes  to  a  greater  effectiveness  of  the  protection  of  the  euro  through 
exchanging best practices, common standards and joint specialised training.  

More  specifically,  the  Programme  protects  euro  banknotes  and  coins  against  counterfeiting 
and related fraud, by supporting and supplementing the activities undertaken by the Member 
States  and  assisting  the  competent  national  and  European  authorities  in  order  to  develop 
among themselves and the Commission a close and regular cooperation and an exchange of 
best practices, where appropriate including third countries and international organisations.  

The actions in order to achieve the above mentioned objectives, as defined in Article 8 of the 
Regulation, are:  
exchange  and  dissemination  of  information,  through  organised  workshops,  meetings 
a. 
and  seminars,  including  trainings,  targeted  placements  and  staff  exchanges  of  competent 
national authorities; 
b. 
multidisciplinary and transnational dimension; 
c. 
counterfeiting authorities for protecting the euro against counterfeiting.  

technical,  scientific  and  operational  assistance  including  relevant  studies  with  a 

grants  to  finance  the  purchase  of  equipment  to  be  used  by  specialised  anti-

Projects  financed  under  the  Programme  are  implemented  either  directly  by  the  Commission 
(DG  ECFIN)  or  in  the  form  of  grants  awarded  to  national  competent  authorities  in  the  EU 
(both in the euro area and non-euro area Member States). The common co-financing rate for 
grants  awarded  under  the  Programme  is  75%  of  the  total  eligible  costs.  These  projects  take 
place both inside and outside the EU.  

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Article  13(4)  Regulation  (EU)  No  331/2014,  requires  that,  by  31  December  2017,  “an 
independent mid-term evaluation report shall be presented by the Commission …with a view 
to  informing  a  decision  on  the  renewal,  modification  or  suspension  of  the  measures.”.  As 
indicated  in  the  Terms  of  Reference,  the  objective  of  the  Evaluation  is  to  “provide  an 
assessment  of  the  Programme  to  date”.  This  is  to  be  complemented  by  “a  short  analysis  of 
how the recommendations of previous evaluations were taken on board” and “an outlook on 
the future activities of the Programme”.  

The  Evaluation  was  carried  out  by  an  external  contractor  and  run  from  4/08/2016  till 
30/06/2017; it assessed the Programme's implementation covering the period January 2014 – 
June 2016 and provided an outlook on the future activities of the Programme. 

The Evaluation primarily focused on the Pericles 2020 actions for which a commitment was 
made  by  30  June  2016.  In  practice,  the  Evaluation  involved  the  analysis  of  27  actions, 
involving a total initial EU budgetary commitment of about € 2.3 million (i.e. about one third 
of total Pericles 2020 resources). For the purpose of assessing long term effects, the analysis 
of  the  Programme's  actions  was  supplemented  with  the  review  of  the  previous  Pericles 
Programme. 

2.  BACKGROUND TO THE INITIATIVE 

Since the introduction of the euro as a single currency, there was the need to protect the euro 
against  counterfeiting  at  the  EU  level  and  to  have  a  specific  programme  dedicated  for  this 
purpose.  The  new  currency  entailed  a  higher  risk  of  counterfeiting  which  in  turn  had  the 
potential to undermine the trust in the euro. Therefore the Pericles programme was established 
in  2001,  which  is  the  predecessor  of  the  Pericles  2020  programme.  The  legal  basis  of  the 
Programme  is  Article  133  of  the  TFEU.    The  current  programme  builds  on  the  work  of 
Pericles which operated from 2001 to 2013.  

The Programme can broadly be qualified as a capacity building, information dissemination 
and networking initiative. Its activities are aimed at: (i) raising awareness of the threat posed 
by euro counterfeiting; (ii) promoting closer and more regular coordination and cooperation 
among  relevant  institutions;  (iii)  enhancing  the  operational  capabilities  of  staff;  and  (iv) 
developing improved tools and methods in the areas of euro counterfeit prevention, detection 
and  repression.  The  Programme  is  also  actively  involved  in  supporting  the  improvement  of 
the  legal  and  institutional  framework  for  euro  protection,  namely  in  connection  with  the 
general framework established by the 1929 Geneva Convention on Currency Counterfeiting. 

The Programme is inspired by three key principles, namely: (i) transnationality, which entails 
the  requirement  that  all  Programme  activities see  the  participation  of at  least  two countries; 
(ii) multidisciplinarity, which is intended to facilitate the adoption of an common approach to 
euro  protection  by  the  target  groups  mentioned  hereafter;  and  (iii)  complementarity,  with 
Programme  activities  intended  to  supplement  and  not  to  replace  other  euro  protection 
initiatives implemented by MS or by EU/international institutions. 

5 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
In line with its multidisciplinary approach, the Programme seeks to benefit a wide range of 
target  groups,  including:  (i)  law  enforcement  authorities  (police,  customs,  ministries  of 
interior, intelligence personnel); (ii) monetary authorities (national central banks, mints); (iii) 
judiciary  authorities  (ministries  of  justice,  judges,  prosecutors);  (iv)  commercial  banks  and 
other financial sector operators (money exchange or transport companies, etc.); and (v) other 
private sector organisations (bankers’  associations, etc.). 

The  Programme's  strategy  focuses  on  four  priority  areas,  namely:  (i)  supporting  EU  MS 
particularly  affected  by  euro  counterfeiting;  (ii)  fostering  cooperation  with  third  countries 
where  there  is  evidence  for  or  suspicion  of  counterfeit  euro  production;  (iii)  maintaining  an 
efficient  framework  for  the  protection  of  the  euro  in  South  Eastern  Europe;  and  (iv) 
addressing new developments and challenges. The Programme's priorities areas updated on an 
annual basis and are endorsed by the ECEG, a group of national counterfeit experts from all 
28  MS  as  well  as  representatives  from  the  Commission,  ECB,  and  Europol  and  are 
incorporated in the AWP1.  

Figure 1: Programme’s Intervention Logic for the period 2014-2020 

The  ‘intervention  logic’  is  a  logical  model  describing  in  diagrammatic  form  the  linkages 
between the various elements comprising a certain intervention. Pericles 2020’s intervention 
logic can be described with reference to six main elements, namely: 

1 C(2016) 316 final (https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/annex_838024_en.pdf). 
  C(2015) 2473 final (https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/commission_decision_annex_en.pdf ). 
  C(2014) 3427 final.  

6 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
  The  first  element  refers  to  the  needs  addressed  by  the  Programme,  i.e.  the  growing 

international dimension and changing nature of euro counterfeiting; 

  The second consists of the inputs available to address these needs, which include the 
Programme’s financial, human and managerial/administrative resources as well as the 
resources of the other entities involved; 

  The  third  concerns  the  actual  deployment  of  available  resources  through  the 
implementation  of  Pericles  2020  actions,  i.e.  the  organisation  of  conferences,  staff 
exchanges, etc.;  

  The  fourth  refers  to  the  outputs  delivered  by  the  Programme  actions,  which  can  be 

described in terms of staff trained, best practices disseminated, etc.; 

  The fifth relates to the ‘transformation’ of the outputs into outcomes, i.e. the discrete 
changes in euro protection capabilities that the Programme is expected to generate (in 
terms of increased operational capability, closer institutional cooperation, etc.); and 
  Finally, the sixth element refers to the Programme’s impact, i.e. its contribution to the 
general improvement in euro protection, which in turn is expected to contribute to the 
end goal of improving general economic conditions. 

3.  EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

Evaluation Framework 

The Evaluation covered all the five evaluation criteria typically used in the assessment of EU 
programmes, namely: (i) relevance; (ii) effectiveness; (iii) efficiency; (iv) EU added value; (v) 
coherence. In addition the evaluation also considered a sixth criteria: (vi) sustainability.  

In particular: 

  With respect to relevance, the exercise reviewed the rationale of the Programme with 

regard to the objectives, priorities, target groups, and actions; 

  The  assessment  of  effectiveness  focused  on  the  Programme’s  ability  to  achieve  the 

intended results in terms of outputs, outcomes, and impact; 

  The  analysis  of  efficiency  involved  a  review  of  the  management  and  administrative 

arrangements put in place for Programme implementation; 

  With regard to EU added value, the Evaluation focused primarily on the Programme’s 

ability to promote transnational cooperation; 

  The analysis of coherence considered the complementarity of Pericles 2020 activities 
with other initiatives implemented at the national and EU/international levels; and 
  The  assessment  of  sustainability  focused  on  the  prospects  for  results  achieved  to  be 

maintained over time. 

The  specific  aspects  analysed  by  the  Evaluation  were  detailed  in  a  set  of  15  Evaluation 
Questions  (EQ)  listed  in  the  Terms  of  Reference  (TOR)2  and  linked  to  the  six  evaluation 
criteria.  

2 The EQ were amended by the ISSG after the engagement of the contractor. 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Evaluation Criteria and Evaluation Questions (EQ) 

Relevance 

• 

• 

• 

• 

EQ#1 To what extent is there still a need to protect the euro against counterfeiting and related fraud? 

EQ#2 To what extent is the specific objective of the Programme relevant to achieve its general objective? 

EQ#3  To  what  extent  are  the  priorities  of  the  Programme  relevant  to  achieve  its  general  and  specific 
objectives? 

EQ#4  To  what  extent  are  the  Programme  actions  and  target  groups  relevant  to  achieve  its  general  and 
specific objectives? 

Effectiveness 

• 

• 

• 

EQ#5 To what extent have the activities financed under the Programme delivered the expected outputs? 

EQ#6 To what extent has the specific objective of the Programme been achieved? 

EQ#7 To what extent has the Programme contributed, in quantitative and qualitative terms, to protect the 
euro against counterfeiting and related fraud as well as to other EU priorities? 

Efficiency 

• 

• 

• 

EQ#8 To what extent do the management and administrative structures and procedures currently in place 
ensure  an  economic  and  efficient  use  of  resources  in  the  achievement  of  the  Programme  outputs, 
outcomes and impacts? 

EQ#9 To what extent is the co-financing rate appropriate? 

EQ#10 To what extent are the actions and outputs of the Programme delivered at a reasonable cost? 

EU added value 

• 

EQ#11 To what extent does the Programme provide EU added value, within the meaning of Article 2 of 
the Regulation? 

Coherence 

• 

• 

• 

EQ#12  To  what  extent  have  the  coordination  and  cooperation  mechanisms  in  place  for  the  Programme 
ensured consistency and complementarity with other relevant initiatives and operations implemented  by 
Member States? 

EQ#13  To  what  extent  have  the  coordination  and  cooperation  mechanisms  in  place  for  the  Programme 
ensured consistency and complementarity with other relevant capacity building initiatives implemented at 
the EU and international levels? 

EQ#14  To  what  extent  have  the  coordination  and  cooperation  mechanisms  in  place  for  the  Programme 
ensured  consistency  and  complementarity  with  other  relevant  operational  activities  supported  at  the  EU 
and international levels? 

Sustainability 

• 

EQ#15 To what extent are the results achieved (or likely to be achieved) sustainable? 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4.  METHOD  

An  Inter-Service  Steering  Group3  (ISSG)  was  established  and  a  third  party  contractor  was 
engaged  to  undertake  the  work  of  the  evaluation.  The  specific  contract  for  the  Evaluation 
became effective on 4 August 2016 and expired on 30 June 2017. The Evaluation was carried 
out  in  line  with  the  principles  commonly  applied  for  the  evaluation  of  EU  initiatives,  as 
enshrined  in  the  Better  Regulation  Guidelines.  The  first  step  was  the  firming  up  of  the 
evaluation framework, taking into account the specific themes indicated in the TOR. This was 
followed by fact finding work, involving the review of secondary sources as well as primary 
data collection through interviews and an online survey. The information collected provided 
the  basis  for  subsequent  analytical  work,  which  ultimately  led  to  the  preparation  of  the 
Evaluation  study.  The  methodological  approach  was  discussed  at  the  kick-off  meeting  with 
the external contractor and it was endorsed by the members of the ISSG. 

Fact finding 

Fact  finding  work  consisted  of  four  components,  namely:  (i)  the  review  of  documentary 
sources (‘Desk Review’); (ii) interviews with the CNAs actually or potentially involved in the 
Programme; (iii) interviews with other institutions; and (iv) a survey of persons participating 
in Pericles 2020 initiatives (‘Survey of Participants’).  

I. 

The  Desk  Review  involved  the  analysis  of  three  types  of  documentary  sources, 
namely: (i) documents concerning the nature, orientations and operating modalities of 
the  Programme  (ii)  documents  concerning  the  specific  actions  financed  by  the 
Programme  over  the  relevant  period  and  (iii)  documents  concerning  various  aspects 
linked to the Programme and/or the theme of protection of the euro. Overall, the Desk 
Review entailed the analysis of about 150 documentary sources. 

II.  Competent  National  Authorities  (CNAs)  play  a  major  role  in  the  implementation  of 
Pericles 2020 and interviews with their representatives constituted an essential part of 
fact finding work. Interviews were carried out with four categories of CNAs, namely: 
(i) the CNAs that received funding from the Programme for the implementation of one 
or more actions (‘Implementers’); (ii) the CNAs that implemented actions under the 
previous  Pericles  Programme,  but  did  not  apply  for  funding  under  Pericles  2020 
(‘Former  Implementers’);(iii)  the  CNAs  that  have  never  applied  for  funding  under 
either  Pericles  2020  or  its  predecessor  (‘Non  Applicants’);  and  (iv)  the  CNAs  that 
applied  for  the  implementation  of  Pericles  2020  actions  but  did  not  receive  any 
funding (‘Unsuccessful Applicants’). All interviews were carried out on the basis of 
structured questionnaires developed during the Inception Phase and agreed upon with 
the  ISSG.  In  order  to  facilitate  interactions  with  the  interviewees,  the  questionnaires 
were made available in three languages (English, French and Spanish). A total of 35 
CNAs  were  interviewed,  meaning  that  more  than  one  third  of  all  the  national 

3 The ISSG was composed by representatives of ECFIN, SG and JUST (see Annex I). Moreover, representatives 
of  other  Commission  services  (DG  HOME,  DG  JUST,  DG  NEAR,  and  OLAF)  running  similar  or 
complementary programmes and representatives of the ECB and the Central Bank Counterfeit Deterrence Group 
(CBCDG) were involved in the evaluation as well in their role as stakeholder (see Annex 1). 

9 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
III. 

IV. 

institutions  categorised  as  CNAs.  The  representativeness  of  the  exercise  is  further 
enhanced  by  the  wide  geographical  coverage  of  interviews,  with  at  least  one  CNAs 
interviewed  in  22  MS,  including  all  the  large  MS  (France,  Germany,  Italy,  Poland, 
Spain, and the UK) as well as 14 of the 19 countries in the Euro area. 

Fact finding work also involved two others sets of interviews, namely: (i) interviews 
with Commission services and other EU institutions and international bodies involved 
in  the  protection  of  the  euro  (‘Institutional  Interviews’);  and  (ii)  anti-counterfeit 
authorities  in  third  countries  that  have  received  support  from  the  Programme 
(‘Interviews with Supported Authorities’).  

The  Survey  of  Participants  targeted  the  individuals  who  had  taken  part  in  Pericles 
2020  actions  committed  over  the  period  analysed.  The  Survey  of  Participants  was 
conducted through an online questionnaire, accessible via a dedicated portal. In order 
to incentivise participation, the questionnaire was relatively short, mostly consisting of 
closed  questions  and  was  made  available  in  three  languages  (English,  French,  and 
Spanish). The surveyed individuals were contacted via email and invited to access the 
dedicated portal. The survey remained open for four weeks over the February – March 
2017  period  and  progress  was  constantly  monitored  (non-respondents  received  two 
reminders). A total of 227 valid responses were received representing a response rate 
of  almost  44%.  Overall,  this  must  be  regarded  as  an  extremely  positive  result,  well 
above  the  100  replies  envisaged  by  the  external  contractor  in  the  Inception  Report.  
The Survey questions were structured in such a way as to enable clear analysis of the 
evaluation questions within the Terms of Reference. 

Due to the specific character and scope of the Programme as well as the confidential nature of 
some  of  its  activities,  combined  with  the  fact  that  extensive  consultations  with  stakeholders 
were  to  be  carried  out,  the  Evaluation  was  exempted  from  the  standard  OPC  under  Better 
Regulation.  

Analytical work 

Analytical  work  first  involved  the  systematic  review  of  the  qualitative  and  quantitative 
information  collected,  with  the  structuring  and  mapping  of  the  evidence  collected  to  the 
relevant  indicator.  In  the  few  cases  where  gaps  or  weaknesses  in  the  data  were  identified, 
appropriate  corrective  actions  were  undertaken,  namely  with  the  location  and  review  of 
additional  documentary  sources  and,  especially,  follow  up  contacts  with  interviewees.  In 
particular, additional contacts were made by the external contractor with the assistance of the 
staff  responsible  for  the  Programme's  management  in  DG  ECFIN  and  with  staff  of  other 
Commission services.  

Much of the evidence collected is of a qualitative nature (e.g. views on the severity of certain 
problems or level of appreciation of a certain type of action) which does not lend itself to any 
type  of  statistical  analysis.  Even  when  the  data  collected  were  in  numerical  format,  the 
number of observations was too limited and/or the time series were too short to allow for any 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
type  of  statistical  analysis  beyond  the  computation  of  simple  averages.  Accordingly,  the 
analysis  was  eminently  of  a  qualitative  nature.  Findings  typically  originated  from  different 
sources  (documents,  interviews,  survey)  and/or  were  of  a  different  nature  (perceptions  on  a 
certain phenomenon, statistical data, budgetary data, etc.) and they were triangulated in order 
to  reach  robust  conclusions.  Depending  upon  the  situations,  the  exercise  was  carried  out  at 
two  levels,  i.e.  triangulation  of  sources  (i.e.  primary  vs.  secondary  sources)  and/or 
triangulation of respondent groups (e.g. Commission staff, officials of other EU institutions, 
representatives of CNAs, etc.). The data collected cover the period January 2014 – June 2016.  

Data Limitations and Methodological Issues 

The Evaluation faced two gaps in documentary sources. The first refers to the unavailability 
of some Action Documents as some of the Programme's actions were completed only in late 
2016  and  the  related  Technical  and  Financial  Reports  were  not  yet  available  at  the  time  of 
writing. This did not affect the overall conclusions, but somewhat reduced the significance of 
certain parts of the analysis, especially regarding the assessment of cost effectiveness as some 
documentation relating to the evaluation period was not available. The second gap refers to a 
scarcity of wider  analytical  work on money counterfeiting.  While statistics and descriptive 
studies  on the  extent  of the phenomenon are available and were  extensively  used, little  was 
found  in  the  literature  on  the  theme  of  anti-counterfeiting  activities  (especially  those  with  a 
capacity building orientation) and their effects. Therefore, the analysis of effectiveness relied 
predominantly  on  the  information  provided  by  the  various  stakeholders  consulted.  While 
primary sources are obviously of great value, they nonetheless suffer from some limitations 
(possible  bias  in  responses,  reluctance  or  inability  to  provide  a  quantification  of  certain 
aspects, distribution of respondents) that are inevitably reflected in the work presented here. 
Nevertheless,  the  high  response  rate  in  the  Survey  of  Participants  should  ensure  a  fairly 
degree of representativeness of results. 
In  consideration  of  the  above,  it  can  be  concluded  that  the  limitations  encountered  didn’t 
affect the reliability of the exercise. 

5.  IMPLEMENTATION STATE OF PLAY (RESULTS) 

Budget and Management 

The Programme has a total budget of € 7.344 million for the 2014 – 2020 period, i.e. around € 
1  million  per  year.  Funds  are  used  for:  (i)  the  provision  of  grants  to  CNAs  interested  in 
implementing  actions  (‘CNAs-implemented  actions’);  and  (ii)  the  financing  of  actions 
implemented  directly  by  DG  ECFIN  (‘direct  actions’).  The  annual  distributions  vary,  but 
around 70% of the annual budget is commonly allocated to CNAs-implemented actions and 
30% to direct actions. 
Until  the  end  of  2014,  the  Programme  was  managed  by  the  European  Anti-fraud  Office 
(OLAF), which was the entity responsible for managing the previous Pericles Programme. As 
of January 2015, Pericles 2020 is managed by DG ECFIN. Activities are undertaken on the 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
basis of a yearly updated rolling strategy and Annual Work Programmes (AWP)4. Advice on 
the strategic orientations of and planning for the Programme is provided by the ECEG.  

Operating Modalities 

Pericles  2020  actions  are  implemented  through  the  provision  of  grants  to  CNAs  or 
directly  by  DG  ECFIN,  through  so  called  ‘direct  actions’.  Grants  are  provided  on  the 
basis  of  Calls  for  Proposals,  while  direct  actions  are  implemented  via  procurement 
contracts.  The  annual  distributions  vary,  but  around  70%  of  the  annual  budget  is 
commonly allocated to grants and 30% to direct actions.  

CNAs-implemented  actions  benefit  from  a  financial  contribution  in  the  form  of  a  grant. 
Grants  are  awarded  on  the  basis  of  Calls  for  Proposal  (CfP),  launched  annually,  with  two 
deadlines, one in spring and one in fall. Each CfP indicates the value of funding available and 
the  types  of  actions  eligible  for  financing.  Applications  are  assessed  against  a  set  of  pre-
defined 
(transnationality, 
multidisciplinarity and complementarity) and taking into account the quality of the proposals 
and  cost-effectiveness  considerations.  In  case  of  award,  subsequent  steps  follow  the 
Commission’s  standard  procedure  for  grant-based  initiatives,  with  the  signing  of  a  Grant 
Agreement and, upon completion of the action, the submission of a Technical Report and a 
Financial Report. 

the  Programme's  basic  principles 

reflecting 

criteria, 

As  specified  in  Article  10(4)  of  the  Regulation,  the  Programme’s  maximum  financial 
contribution is normally set at 75% of eligible costs, but in certain duly justified cases5 it can 
be increased up to 90%.  

Although managed by DG ECFIN,  direct  actions are always  implemented in  collaboration 
with  national  authorities  in  EU  MS  or  third  countries.  From  an  administrative  view  point, 
direct actions are implemented through procurement contracts. Upon completion, results are 
summarised  in  a  report  similar  to  the  Technical  Reports  required  for  CNAs-implemented 
actions. 

Actions Implemented – Overview 

Over  the  period  between  January  2014  and  June  2016  covered  by  this  Evaluation, 
commitments were made for a total of  27 actions. These include eight actions implemented 
directly  by  DG  ECFIN  and  19  actions  implemented  by  10  CNAs.  The  CNAs  involved  in 
implementation  originate  from  five  MS  (Croatia,  France,  Germany,  Italy  and  Spain)  and 
include four monetary authorities (central banks and national mints) and six law enforcement 
authorities. The CNAs involved in the implementation of Pericles 2020 actions are listed in 
the table below.  

4 See footnote n.2  
5  In 2016 such duly justified cases included in particular:  conferences, seminars and workshops taking place in 
third  countries  identified  as  a  priority  in  the  Pericles  2020  Strategy;  actions  addressing  distribution  of 
counterfeits and high quality components on the internet ; actions addressing the  involvement of Member States' 
customs  authorities  in  the  fight  against  currency  counterfeiting;  actions  introduced  by  competent  national 
authorities that did not apply for Pericles funding in the calendar years 2013, 2014 and 2015. 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/annex_838024_en.pdf  

12 

 
 
 
                                                            
Table 1: CNAs Involved in the Implementation of Pericles 2020 Actions 

Member State  CNA  

Croatia 

France 

Germany 

Italy 

Spain 

  Hrvatska Narodna Banka (HNB) 

  Direction Centrale de la Police Judiciaire - Office Central pour la Répression du Faux 

Monnayage (DCPJ-OCRFM) 

  Monnaie de Paris 

  Landeskriminalamt Berlin (LKA Berlin) 

  Banca d’Italia 
  Comando Carabinieri Antifalsificazione Monetaria (CCAFM) 
  Ministero  dell'Economia  e  delle  Finanze  -  Ufficio  Centrale  Antifrode  dei  Mezzi  di 

Pagamento (UCAMP) 

  Ministero dell'interno - Ufficio Centrale Italiano del Falso Monetario (UCIFM) 
  Banco de España 
  Brigada de Investigación del Banco de España (BIBE) 

The 27 actions had an initial total budget of about € 2.8 million, involving an EU financing of 
about  €  2.3  million.  The  value  of  the  actions  varies  considerably,  with  EU  funding  ranging 
from less than € 10,000 to more than € 250,000, and an average value of some € 100,000. The 
Programme's actions are evenly distributed over time, with 10 actions approved in 2014, 12 in 
2015 and 5 in the first six months of 2016. Nearly all actions were  completed by end 2016, 
with only one initiative postponed to 2017. 

As presented in Exhibit below, DG ECFIN and the Italian, French, and Spanish CNAs were 
the  most  active  implementers,  cumulatively  accounting  for over  90%  of  actions  and  related 
budget,  workshops  and  staff  exchanges  are  the  most  common  types  of  actions,  each 
accounting for about one quarter of all actions. In value terms, trainings and conferences are 
the main categories, accounting respectively for 36% and 30% of the total budget value.  

Overview of Actions Implemented 

Figure 2: Number of Actions 

Type and Nationality of Implementer 

Type of Action 

Germany 
1 

Croatia 1 

France 4 

DG ECFIN 
9 

Spain 4 

Italy 8 

Studies 3 

Conference
s 7 

Workshops 
3 

Trainings  
7 

Staff 
Exchanges 
7 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3: Budget of Actions 

Type and Nationality of Implementer                         Type of Action 

Germany 
1% 

France 
15% 

Croatia 
3% 

Studies 
14% 

Conference
s 31% 

DG 
ECFIN 
27% 

Staff 
Exchanges 
14% 

Spain 
26% 

Italy 
28% 

Trainings 
35% 

Workshops 
6% 

CNAs are requested through the ECEG to provide data related to law enforcement activities 
on an annual basis. These data are used to monitor the key performance indicators (KPIs)  as 
specified  in  Article  4  of  the  Regulation;  namely,  the  number  of  counterfeit  detected,  illegal 
workshops  dismantled,  individuals  arrested  and  penalties  imposed.  Due  to  reporting 
limitations by CNAs, data on penalties imposed are not available.  

          Table 2: KPIs state of play  

KPIs 
Counterfeit notes detected 
Counterfeit coins detected 
Workshops dismantled 
Individuals arrested 
Penalties imposed 

2014 

2015 

838000 
192195 
37 
7946 
NA 

899000 
146899 
32 
8879 
NA 

2016 
684000 
150258 
NA 
NA 
NA 

Data from stakeholders (e.g.: CNAs, implementers and participants) provided a major source 
of evidence to inform the evaluation.  

6.  ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

The  Evaluation  study,  prepared  by  the  external  contractor,  has  adequately  addressed  the 
evaluation questions and thus met the requirements set in the TOR. Therefore, the ISSG fully 
endorsed the results of the study, as summarized here below:  

Relevance  

  EQ#1  To  what  extent  is  there  still  a  need  to  protect  the  euro  against  counterfeiting 

and related fraud? 

  EQ#2 To what extent is the specific objective of the Programme relevant to achieve its 

general objective? 

The  study  concludes  that  the  general  and  specific  objectives  are  relevant  and  are  likely to 
remain  so  during  the  Programme’s  life.  Concerning  euro  protection  in  general,  while 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
counterfeiting  ratios  are  lower  than  in  the  case  of  other  major  currencies,  all  stakeholders 
concur that vigilance must remain high. In a similar vein, the strengthening of institutional 
capacity  in  national  authorities,  which  constitutes  the  Programme's  ‘core  business’,  is 
regarded  as  an  essential  element  to  safeguard  the  euro.  Regarding  EU  MS  and  particularly 
Euro area MS, most CNAs have reached a good, sometimes excellent, level of preparedness, 
but  some  gaps  still  exist  or  may  emerge  due  to  the  evolving  nature  of  the  threat.  Most 
stakeholders concur that institutional strengthening needs are still substantial. 

The Commission shares the findings of the study, and considers that, despite the fact that the 
phenomenon seems to be currently under control, counterfeiting continues to be a major threat 
to  the  euro.  The  increased  number  of  counterfeit  banknotes,  the  rise  of  'sophisticated' 
counterfeits,  the  increasing  availability  of  technology  and  the  interest  in  counterfeiting  of 
Organised Crime Groups require our continuous attention.  

  EQ#3  To  what  extent  are  the  priorities  of  the  Programme  relevant  to  achieve  its 

general and specific objectives? 

The  study  shows  that  the  Programme's  priorities  are  aligned  with  needs.  The  target 
geographies  correspond  to  the  countries/areas  considered  at  risk  regarding  the  production 
and/or  circulation  of  euro  counterfeit,  and  this  orientation  has  been  duly  translated  in 
operational  terms,  with  a  concentration  of  efforts  in  those  countries/areas.).  Thematic 
priorities  are  also  aligned  with  needs,  with  the  strong  focus  on  counterfeiting  through  the 
internet highly praised by stakeholders. 

The Commission is of the opinion that it is indicative that the priorities, which are included in 
the Programme's AWP, are updated on an annual basis by the Commission together with ECB 
and  Europol  and  are  endorsed  by  the  ECEG.  This  will  contribute  to  ensuring  that  the 
emerging threats are addressed in a timely manner.  

  EQ#4  To  what  extent  are  the  Programme  actions  and  target  groups  relevant  to 

achieve its general and specific objectives? 

It is recognised that regarding the typologies of actions, the Programmes's set of instruments 
is  well  suited  to  the  purpose.  Conferences,  workshops,  trainings  and  staff  exchanges  serve 
different but complementary  purposes and are generally highly  appreciated by stakeholders. 
Views  are  more  divided  regarding  studies,  but  reservations  appear  to  concern  the  subject 
being  studied  rather  than  the  instrument  per  se.  Moreover,  the  purchase  of  equipment    to 
detect and investigate counterfeits by CNAs in MS to be used by third country6 authorities is 

6 Non EU countries where counterfeiting activities represent a threat for the euro (e.g.: Colombia, Peru, China).  
15 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
                                                            
viewed with a certain scepticism by some stakeholders, but the instrument is quite new (it was 
not used by any of the actions reviewed for this Evaluation) and no judgement can be passed 
at this stage.  

Table 3: Usefulness of types of actions  

Training

Conferences/Workshops

Staff exchanges

Studies

Purchase of equipment

2 

4 

1 

1 

1 

2 

3 

2 

0

3

6

9

12

Not useful

Marginally useful

Somewhat useful

Very useful

15 

13 

11 

10 

8 

15

Concerning  target  groups,  the  multidisciplinary  approach  is  unanimously  praised  by 
stakeholders  and  participants  in  Pericles  2020  events,  who  consider  the  involvement  of 
persons with different professional backgrounds a central tenet of a successful euro protection 
strategy.  

Considering  the  variety  of  actors  that  play  an  important  role  in  protecting  the  euro 
counterfeiting  (technical  experts,  law  enforcement,  judiciary,  etc.),  the  Commission's 
approach for implementing the Pericles programme has traditionally been based on bringing 
together  experts  from  all  relevant  disciplines  and  MS,  as  well  as  Europol,  Eurojust  and  the 
ECB.  This  also  explains  the  wide  typology  of  actions  supported  by  the  Programme  as 
indicated in  the  graph  below.  All  these  actions are indeed  extensively  used  by  applicants;  a 
particular  case  is  the  'purchase  of  equipment'  that  represents  a  new  tool  with  respect  to  the 
predecessor  programme.  In  this  case,  the  Commission  will  stimulate  CNAs  to  use  this  new 
feature provided in the Programme7. 

Figure 4: Professional Background of participants 2014-2016 

Other 
12% 

EU  
Institutions 
8% 

Commercial  
banks 
7% 

Judicial staff 
6% 

National Central 
Banks 20% 

Police 
45% 

7 One Grant Agreement was already signed in 2017 but the action was out of the scope of this Evaluation.  

16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
  
  
 
 
 
 
Effectiveness 

  EQ#5 To what extent have the activities financed under the Programme delivered the 

expected outputs? 

According to the study, the Programme's actions were typically implemented as planned and 
achieved the intended outputs. Actions were usually timely implemented, with only marginal 
changes  in  the  work  plans.  The  number  of  participants  in  events  is  largely  in  line  with 
expectations.  The  quality  of  the  support  provided  was  highly  praised  by  the  participants. 
More  importantly,  survey  results  show  that  a  large  share  of  participants  were  able  to  learn 
about  best  practices,  acquire  useful  skills  and  establish  contacts  with  colleagues  in  other 
countries. The quality of actions was also judged positively by the institutions involved, with 
third country authorities providing a positive assessment on all aspects and CNAs, ECB and 
Europol appreciating in particular the possibility of establishing new contacts in both MS and 
third countries and the information acquired on various topics. 

The  above  is  also  confirmed  by  the  assessment  of  the  Commission's  staff  participating  in 
almost  all  Programme's  activities  and  by  the  following  discussions  at  the  ECEG  meetings 
where the results of the activities are presented.  

  EQ#6 To what extent has the specific objective of the Programme been achieved? 

Available evidence suggests that the outputs delivered did translate into tangible outcomes, 
although  there  are  some  variations  across  the  various  groups  and  the  type  of  progress 
recorded. Improvements in operational capabilities and the adoption of improved methods 
are emphasised by third country authorities and by individual participants in the Programme's 
initiatives.  A  different  situation  is  found  regarding  the  improvements  in  international 
cooperation.  In  this  case,  the  most  positive  results  were  achieved  by  CNAs,  ECB  and 
Europol.  Positive  developments  are  also  reported  by  third  country  authorities  and  by 
individual  participants,  but  to  a  less  extent.  This  dichotomy  in  results  well  illustrates  the 
challenges faced by the Programme, which is confronted with a widely diversified audience, 
with different agendas, levels of capabilities, and needs that are not always easy to reconcile.  

The  Commission  welcomes  the  positive  finding  of  the  study  and  will  continue  to  assist  the 
CNAs in their efforts to develop among themselves and with the Commission a closer regular 
cooperation  and  exchange  of  best  practices  including  also  third  countries  and  international 
organisations.  

17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  EQ#7 To what extent has the Programme contributed, in quantitative and qualitative 
terms, to protect the euro against counterfeiting and related fraud as well as to other 
EU priorities? 

The study specifies that available data on the performance indicators are broadly on track to 
achieve  the  intended  targets,  at  the  same  time  it  underlines  that  these  indicators,  mostly 
linked to the results of operational counterfeit repression activities, are not fully adequate 
to  measure  the  performance  of  the  Programme.  Quantifying  the  impact  of  a  capacity 
building initiative in terms of operational results is an exercise fraught with difficulties due to 
the  influence  of  a  host  of  intervening  factors,  and  this  is  particularly  the  case  of  initiatives 
intended to protect against criminal activities, the magnitude of which is almost by definition 
unknown.  Subject  to  this  major  caveat,  there  is  evidence  that,  in  selected  situations,  the 
Programme has indeed exerted a direct  tangible influence on euro protection operational 
activities.  

Figure 5: Number of counterfeits detected in circulation: 2014-2016 

Banknotes 

Coins 

900.000
800.000
700.000
600.000
500.000
400.000
300.000
200.000
100.000
0

210.000

180.000

150.000

120.000

90.000

60.000

30.000

0

Baseline
2011

2014

2015

2016

Baseline
2011

2014

2015

2016

Target 2020 - Milestone 2017 (+/-5% Baseline)

Target 2020 - Milestone 2017 (+/-5% Baseline)

Figure 6: Number of illegal workshops dismantled and individuals arrested/charged: 2014-2016 

Dismantled Workshops 

Individuals Arrested/Charged 

50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

10.000
9.000
8.000
7.000
6.000
5.000
4.000
3.000
2.000
1.000
0

Baseline 2011

2014

2015

Baseline 2011

2014

2015

Milestones (+3% Baseline)
Target 2020 (+5% Baseline)

Milestones (+3% Baseline)
Target 2020 (+5% Baseline)

18 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The  Commission  acknowledges  the  fact  that  direct  links  between  the  Programme  and  the 
performance indicators can be clearly identified only in selected situations. In this respect, the 
fact  that  the  external  contractor  extended  the  consultation  to  supported  institutions  in  third 
countries8 was very well perceived by the ISSG and has proved vital for the study's results. 
At  the  same  time  the  Commission  underlines  the  difficulty  of  collecting  data  on  indicators 
such as penalties imposed due to the fact that final judgments may take several years.  

From a qualitative point of view, the Commission shares the results of the study underlining 
that  the  Programme's  positive  results  in  terms  of  enhanced  institutional  capabilities  are 
complemented by a positive contribution to the setting up of institutions and the adoption of 
legislation  aimed  at  improving  euro  protection.  While  institutional  and  legal  reforms  are 
rarely the result of a single factor, there is little doubt that the Programme and its predecessor 
played an important role in the establishment of key institutions in Latin America as well as in 
the passing of important legislation in South Eastern Europe. The Programme has hence also 
contributed to create the preconditions for effective euro protection activities. 
Despite  the  fact  that  there  are  no  studies  on  the  economic  and  social  costs  of  euro 
counterfeiting, all indications are that such costs are presently minimal. Available data show 
that the incidence of counterfeiting is significantly lower for the euro  than for other leading 
currencies.  These  data  clearly  suggest  that  euro  counterfeiting  currently  does  not  pose  a 
significant  threat  to  economic  stability  and,  in  particular,  does  not  have  any  appreciable 
negative  effect  on  the  competitiveness  of  the  EU  economy  and  the  sustainability  of  public 
finances.  It  is  difficult  to  assess  the  contribution  of  the  Programme  in  keeping  the 
phenomenon  of  euro  counterfeiting  under  control  and,  therefore,  in  achieving  EU’s  higher 
goals.  However,  the  study  mentions  a  ‘counterfactual  argument’,  mentioning  that  positive 
results may not be immediately visible but nonetheless exist. In this sense, it can certainly be 
concluded  that  the  Programme  did  play  a  role  in  preserving  the  integrity  of  the  euro  and, 
hence, in achieving higher EU goals.  

The Commission acknowledges the limitations that the external contractor had in relation to 
the lack of studies measuring the impact of euro counterfeiting on economic and social costs, 
and  at  the  same  time  shares  the  opinion  of  the  contractor  on  the  a  positive  role  that  the 
Programme played in preserving the integrity of the euro and, hence, in achieving higher EU 
goals. 

Sustainability  

  EQ#15 To what extent are the results achieved (or likely to be achieved) sustainable? 

Available  evidence  suggests  that  the  benefits  resulting  from  the  Programme's  actions  may 
have  long  lasting effect. The vast majority of participants  in the Programme's activities still 
work  for  the  same  institution,  and  such  a  remarkable  degree  of  job  stability  is  a  good 

8  Non  EU  countries  whose  representatives  participated  in  the  Programme  (e.g.:  Colombia,  Peru,  Albania, 
Kosovo, Montenegro, Armenia, Georgia, Morocco, Tunisia).  

19 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
precursor for sustainability. More important, third country authorities have adopted measures 
to  disseminate  the  information,  contacts,  etc.  acquired  through  the  participation  in  the 
Programme's actions, sometimes reaching a substantial number of staff. Based on the above, 
the Commission shares the contractor's opinion that prospects for the continued utilisation of 
results  appear  to  be  favourable.  The  Commission  acknowledges  that  the  creation  of 
competent authorities9 in third countries requires investments that could be put at risk if the 
Programme would not be continued after 2020. 

Efficiency 

  EQ#8  To  what  extent  do  the  management  and  administrative  structures  and 
procedures currently in place ensure an economic and efficient use of resources in the 
achievement of the Programme outputs, outcomes and impacts? 

The  institutional  arrangements  established  for  the  implementation  of  the  Programme  are 
well suited to the purpose according to the study. The transfer of responsibilities from OLAF 
to DG ECFIN was undertaken in an orderly manner and did not have any negative influence 
on operations. Programming documents provide a good reference framework for operational 
activities  and  contain  the  information  required  by  the  CNAs  interested  in  managing  the 
Programme's  actions.  ECEG  is  an  effective  forum  for  the  discussion  of  priorities  and 
coordination  of  capacity  building  plans  and  is  also  a  key  channel  for  the  dissemination  of 
information on the Programme to interested parties. CNAs implementing the actions do face 
some challenges, especially in the application stage. However, the time required to prepare an 
application  is  reasonable10  and  the  assistance  provided  by  the  staff  in  charge  of  the 
Programme is appreciated. Despite the fact that some areas in which further improvements are 
possible  have  been  identified,  the  study    notes  that  administrative  procedures  are  not  an 
element discouraging participation in the Programme. All things considered,  while potential 
small  improvements  are  possible,  administrative  procedures  can  be  regarded  as  broadly 
appropriate. 

The Commission considers the findings of the study very useful in order to further streamline 
the administrative procedures and elements to reduce the administrative burden on applicants 
will be followed up. 

  EQ#9 To what extent is the co-financing rate appropriate? 

As indicated in the study, the increase of the maximum EU contribution compared with the 
previous  Pericles  Programme  is  definitely  appreciated  by  CNAs.  An  increase  of  the  EU 

9  Such  as  National  Analysis  Centre,  Coins  National  Analysis  Centre  and  the  National  Central  Office  (NCO) 
referred to in the International Convention for the Suppression of Counterfeiting Currency of 20 April 1929.  
10 Approximately 8 staff-days on average. Source: interviews with CNAs. 

20 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
contribution  would  obviously  be  welcomed,  but  it  is  unlikely  to  significantly  broaden  the 
number of  CNAs interested in  applying for the implementation  of the Programme's actions. 
While it is conceivable that the 90% contribution rate might be used in a broader range of 
situations,  a  generalised  increase  in  the  EU  contribution  does  not  seem  advisable. 
According to the outcome of the interviews that the external contractor had with the CNAs, 
the  increase  in  the  EU  contribution  is  unlikely  to  significantly  broaden  the  number  of 
CNAs interested in applying for the implementation of Pericles 2020 actions. At the same, 
since  the  total  financial  envelope  is  fixed,  increasing  the  grant  element  of  CNA-
implemented actions would inevitably entail a reduction in DG ECFIN direct actions. This 
is endorsed by the Commission.  

  EQ#10  To what extent are  the actions and outputs of the Programme delivered at a 

reasonable cost? 

Figure 7: Average EU Contribution per Participant 

Cost-effectiveness  considerations  play  a  major  role  in  the  selection  of  actions  to  be 
implemented and this has had beneficial effects. The staff costs charged by CNAs are quite 
reasonable  and  much  lower  than  typical  consultant  fees. 
On  average,  Pericles  2020’s  unit  costs  are  aligned  with 
those  of  other  EU-funded  programmes  providing  support 
to  national  authorities  and  having  similar  operational 
modalities.  As  indicated  by  the  external  contractor,  these 
elements clearly suggest that the EU budgetary resources 
deployed  for  Programme  actions  are  used  judiciously, 
yielding a good value for money. 
Pericles  2020  is  a  small  programme  and  this  inevitably 
increases  the  incidence  of  overhead  costs,  however  the 
study concludes that the elimination of Pericles 2020 as a 
standalone  programme  would  entail  a  loss  in  specificity,  with  a  likely  decline  in  the 
effectiveness  of  euro  protection  actions  that  may  well  more  than  offset  the  financial 
savings.  The  Commission  shares  the  opinion  of  the  external  contractor  and  agrees  with  the 
conclusions of the study.  

s
e
l
c
i
r
e
P

m
o
t
s
u
C

0
2
0
2

3
1
0
2

3
1
0
2

a
c
s
i
F

900 

999 

964 

s
i
l

s

EU added value 

  EQ#11  To  what  extent  does  the  Programme  provide  EU  added  value,  within  the 

meaning of Article 2 of the Regulation?  

The  protection  of  the  European  single  currency  as  a  public  good  has  a  clear  transnational 
dimension,  and  therefore  euro  protection  goes  beyond  the  interest  and  the  responsibility  of 
individual EU Member States. Considering the cross border circulation of the euro, the deep 
involvement  of  international  organised  crime  in  euro  counterfeiting  (production  and 
distribution) and the importance of its protection, national protection frameworks need to be 
21 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
complemented in order to assure homogeneous national and international cooperation, and to 
face  possible  emerging  transnational  risks.  The Programme’s  added  value  lies  essentially in 
its  ability  to  support  collective  forms  of  international  cooperation  that  are  beyond  reach  of 
individual  national  authorities;  the  provision  of  dedicated  financial  resources  specifically 
designed  to  protect  the  euro  from  counterfeiting  and  political  weight  provided  to  reinforce 
Commission direct actions.  

As  illustrated  in  the  study,  all  CNAs  concur  that  initiatives  such  as  the  establishment  of  a 
dialogue  with  Chinese  anti-counterfeiting  authorities  or  the  support  to  euro  protection 
activities in Latin America could not have been delivered at MS level and would not have 
been feasible without the Programme. In a similar vein, a discontinuation of the Programme 
would cause a void and have serious detrimental effects, because it would make impossible to 
perform  the  same  type  of  transnational  activities  on  a  comparable  scale.  The  Commission 
concurs with this conclusion.  

Coherence 

  EQ#12  To  what  extent  have  the  coordination  and  cooperation  mechanisms  in  place 
for  the  Programme  ensured  consistency  and  complementarity  with  other  relevant 
initiatives and operations implemented by Member States? 

The fulfilment of the Programme's strict transnationality requirement is carefully scrutinised 
during  the  selection  of  the  actions  to  be  implemented  and  this  per  se  minimises  the  risk  of 
overlapping with national initiatives. Furthermore, national initiatives mostly consist of fairly 
basic  training  and  demonstration  activities  to  operators  and  financial  sector  employees,  an 
area of intervention that has been only marginally covered by the Programme and only in non-
EU countries. Overall, the Programme's activities can be regarded as fully complementary 
and  additional  to  national  initiatives,  without  overlaps.  The  Commission  agrees  with  the 
conclusions of the study. 

  EQ#13  To  what  extent  have  the  coordination  and  cooperation  mechanisms  in  place 
for  the  Programme  ensured  consistency  and  complementarity  with  other  relevant 
capacity building initiatives implemented at the EU and international levels? 

  EQ#14  To  what  extent  have  the  coordination  and  cooperation  mechanisms  in  place 
for  the  Programme  ensured  consistency  and  complementarity  with  other  relevant 
operational activities supported at the EU and international levels? 

The  Programme's  distinct  transnational  approach  and  focus  on  capacity  building  set  it  apart 
from  the  majority  of  EU  level  and  international  initiatives,  which  rarely  simultaneously 
display  the  same  features.  Indeed,  several  CNAs  and  third  country  authorities  have  been 
involved  in  other  programmes,  but  they  regard  Pericles  2020  as  fairly  unique,  effectively 

22 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
complementing other initiatives. At the operational level, coordination is greatly facilitated by 
the participation of all key stakeholders in ECEG meetings, during which Pericles 2020 plans 
are  presented  and  discussed.  This  leads  to  a  globally  positive  assessment  regarding  the 
Programme's  complementarity  with  other  existing  initiatives.  The  Commission  shares  the 
opinion of the contractor. 

7.  CONCLUSIONS 

All the findings converge towards an unambiguously positive overall assessment. There is 
room for small improvements, but from the evaluation it is clear that Pericles 2020 performs 
well  in  respect  of  all  the  six  evaluation  criteria  informing  this  Evaluation.    The 
recommendations of earlier assessments were properly followed up on and this contributed to 
improve  performance.  Under  these  conditions,  bearing  in  mind  the  purpose  of  this 
Evaluation11, the continuation of the Programme until its natural expiry in 2020, as well as 
in the future, is recommended by the extremal contractor.  

The Evaluation identifies the following recommendations: 

  Relevance.  Concerning  relevance,  continued  emphasis  on  the  increasing  risks  posed 
by Chinese counterfeiters and the internet is recommended. Chinese counterfeiters and 
internet  have  already  been  the  subject  of  significant  work  during the initial  phase  of 
Pericles  2020,  to  the  satisfaction  of  all  parties  involved.  However,  the  two  themes 
continue to rank quite high on the list of ‘new threats’ and indeed virtually all CNAs 
consulted have expressed a keen interest in further activities. In the case of the threat 
coming from Chinese counterfeiters, it is worth noting that, considering the difficulties 
in establishing bilateral contacts, some interviewees have explicitly called for a strong 
involvement of DG ECFIN, through the implementation of dedicated direct actions. 
Regarding the deep/dark web, the information dissemination and awareness enhancing 
activities  carried  out  so  far  could  be  usefully  complemented  by  more  operationally-
oriented initiatives, involving the participation of customs officers, representatives of 
parcel  delivery  companies,  and  IT  experts,  which  could  eventually  lead  to  the 
definition of new operational protocols. 

  Efficiency-Fine  Tune  Administrative  Procedures.  In  the  area  of  administrative 
procedures, two themes of potential improvement were identified. The first relates to 
the (in)adequacy of daily subsistence rates used for CNAs-implemented actions. The 
new  table  of  rates  applicable  to  Commission  staff  adopted  in  mid-2016  generally 
constitutes  an 
lamented  by  several  CNAs 
representatives.  However,  a  detailed  review  suggests  that  in  certain  countries 
(typically, ‘new’ MS) even the revised rates may not be in line with prevailing price 
levels.  Therefore,  consideration  could  be  given  to  the  possibility  of  allowing  greater 
latitude  in  determining  subsistence  cost.  The  second  area  of  possible  improvement 
concerns the possibility of submitting applications and other relevant documentation 
online.  Various  Commission  services  already  make  use  of  dedicated  portals  for  the 

improvement  over 

the  situation 

11 See Article 13(4) and 13(5) of the Regulation.  

23 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
handling of calls for proposals and/or  service contracts.12 Extending this opportunity 
to Pericles 2020 would contribute to smooth the interaction between DG ECFIN and 
applicants and would be certainly appreciated by CNAs.  

  Effectiveness  and  Sustainability.  The  Evaluation  flags  up  the  need  for 
encouraging  greater  CNAs  participation.  The  reasons  leading  to  the  non-
participation  of  many  CNAs  in  the  Programme  are  unlikely  to  spontaneously 
disappear  in  the  foreseeable  future.  However,  a  few  Former  Implementers/Non 
Applicants  consulted  more  or  less  explicitly  suggested  that  a  more  ‘aggressive’ 
marketing  strategy  on  the  part  of  DG  ECFIN  in  illustrating  the  issues  at  stake  may 
well lead to a reconsideration of the current low prioritisation of euro counterfeiting. 
Therefore, consideration should be given to the  establishment  of contacts  with high 
level decision makers to ensure that the opportunities offered by the Programme are 
well understood. The return of a similar ‘promotional’ approach is difficult to predict, 
but  considering  that  numbers  are  small,  even  eliciting  just  a  couple  additional 
applications  could  constitute  a  non-trivial  achievement.  Finally,  the  Evaluation 
underlines  that  the  sustainability  of  achieved  results  will  depend  significantly  on  the 
continuation of the Programme as a standalone programme until its natural expiry and 
beyond 2020. 

  Revise  Performance  Indicators.  The  Evaluation  underlines  that  the  performance 
indicators  currently  in  use  are  not  fully  aligned  with  the  capacity  building  nature  of 
Pericles  2020  activities.  Therefore,  consideration  should  be  given  to  replacing  or  at 
least  complementing  the  current  indicators  with  qualitative  ones  that  can  more 
accurately capture the results of Pericles 2020 actions. These indicators could focus 
on  aspects  such  as:  (i)  the  level  and  intensity  of  the  interinstitutional  cooperation 
established;  (ii)  the  nature  and  scale  of  the  dissemination  activities  undertaken;  and 
(iii) the frequency of utilisation of certain techniques or tools. Some of these indicators 
could  be  developed  based  on  the  experience  gained  through  this  Evaluation.  Two 
points  must  be  noted.  First,  the  introduction  of  a  new  set  of  indicators  inevitably 
requires time, and therefore it does not seem feasible within the framework of Pericles 
2020  but  should  be  considered  when  the  Programme  is  extended  beyond  2020. 
Second, the new indicators would require the collection of additional information and 
this may require the mobilisation of some dedicated resources. 

The Commission fully  endorses the results and the recommendation of this  Evaluation. The 
Commission will take into account the results and the recommendations of this Evaluation for 
the management and the implementation of the current Programme until its natural expiry in 
2020  and  also  in  view  of  the  preparation  of  the  Impact  Assessment  for  a  possible  new 
generation  of  the  Programme  under  the  post-2020  Multi-Annual  Financial  Framework.  In 
particular,  the  Commission  will  continue  to  prioritise  addressing  Chinese  counterfeiters  and 
the internet among the priorities of the current implementation of the Programme. In addition 
the  Commission  will  pursue  the  possibility  to  introduce  on-line  applications.  At  the  same 

12 Examples include the PROSPECT system, used by DG DEVCO for the handling of call for proposals, and the 
e-Submission system, used by other services (e.g. DG GROW). 

24 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
time,  contacts  with  the  relevant  decision  makers  in  MS  will  be  taken  forward  to  raise 
awareness on the Programme.  

Considering  the  limited  budget  of  the  Programme,  more  reflection  is  needed  for  evaluating 
the possible impact of higher daily subsistence rates on the post-2020 Programme's budget.  

With  reference  to  Article  13  (5)  of  the  Regulation,  the  Commission  will  consider  the 
recommended  modification  of  the  performance  indicators  when  preparing  the  Impact 
Assessment  for  a  possible  new  generation  of  the  Programme  under  the  next  Multi-Annual 
Financial  Framework.  The  Commission  will  also  take  into  account  the  recommendation  of 
this  Evaluation  regarding  the  importance  of  continuing  the  Programme  beyond  2020  as  an 
independent programme. 

25 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION 

The mid-term evaluation of the Pericles 2020 Programme was led by DG ECFIN. DG ECFIN 
has lead responsibility for the oversight, implementation and evaluation of the Pericles 2020 
Programme.  
An Inter-service Steering Group (ISSG) was established to steer the mid-term evaluation. The 
ISSG was composed of representatives from DG ECFIN, DG JUST and SG. The ISSG was 
responsible for finalising the evaluation roadmap, establishing the terms of reference for the 
appointment of an external contract and the quality assessment of each stage of the reporting 
process.  The  ISSG  met  on  4  occasions  between  28/04/2016  –  28/03/2017.  In  addition,  the 
ISSG undertook a significant portion of work by written procedure throughout the evaluation 
process.  
The chronology of the evaluation was as follows: 

Date 

Task 

28/04/2016 

Appointment  of  the  Inter-service  Steering  Group  (ISSG)  including 
representatives of ECFIN, SG and JUST 

09/06/2016 

Evaluation and Fitness Check Roadmap 

10/06/2016 

Completion of the Consultation Strategy  

13/06/2016 

ToR sent to Economist Associati 

20/07/2016 

Final  Technical  proposal  in  response  to  the  ToR  received  from 
Economisti  Associati 

04/08/2016 

Signature of the specific contract 

14/09/2016 

ISSG Kick-off meeting 

04/11/2016 

Draft Inception Report 

15/12/2016 

ISSG Meeting 

21/12/2016 

Final Inception Report 

14/03/2017 

Draft Intermediate Report 

28/03/2017 

ISSG Meeting  

26/04/2017 

Final Intermediate Report 

16/05/2017 

Draft Final Report 

30/05/2017 

ISSG Meeting 

30/06/2017 

Final Report 

26 

 
 
 
 
Evidence used to inform the evaluation 

A wide range of data sources were used to gather evidence to carry out the evaluation. The 
initial  fact  finding  work  consisted  of  four  components.  Each  component  gathered  different 
forms of information.  

1. Desk Research 

The Desk Review involved the analysis of the following three types of documentary sources 
and  entailed the analysis of about 150 documentary sources.  

Analysis of Programme Documents. This category includes six types of documents, namely: 
(i)  the  basic  legal  texts  underpinning  the  Programme  and  its  implementation;  (ii)  the 
Programme’s strategic and implementation documents; (iii) previous evaluations and impact 
assessment  documents;  (iv)  reports  summarising  the  meetings  of  the  ECEG  in  which 
Programme  orientations  and  activities  are  discussed;  and  (v)  the  documentation  concerning 
the  award  of  funding  for  actions  implemented  by  CNAs.  In  addition,  the  analysis  was 
extended to (vi) some documents concerning Pericles 2020’s predecessor programme, namely 
the Pericles Implementation Report for the 2006 – 2013 period and the list of grants awarded 
since  the  year  2002.  The  review  of  programme  documents  proved  essential  for  the 
interpretation  and  reconstruction  of  the  Programme’s  intervention  logic  and  yielded  useful 
inputs for the definition of other activities, namely the preparation of the questionnaires and 
the identification of the CNAs to be contacted.  

Analysis of Action Documents. This category includes the documents concerning the Pericles 
2020 actions committed during the period under examination. In particular, analysis involved 
the review of four main types of documents, namely: (i) the grant applications submitted by 
CNAs  and the TOR prepared by DG ECFIN for the direct actions; (ii) the grant agreements 
with  CNAs  and  the  procurement  contracts  for  the  direct  actions;  (iii)  the  Technical  Reports 
summarising  the  results  achieved;  and  (iv)  the  Financial  Reports  summarising  the  costs 
incurred. The analysis of Action Documents provided useful elements for the definition of the 
evaluation framework and for the assessment of the performance of Pericles 2020 actions. 

Analysis of Other Documents. This group of documents include: (i) legal texts concerning the 
protection of the euro and, more generally, the theme of currency counterfeiting; (ii) reports 
providing  an overview of the phenomenon of  euro counterfeiting;  (iii) documents  and other 
sources  concerning  other  initiatives  aimed  at  supporting  the  protection  of  the  euro;  and  (iv) 
the available economic literature on the economic consequences of currency counterfeit. The 
analysis  of  Other  Documents  proved  useful  for  addressing  various  aspects  covered  by  the 
Evaluation, in particular with reference to relevance and coherence. 

27 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2. Interviews with Competent National Authorities  

Interviews were carried out with four categories of CNAs, namely: (i) the CNAs that received 
funding from the Programme for the implementation of one or more actions (‘Implementers’); 
(ii) the CNAs that implemented actions under the previous Pericles Programme, but did not 
apply for funding under Pericles 2020 (‘Former Implementers’); (iii) the CNA that have never 
applied for funding under either Pericles 2020 or its predecessor (‘Non Applicants’); and (iv) 
the CNAs that applied for the implementation of Pericles 2020 actions but did not receive any 
funding (‘Unsuccessful Applicants’).  

All interviews were carried out on the basis of structured questionnaires developed during the 
Inception Phase and agreed upon with DG ECFIN. In order to facilitate interactions with the 
interviewees, the questionnaires were made available in three languages; English, French and 
Spanish. 

A total of 35 CNAs were interviewed, i.e. more than one third of all the national institutions 
categorised  as  CNAs.  Considering  that  some  institutions  formally  classified  as  CNA  are  no 
longer  (or  de  facto  are  only  marginally)  involved  in  euro  protection  activities,  it  can  be 
estimated  that  interviews  covered  up  to  half  of  all  the  CNAs  that  could  have  potentially 
played a role in the context of the Programme. The quality of the exercise is further enhanced 
by the wide geographical coverage of interviews, with at least one CNAs interviewed in 22 
MS.  

3. Interviews with other institutions 

Fact finding work also involved the following two others sets of interviews: 

Institutional  Interviews.  Institutional  Interviews  were  aimed  at  collecting  information  on  a 
wide range of topics, mostly related to the assessment of Pericles 2020’s relevance, coherence 
and  EU  added  value.  Institutional  Interviews  were  subdivided  into  four  broad  categories, 
namely:  (i)  DG  ECFIN  staff  involved  in  the  implementation  of  Pericles  2020;  (ii) 
representatives  of  other  Commission  services  (DG  HOME,  DG  JUST,  DG  NEAR,  and 
OLAF)  running  similar  or  complementary  programmes;  (iii)  representatives  of  entities 
actively  involved  in  euro  protection  activities,  including  the  ECB  and  the  Central  Bank 
Counterfeit  Deterrence  Group  (CBCDG);  and  (iv)  representatives  of  EU  and  international 
bodies  involved  in  the  fight  against  euro  counterfeiting,  including  Europol,  Eurojust  and 
Interpol.  All  in  all,  interviews  were  carried  out  with  12  different  entities.  Given  the  varied 
nature of the themes to be discussed, no standardised questionnaire was used, but interviews 
were preceded by a careful analysis of the relevant materials and the themes to be discussed 
were communicated in advance to the interviewees.  

Interviews  with  Supported  Authorities.  Interviews  with  Supported  Authorities  in  third 
countries  were  primarily  intended  to  provide  information  on  the  effectiveness  and 
sustainability  of  the  Programme.  The  main  aspects  investigated  included:  (i)  the  extent  to 

28 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
which Pericles 2020 actions have resulted into an improvement in operational capabilities; (ii) 
the extent to which the improvement in operational capabilities has led to tangible results in 
the protection of the euro; and (iii) the extent to which the information, knowledge and skills 
acquired or developed as a result of the Programme are still utilised and deployed. Interviews 
with  Supported  Authorities  in  third  countries  constituted  an  innovation  compared  with  the 
fact-finding  activities  envisaged  by  the  TOR,  aimed  at  providing  a  more  comprehensive 
picture of the results achieved by the programme.  

4. Survey of participants 

The Survey of Participants was targeted at the individuals who had taken part in Pericles 2020 
actions  committed  over  the  period  analysed.  The  survey  was  primarily  aimed  at  collecting 
information  on  the  effectiveness  of  Pericles  2020  actions.  The  main  themes  investigated 
included: (i) the improvement in operational capabilities at the personal level resulting from 
the information and skills acquired and/or the contacts established through the Programme’s 
actions; (ii) the extent to which the participants have been able to disseminate the information 
and skills acquired and/or the contacts established to other colleagues; and (iii) the effects that 
improvements in operational capabilities may have had in terms of enhanced protection of the 
euro.  

The  Survey  of  Participants  was  conducted  through  an  online  questionnaire,  accessible  via  a 
dedicated portal.  In  order to incentivise participation, the questionnaire was relatively short, 
mostly  consisting  of  closed  questions  and  was  made  available  in  three  languages;  English, 
French, and Spanish. The individuals to be surveyed were contacted via email and invited to 
access the dedicated portal.  

The  list  of  persons  to  be  surveyed,  i.e.  the  ‘target  population’,  was  established  based  on 
available information on the participants in a subset of Pericles 2020 activities.  
The survey remained open for four weeks over the February – March 2017 period. A total of 
247  individuals  participated  in  the  survey.  Twenty  responses  were  eliminated  because  they 
were  largely  incomplete,  yielding  a  total  of  227  valid  responses.  Overall,  this  must  be 
regarded as an extremely positive result, well above the 100 replies envisaged in the Inception 
Report and implying a response rate of almost 44%. 

External expertise 

An  external  contractor  was  engaged  to  undertake  the  evaluation;  the  work  of  the  contractor 
included the development of a comprehensive evaluation framework that sought to gather and 
analyse  a  wide  range  of  data  from  desk  research  and  a  detailed  consultation  strategy.  The 
consultation  strategy  was  extensive  and  involved  interviews  with  56  entities  as  well  as  the 
surveying of 227 participants in Programme's actions. 

29 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 2: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION 

A comprehensive consultation strategy was initially developed in advance of the exercise, this was enhanced following the appointment of the external contractor. 
As a first step an evaluation roadmap was prepared by the ISSG and published centrally13 to enable citizens to provide feedback on the evaluation process and to 
insure full transparency. 

Owing  to  the  specific  character  and  scope  of  the  Programme  as  well  as  the  confidential  nature  of  some  of  its  activities,  combined  with  the  fact  that  extensive 
consultations with stakeholders were to be carried out, the Evaluation was exempted from the standard OPC under Better Regulation.  

The targeted stakeholder consultation occurred early in the process and followed the initial desk research and the information gather from stakeholders was used to 
inform the evaluation process. 

The following table includes a detailed summary of the stakeholders consulted, the methodological tools used, the main findings and a qualitative analysis  
of the relevant consultations: 

Stakeholder 

Methodological tool 

Main findings 

Main findings (description) 

Qualitative analytical overview 

CNAs 

Desk research 

Networking 

Review and analysis of 
Programme documents 
(grant applications, grant 
agreements, technical and 
financial reports) 

Important network across numerous 
countries (transnational approach) and 
various types of authorities 
(multidisciplinary approach. 

Complementarity 

Valuable role of Pericles 2020 in taking 
responsibility for specific areas (such as 
the dark/deep web) and the (difficult) 
cooperation with certain third countries.  

Desk research of Programme documents 
was essential for the interpretation and 
reconstruction of the Programme’s 
intervention logic. A total of 35 CNAs 
were successfully interviewed covering 
up to half of all the CNAs that could 
have potentially played a role in the 
context of the Programme and covering 
a wide geographical range. 

13 http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/roadmaps/docs/2016_plan_025_pericles_2020_en.pdf   

30 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Interviews 

Interviews were carried 
out with Impementers, 
Former Impementers, 
Non applicants and 
unsuccessful applicants 

All Implementers claim that they would 
‘definitely’ or ‘probably’ not have been 
able to implement the actions without 
Pericles 2020 support. 

EU value added 

“The ECEG meetings are needed and 
useful to know what is going on – both on 
the Commission side and in other 
countries” 

The Commission concurs with the main 
findings which recognise the high EU 
added value of the Programme, the 
important role of the ECEG in 
coordinating the Programme's 
implementation and also indicates 
possible fine tuning of administrative 
procedures.  

Coordination at the ECEG 

Both Former Implementers and Non 
Applicants agree with the Programme’s 
strategic orientations. To continue giving 
priority to emerging threats such as 
Chinese counterfeiters and internet 

Administrative procedures 

Possibility of submitting on line 
applications.  

Supported 
Institutions 

Interviews 

Outcomes 

Interviews were carried 
out with institutions in 
third countries that have 
received support from the 

“More effectively and timely procedures 
in dealing with suspected counterfeits”; 
“Reinforced the capacity to act by 
commercial banks”; “Exchange of 
information and best practices has 

Interviews with Supported Authorities 
in third countries constituted an 
innovation compared with the fact-
finding activities envisaged by the TOR 
and provided a more comprehensive 

31 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
Programme 

Impact 

Overall assessment 

Other 
Institutions 

Desk research  

Strategy 

Review and analysis of 
relevant documentation 
(legal texts, reports, 
existing literature) 

Complementarity 

allowed us to define possible risks and 
prepare possible measures”.  
Supported Institutions based in South 
Eastern Europe mention a significant 
contribution in improving the legal 
framework.  

In Latin America, some institutions 
report a clear, direct contribution of 
Pericles 2020 (and its predecessor) in the 
implementation of a number of successful 
police operations.  

“The seminars are of very high quality, 
very informative and focused”; “Pericles 
has given us a lot of experience over the 
years”.  
All Supported Institutions state that they 
are ‘definitely’ interested in other 
Pericles 2020 initiatives in the future.  

Agreement with the Programme’s 
strategic orientations.  

Complementarity between Pericles 2020 
and instruments managed by other 
Institutions.  

32 

picture of the results achieved by the 
Programme.  
The findings of the interviews 
effectively demonstrate the concrete 
impact and the long term outcomes of 
the Programme, which are closely 
linked with the Programme's capacity to 
guarantee their sustainability.  

The analysis of relevant documenation 
proved useful for addressing various 
aspects in understanding the 
phenomenon of euro counterfeiting.  
Essential information was collected 
through targeted interviews on a wide 
range of topics with 12 entities actively 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Interviews 

Interviews were carried 
out with relevant 
European Institutions and 
other international bodies 
involved 

Participants 

Survey 

Networking 

A survey was conducted 
through an online 
questionnaire which was 
open for four weeks 

involved in euro protection activities.  
The Programme shows its specificity as 
well as its complementarity with the 
instruments managed by other 
Institutions. 

High appreciation concerning the ability 
to acquire practical skills and 
the establishment of professional 
contacts in EU MS. 
Views are also globally positive 
albeit less enthusiastic regarding the 
establishment of professional contacts in 
third countries. 
Contribution to the enhanced 
cooperation among the various entities 
involved. 

The questionnaire was well designed, 
was relatively short and concise, 
incentivising participation. The opening 
period was adequate, resulting in a high 
response rate which was an extremely 
positive result above expectations.  
The findings show that the Programme 
proves to have a direct impact on the 
daily work of anti-counterfeiting experts 
and contributed to enhance cooperation 
among experts in different countries.  

Operational capabilities 

General strengthening of operational 
capabilities. 
Several Latin American respondents 
report an improvement in the ability to 
detect counterfeited euro banknotes. 
Several respondents from various 

33 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
countries report an improvement in 
“crime investigation methodologies”. 
Participants from various countries 
mention an improvement in the general 
level of preparedness.  

Stakeholder  consultations  have  resulted  in  recommendations  likely  to  further  enhance  the  effectiveness  of  the  Programme.  Prioritising  threats  from  Chinese 
counterfeiters and from the internet, as well as an on-line application procedure emerge as key among them. The Commission will continue involving the ECEG 
experts  in  the  implementation  of  the  the  Programme  by  sharing  the  plans  for  future  activities,  discussing  the  feedback  of  the  implemented  actions,  identifying 
priorities and elaborating the strategy of implementation. Given the positive results of the Evaluation and considering the importance of ensuring sustainability, the 
Commission will prepare an Impact Assessment for a possible new generation of the Programme under the next Multi-Annual Financial Framework. 

34