COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Evaluation of the Common Implementing Regulation Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Midterm Review Report of the External Financing Instruments
Date: 2017-12-15
Institutions: Directorate-General for International Cooperation and Development, European Commission
Subjects: EU financial instrument, European Development Fund, European neighbourhood policy, development aid, financial aid, human rights, nuclear safety, peacekeeping, pre-accession aid, sustainable development

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 15.12.2017  SWD(2017) 606 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Evaluation of the Common Implementing Regulation Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Midterm Review Report of the External Financing Instruments {COM(2017) 720 final} - {SWD(2017) 463 final} - {SWD(2017) 600 final} - {SWD(2017) 601 final} - {SWD(2017) 602 final} - {SWD(2017) 604 final} - {SWD(2017) 605 final} - {SWD(2017) 607 final} - {SWD(2017) 608 final} - {SWD(2017) 609 final}  
 
 
1 

Contents 

Executive summary .................................................................................................................... 2 

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 3 

Purpose of the evaluation ....................................................................................................... 3 

Scope of the evaluation .......................................................................................................... 3 

2. Background of the initiative and baseline .............................................................................. 3 

Description of the CIR and its objectives ............................................................................... 3 

Baseline .................................................................................................................................. 5 

3. Method ................................................................................................................................... 5 

4. Implementation state of play .................................................................................................. 6 

5. Answers to the evaluation questions ...................................................................................... 7 

Evaluation Question 1: Relevance ......................................................................................... 7 

Evaluation Question 2: Effectiveness .................................................................................... 9 

Evaluation Question 3: Coherence ....................................................................................... 13 

Evaluation Question 4: Efficiency ....................................................................................... 15 

Evaluation Question 5: Leverage ......................................................................................... 18 

6. Conclusions .......................................................................................................................... 19 

Annex 1. Procedural information ............................................................................................. 21 

Annex 2. Synopsis report of the stakeholders' consultation ..................................................... 22 

Annex 3. Acronyms .................................................................................................................. 23 

Annex 4. External evaluators' report, including its annexes. ................................................... 25 

1 

 
 
 
 
Executive summary 

2 

This  document  sets  out  the  results  of  a  mid-term  evaluation  of  the  Common  Implementing 
Regulation  (CIR),  aimed  to  feed  into  the  Mid-Term  Review  Report  on  the  EU  External 
Financing Instruments. It looks at whether the CIR is still fit for purpose. 

Relevance: 

The  CIR's  primary  achievement  lies  in  the  establishment  of  common  rules  on  the 
implementation  of  the  External  Financing  Instruments,  thereby  ruling  out  the  divergences 
which existed previously between the pre-2014 External Financing Instruments. Also today, 
having harmonised CIR rules for formulation, implementation, monitoring and evaluation is 
considered useful. The simplification resulting from the CIR, on the other hand, is limited, the 
real simplification-agenda pursued since 2014 by the Commission being rather at the level of 
the  Financial  Regulation  and  its  contractual  templates.  The  choice  of  the  CIR's  substantive 
policy topics is not exhaustive and reflects the considerations of the legislators at the time of 
the CIR's adoption. 

Effectiveness: 

Considerable  efforts  have  been  undertaken  by  the  Commission  in  the  field  of  promoting 
climate  change  and  environment  mainstreaming,  promoting  human  rights  and  fundamental 
freedoms, and inclusion of criteria regarding accessibility for persons with disabilities. While 
the CIR provided a legal underpinning for these topics, it had limited causal effect in ensuring 
their  activation  within  the  framework  of  the  External  Financing  Instruments,  because  the 
attention to these topics was driven by broader policy agendas. The same would apply to the 
strengthening of the Commission's evaluation practice, which is not solely attributable to the 
CIR.  By  contrast,  the  increased  flexibility  and  speed  of  delivery  in  the  implementation 
through  individual  and  special  measures  and  annual  action  programmes  can  be  credited 
directly  to  the  CIR.  In  addition,  the  CIR's  role  in  strengthening  the  Commission's  external 
actions' monitoring and reporting systems is positively evaluated.  

Coherence: 

The  CIR  introduced  the  legal  requirement  to  produce  a  common  Annual  Report  on  all 
External Financing Instruments and this enhanced internal coherence in the reporting. When it 
comes to EU visibility, the CIR provisions consolidated the common practice that had existed 
since  2010.  The  Commission's  commitment  to  the  aid  effectiveness  agenda  on  the  use  of 
country  procedures  materialised  primarily  through  budget  support,  but  also  through  recent 
openings  for  certain  actions  in  project  approach.  The  EU  support  to  Civil  Society 
Organisations  and  Local  Authorities  reached  an  unprecedented  level,  but  was  –  again  - 
primarily being driven by broader policy agendas beyond the CIR.  

Efficiency: 

The  increased  untying  of  aid,  another  aid  effectiveness  commitment,  and  the  additional 
flexibility in the rules on nationality and origin, are attributable to the CIR. The intention to 
promote  the  participation  of  local  and  regional  contractors  in  EU  financed  contracts  as 
reflected in the CIR, within the boundaries of the Financial Regulation's public procurement 
rules, was followed by tangible results.  

Leverage: 

The incitation in the CIR to leveraging financial resources is pursued through budget support 
which  acts  as  a  catalyst  for  the  mobilisation  of  both  financial  resources  and  political 
engagement. The CIR has contributed to the further expansion and development of financial 

2 

 
instruments  and  blending;  it  helped  to  create  a  regulatory  framework  that  allowed  for 
simplification and more efficient procedures for their implementation thereby increasing the 
attractiveness of these mechanisms. 

3 

1. Introduction 

Purpose of the evaluation 

This  document  sets-out  the  results  of  a  mid-term  evaluation  of  the  Common  Implementing 
Regulation1  (CIR).  The  evaluation  is  retrospective  and  looks  at  whether  the  CIR  is  fit  for 
purpose, based on its performance to-date, with the objective of informing future work on the 
External Financing Instruments and their actions. In particular, this evaluation, which is part 
of a set of ten evaluations covering all the External Financing Instruments2 under Heading 4 
'Global  Europe'  of  the  2014-2020  Multiannual  Financial  Framework3  as  well  as  the  11th 
European  Development  Fund  (EDF)4,  informs  the  Mid-Term  Review  Report5  which  draws 
conclusions  across  the  External  Financing  Instruments.  This  paper  is  largely  based  on  the 
external evaluation by independent consultants6 provided in Annex 4. 

Scope of the evaluation 

The scope of the evaluation corresponds to the requirements for the Mid-Term Review Report 
set out in Article 17 of the CIR. Although the CIR is not an External Financing Instrument, 
the  SWD  on  the  CIR  follows,  as  much  as  possible,  the  evaluation  criteria  which  article 
17(1)(2nd paragraph) of the CIR lays down for the External Financing Instruments. It focuses 
on the period January 2014 to June 2017. However, due to the length of the implementation 
cycle  of  the  External  Financing  Instruments,  the  availability  of  data  and  results  are  limited. 
Therefore  the  evaluation  also  looked  at  the  previous  period  (2007-2013)  for  some  of  the 
evaluation  criteria.  The  countries  covered  under  the  evaluation  are  those  eligible  under  the 
regulations setting up the External Financing Instruments. In accordance with the  EU Better 
Regulation Agenda/Better Regulation Guidelines7 and pursuant to the requirements of Article 
17 of the CIR itself, the following evaluation criteria have been used: relevance, effectiveness, 
efficiency,  coherence  and  leverage.  The  particularity  of  the  CIR  being  that  it  is  merely 
ancillary to the External Financing Instruments through which it operates, the EU added value 
in  terms  of  subsidiarity,  can  solely  be  evaluated  at  the  level  of  the  External  Financing 
Instruments, not at the level of the CIR. To the extent possible, aspects of the criterion 'EU 
added value' are captured by the criterion 'leverage'.   

2. Background of the initiative and baseline 

Description of the CIR and its objectives 

The  External  Financing  Instruments  make  up  a  major  part  of  the  above-mentioned 
Multiannual Financial Frameworks' Heading 4 which, together with the EDF which functions 
outside the EU budget, provides the EU with the tools necessary to fulfil its role on the world 

Regulation (EU) No 236/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2014, OJ L77, p. 95; 

1  
2   Development Co-operation Instrument, European Neighbourhood Instrument, European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights, 
Greenland  Decision,  Instrument  contributing  to  Stability  and  Peace,  Instrument  for  Pre-accession  Assistance,  Instrument  on  Nuclear 
Safety Cooperation, Overseas Countries and Territories Decision, Partnership Instrument and the Common Implementing Regulation.  
The  Multiannual  Financial  Framework  is  divided  into  six  broad  groups  of  expenditure  called  "Headings".  The  external  financing 
instruments make up the majority of Heading 4: Global Europe. 
Council Regulation 2015/322 of 2 March 2015 on the implementation of the 11th European Development Fund, OJ L 58 of 3 March 
2015.  For  the  purpose  of  this  exercise,  the  evaluation  of  the  Overseas  Countries  and  Territories  Decision  is  included  within  the 
evaluation of the 11th European Development Fund; 

4  

3  

5   As requested in Article 17 CIR; 
6  
7  

Evaluation of the Common Implementing Regulation, Final Report June 2017, taken up in Annex 4 below; 
Commission  communication  'Better  regulation  for  better  results  -  An  EU  agenda',  COM  (2015)  215  http://ec.europa.eu/smart-
regulation/better_regulation/documents/com_2015_215_en.pdf,  and 
'Better  Regulation  Guidelines'  Commission  Staff  Working 
Document, SWD (2015) 111 http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/guidelines/docs/swd_br_guidelines_en.pdf; 

3 

 
                                                 
4 

stage  and  to  ensure  that  it  is  able  to  live  up  to  its  ambitions  in  promoting  its  interests  and 
universal  values  and principles such as  democracy,  human rights,  peace, solidarity, stability 
and poverty reduction and to help safeguard global public goods.  

Adopted  in  early  2014,  the  External  Financing  Instruments  were  designed  to  ensure  policy 
implementation, with the intention of remaining relevant for the entire duration of the Multi-
annual  Financial  Framework  and  therefore  enabling  the  EU  to  implement  external  action 
policy as needed.  

The  CIR  features  for  the  first  time  in  the  legislative  set  of  2014-2020  External  Financing 
Instruments. Its objective primarily lies in the establishment of common harmonised rules on 
the  implementation8.  By  achieving  this,  the  CIR  successfully  put  a  halt  to  the  pre-2014 
situation  whereby  each  individual  instrument  contained  its  own  implementing  rules  and 
whereby  divergences  in  implementation  existed  between  the  pre-2014  External  Financing 
Instruments.  

The  CIR  only  applies  to  the  External  Financing  Instruments  under  Heading  4  of  the  EU 
General  Budget.  It  does  not  apply  to  the  11th  EDF  which  has  its  own  rules  of 
implementation9.  

Although part of the same legislative package, the CIR is quite incomparable to the External 
Financing  Instruments  because  of  its  horizontal  nature,  as  the  CIR  is  first  and  foremost  a 
collection of limited transversal provisions applying horizontally to all Instruments under its 
scope. Secondly, while each of the External Financing Instruments determine the objectives, 
scope, programming, financial envelope and process for allocation of funds for the respective 
policy they implement, the CIR provides a set of common rules and procedures applicable to 
project  formulation,  implementation,  evaluation  and  audit.  Thirdly,  even  less  than  the 
External  Financing  Instruments,  the  CIR  is  not  a  standalone  Regulation:  its  provisions  are 
heterogeneous  and  vary  from  some  procedural/technical  provisions  which  complement  the 
Financial  Regulation10,  to  some  overarching  cross-cutting  policy-commitments  (on  diverse 
punctual  topics,  such  as  accessibility  for  persons  with  disabilities,  rule  of  law  or 
environmental  screening)  which  complement  the  commitments  made  in  each  External 
Financing Instrument. As regards thematic cross-cutting issues, the orientations already given 
for the programming phase within the various External Financing Instruments are reflected by 
the CIR concerning the implementation phase.  

The  intervention  logic  reflects  the  understanding  of  the  rationale  of  the  Commission  and 
legislative bodies for creating the CIR. Assumptions and expected outcomes and impact are 
systematically  tested  in  the  Answers  to  the  Evaluation  Questions  (section  5)  and  analysed 
under Conclusions (section 6). 

Table 1: intervention logic: 

CONTEXT 

* EU external action is 
supported by 8 distinct EU 
Budget EFIs (+ EDF outside 
EU budget) governed by 
separate Regulations; 
* Financial Regulation and 
Comitology Regulation 

2012 Financial 
Regulation 
2011 Comitology 
Regulation 
2007-2013 
Regulations Diverse 
implementing rules:  
DCI 
EIDHR 

2014-2020 Common 
Implementing Rules 
(CIR) 
DCI 
EIDHR 

EXPECTED OUTCOMES 

EXPECTED IMPACT 

* Unified adoption of action 
programmes and measures 
(Comitology); 
* Common financing 
provisions; 
* Specific financing 
provisions for DCI, ENI, IPA 

* Efficient use of resources 
for optimal impact of EU 
external action; 
* Improved delivery of the 
objectives of the EFIs 
(effectiveness);  
* Enhanced coherence, 

8   As  provided  in  its  Article  1,  the  CIR  applies  to  the  Development  Co-operation  Instrument  (DCI),  the  European  Instrument  for 
Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR); the European Neighbourhood Instrument (ENI), the Instrument contributing to Stability and 
Peace  (IcSP);  the  Instrument  for  Pre-Accession  Assistance  (IPA-II)  and  the  Partnership  Instrument  (PI).  The  Instrument  on  Nuclear 
Safety Co-operation (INSC) and Greenland Decision (GD) are not mentioned in article 1 of the CIR, but contain references to the CIR.  
The CIR does not apply to the 11th EDF.  
The 11th EDF has its own rules of implementation.  See Council Regulation 2015/322 of 02 March 2015 on the implementation of the 
11th European Development Fund 

9  

10   Regulation (EU, EURATOM) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules 
applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002, OJ L-298 of 26/10/2012; 

4 

 
 
 
                                                 
followed by all EFIs; 
* Implementing rules under the 
2007-2013 Regulations diverse 
with inconsistency-risks; 
* Increasing emphasis on 
partner Country ownership and 
results oriented management; 
* Strengthened emphasis on EU 
policy priorities and principles; 

ENI 
IPA 
IFS 

INSC 

GD 

EDF 
Outside EU budget 

5 

ENI 
IPA II 
IcSP 
PI 
2014-2020 INSC, art. 
8 with ref. to CIR 
2014-2020 GD, art. 
5&6 with ref. to CIR   
2014-2020 EDF, 
outside EU budget,  
with own 
Implementing rules  

II, INSC and EIDHR;  
* Common rules for 
monitoring and evaluation;  
* Enhanced EU visibility;  
* Tracking of expenditure on 
climate action and 
biodiversity; 
* Linking budget support to 
democracy, human rights and 
fundamental freedoms;  

complementarity, synergies 
and added value between 
and across EFIs;  
* Efficiency gains: more 
timely, cost efficient and 
coordinated forms of 
working;  
* Increased leverage of 
EFIs to raise financial, 
political or policy 
engagement;  

* For historical and political reasons EU external action 
has been organised through distinct EFIs; 
* EFI Regulations are conceptualised and negotiated 
through separate processes (compartimentalisation); 
* Risk of diversity and lack of consistency in 
implementing rules;  

Creating CIR to 
achieve harmonisation 
and simplification of 
implementing rules 
for 8 EFIs which 
continue to be 
distinct;  

* A common transversal Regulation has the ability (fitness 
for purpose) to harmonise and simplify implementing rules 
for optimal impact, while allowing for a sufficient degree of 
flexibility, despite continued compartmentalisation of EFIs; 
* Common implementing rules have the ability to contribute 
to enhanced coherence, complementarity and synergies 
between EFIs; 

Baseline 

As this is a mid-term evaluation, the baseline has been set at 1 January 201411, when the CIR 
was  adopted  for  the  period  2014-2020.  Therefore  the  evaluation  compares,  to  the  extent 
possible, the situation in January 2014 with the current situation.  

For some evaluation criteria, where comparison to the previous set of implementing rules was 
necessary, the evaluation also compares the implementation rules of 2014-2020 with those of 
2007-2013 in order to assess the added value of the creation of the CIR. The following table 
provides an overview of the topics which as from 2014 were taken up in the harmonised CIR, 
and how the same topics were dispersed over the various Instruments in the 2007-2013 MFF. 

Current CIR – MFF 2014-2020 

MFF 2007-2013, before existence of CIR 

Table 2: comparison CIR with pre-CIR situation: 

2014 CIR 
topics 

2014 CIR  
articles 

Adoption programmes & measures  2  
3 
Support measures 
4,6 
Financing methods 

5 
7 
8,9,10,11 

Taxes duties & charges 
Protection EU financial interests 
Rules on nationality & origin 
Monitoring & evaluation of actions   12 
13 
Annual report 
14 
Climate action & biodiversity 
15 
Involvement of stakeholders 
Committee procedures 
16 
Review & evaluation of Instrument  17 

2006 
DCI 12 
articles  
22,23 
26 
24,25,27 
28,29 
25(2) 
30 
31,36 
33 
34 
- 
- 
35 
40 

2006 
ENI13 
articles 
12,13 
16 
14,15,17 
18,19 
15(3) 
20 
21,27 
24 
25 
- 
- 
26 
30 

2006 
IfS14 
article s 
8,9 
12 
10,11,13  
14,15 
11(2) 
16 
17 
21 
23 
- 
- 
22 
25 

2006 
IPA15 
articles  
14 
16 
13,15 
17 
15(4) 
18 
19 
22 
13(6) 
- 
- 
14 
27 

2006 
EIDHR16 
articles  
6,7,9 
8 
10,11,12 
13 
13(6) 
15 
14 
16 
18 
- 
- 
17 
20 

2007 
INSC17 
articles  
5,6 
9 
7,8,10 
11,12 
8(3) 
13 
14 
17 
18 
- 
- 
19 
21 

2006 
CI18 
articles  
6 
9 
7,8,10 
11 
8(3) 
12 
- 
13 
14 
- 
- 
15 
18 

The  External  Financing  Instruments  and  the  CIR  further  frame  within  the  international  Aid 
Effectiveness agenda, which pursues the following principles: 

11   Article 17(3) CIR; 
12   Regulation  (EC)  No  1905/2006  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  18  December  2006  establishing  a  financing 

instrument for development cooperation – OJ L378/41 of 27.12.2006; 

13   Regulation  (EC)  No  1638/2006  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  24  October  2006  laying  down  general  provisions 

establishing a European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument – OJ L 310/1 of 9.11.2006; 

14   Regulation (EC) No 1717/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 November 2006 establishing an Instrument for 

Stability - OJ L 327/1 of 24.11.2006; 

15   Council Regulation (EC) No 1085/2006 of 17 July 2006 establishing an Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA) - OJ L 210/82 

of 31.7.2006; 

16   Regulation  (EC)  No  1889/2006  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  20  December  2006  on  establishing  a  financing 

instrument for the promotion of democracy and human rights worldwide - OJ L 386/1 of 29.12.2006; 

17   Council Regulation (EURATOM) No 300/2007 of 19 February 2007 establishing an Instrument for Nuclear Safety Cooperation - OJ L 

81/1 of 22.03.2007; 

18   Council Regulation (EC) No 1934/2006 of 21 December 2006 establishing a financing instrument for cooperation with industrialised 

and other high-income countries and territories - OJ L 405/41 of 30.12.2006; 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
6 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Ownership:  Partner  countries  exercise  effective  leadership  over  their  development 
policies and strategies and coordinate development efforts.  

Alignment:  Donors  base  their  overall  support  on  Partner  countries'  national 
development strategies, institutions and procedures. 

Harmonisation:  Donors  aim  to  be  more  harmonised,  collectively  effective  and  less 
burdensome,  especially  on  those  partner  countries,  such  as  fragile  states,  that  have 
weak administrative capacities. 

Managing  for  results:  Both  donors  and  partner  countries  manage  resources  and 
improve decision making which targets results. 

Mutual  accountability:  Donors  and  partner  countries  pledge  that  they  will  hold  each 
other mutually accountable for development results. 

In  2014,  when  the  CIR  was  adopted,  the  EU's  roadmap  to  implement  those  principles,  was 
laid down in the Commission's Communication "Agenda for Change"19. 

3. Method 

The Staff Working Document is largely supported by the independent evaluation undertaken by 
an  external  consultant,  integrating  feedback  received  from  an  Open  Public  Consultation:  for 
more details, see Annex 1.    

4. Implementation state of play 

Current situation in quantitative and qualitative terms  

Not being a financing instrument, the CIR has not been allocated any funds. The CIR is not 
intended  to  provide  financing,  but  to  ensure  harmonisation  in  the  implementation  through  a 
common set of provisions applying horizontally to the External Financing Instruments under 
its  scope.  Its  provisions  can  only  be  applied  together  with  those  of  the  External  Financing 
Instruments  and  they  can  only  be  operationalised  through  actions  financed  by  an  External 
Financing  Instrument.  As  a  result,  the  qualitative  and  quantitative  appreciation  of  the 
functioning of the CIR can only be based on the qualitative and quantitative results seen in the 
functioning of the various External Financing Instruments.  

Implementation of the CIR 2014-2020 

For external cooperation, all internal procedural instructions and guidance are compiled into 
comprehensive  user-manuals,  accessible  through  a  web-based  application.  Likewise,  for  the 
benefit  of  external  contractors  working  in  development,  a  unique  public  manual  has  been 
developed  called  'PRAG':  the  EU  external  actions  Practical  Guide  for  Procurement  & 
Grants20, which details the contract award procedures for services, supplies, works and grant 
contracts  and  contains  in  annexes  the  various  contractual  templates.  The  delegation  and 
financing agreement templates are equally internet-accessible21 to the Commission's indirect 
management  partners  (i.e.  the  partner  countries,  Member  States  agencies  and  international 
organisations  to  whom  the  implementation  of  actions  have  been  delegated).  These  manuals 
operationalise  the  provisions  of  the  underlying  legal  acts  governing  those  procedures,  most 
notably  the  Financial  Regulation  and  the  Comitology  Regulation22,  but  also  the  CIR.  The 

19   Communication from the Commission of 13 October 2011, "Increasing the impact of EU Development Policy: an Agenda for Change" 

(COM(2011) 637 final); 

20   For more detail, see the PRAG at https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/about-funding_en; 
21   For more detail, see the COMPANION at https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/about-funding_en; 
22   Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general 
principles concerning  mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers, OJ L-55 of 
28/02/2011; 

6 

 
                                                 
7 

to 

manuals  are  regularly  and  successively  revised  to  reflect  new  provisions  in  the  underlying 
legal  acts, 
introduce  enhanced 
simplifications23. Moreover, in parallel with the entry into force of the CIR, the internal user-
manual and external PRAG were fully updated in order to be entirely aligned with the CIR's 
new provisions. 

improved  working  methods  or 

incorporate 

to 

In  the  same  manner,  the  Commission's  policy  documents24  and  methodological  guidance25 
were updated and fine-tuned, including those which touch upon the substantive policy topics 
laid down in the CIR (see section 5). 

5. Answers to the evaluation questions 

For consistency and ease of reference, this Staff Working Document mirrors the structure, as 
well as the evaluation questions, of the independent evaluation report in Annex 4.  

Evaluation Question 1: Relevance  

To what extent was the CIR relevant at time of adoption and to what extent does it continue to 
be relevant? 

- 

EQ1(a): the need for harmonisation and implementing common rules:  

Prior to the MFF 2014-2020, each individual External Financing Instrument contained its own 
implementing rules which led to divergences in the implementation of the External Financing 
Instruments covering the MFF 2007-2014.  

In  the  2014-2020  legislative  package,  horizontal  rules  were  grouped  in  one  legislative  act: 
certain  implementation  issues  were  sufficiently  similar  in  respect  of  each  instrument  that 
common  rules  could  cover  them,  mainly  on  procedural  topics  such  as:  adoption  of  action 
programmes  and  measures  (see  EQ2(d)  below),  management  modes  and  co-financing, 
financing  methods  (see  EQ5(a&b)  below)  protecting  the  Union's  financial  interest, 
reimbursement  of  taxes  (see  EQ1(b)  below),  rules  on  nationality  and  origin  (see  EQ4(a&b) 
below),  grant  and  other  award  procedures  (see  EQ4(c)  below),  evaluation  of  actions  (see 
EQ2(f) below), monitoring (see EQ2(e) below), annual reporting (see EQ3(a) below), review 
and  evaluation  of  the  instruments.  As  a  result,  the  CIR  features  for  the  first  time  in  the 
legislative  package  of  the  2014-2020  External  Financing  Instruments:  its  main  achievement 
lies  in  the  establishment  of  common  harmonised  rules  on  the  implementation  of  external 
assistance as this rationalises previously heterogeneous rules across instruments and puts an 
end to divergences of interpretation that harmed the Instruments' effectiveness. 

- 

EQ1(b): simplification of those rules:  

By formulating such a common set of rules, the CIR greatly contributes to the simplification 
agenda in that it avoids divergences and problems in interpretation. Still, it derives from the 
interplay  with  the  substantive  External  Financing  Instruments  that  the  CIR  could  only  be 
limited in scope, covering the phases of project formulation, implementation, evaluation and 
audit,  whereas  the  External  Financing  Instruments  themselves  determine  the  objectives, 
scope,  multiannual  programming,  financial  envelope  and  allocation  of  funds  for  each 
instrument. Likewise, the CIR makes use of the different tools for implementation which are 
provided  for  in  the  Financial  Regulation  and  applies  them  specifically  to  external  relations, 
such as EU trust funds, financial instruments and blending.  

23   For more detail on the successive revision of PRAG and the internal manuals, see the chapters 'simplification' in the Staff Working 

Documents (SWDs) accompanying the Annual Reports, published at  https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/annual-reports_en; 
24   For more detail on the EU policies in the field of development, see https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/policies/policies_en; 
25   For more detail on the sectors in which the EU external aid is being implemented, see https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/sectors/sectors_en; 

7 

 
                                                 
8 

Since 2014, the continued simplification efforts in the field of international cooperation and 
development  were  focussed  on  eliminating  unnecessary  burdens,  increasing  flexibility  and 
reducing  complexity  for  external  partners:  International  Organisations  and  Member  States 
Development-Agencies26,  Partner  Countries27  or  grant  beneficiaries28.  In  addition,  increased 
use  is  made  of  IT-technologies29.  Other  simplifications  are  also  in  sight,  but  first  require 
amendments to  the Financial  Regulation by the co-legislators, reason  for which a revision30 
has been proposed and is ongoing. 

A particular topic on simplification raised in the survey31 amongst the EU Delegations relates 
to taxes. Notably, many voice concerns on the CIR provision on exemption from taxes, duties 
and  charges,  stating  that  these  tax  exemptions  are  difficult  and  complex  to  implement  in 
practice. 

The  CIR  harmonises  for  the  first  time  the  provision  on  taxes  and  other  duties.  Under  the 
Multiannual  Financial  Framework  2007-2014  the  predecessors32  of  DCI  and  EIDHR 
stipulated  in  absolute  terms  that  their  funds  should  not  be  used  for  paying  taxes  in  partner 
countries.  In  2011,  both  instruments  were  amended33:  non-eligibility  remained  the  rule,  but 
exceptions to that principle became possible.  

The CIR continued on that path: for the External Financing Instruments governed by the CIR, 
as  a  matter  of  principle,  general  taxes34  paid  in  partner  countries  are  eligible  for  cost-
reimbursement  under  the  conditions  of  the  Financial  Regulation,  unless  exemptions 
negotiated with the partner country apply (Article 5 CIR).  

Also from a policy point of view, such tax exemptions are under debate35: Domestic Resource 
Mobilisation  (DRM)36  is  one  of  the  most  important  topics  within  the  context  of  the 
sustainable  development  financing  as  agreed  during  the  third  International  Conference  on 
Financing  for  Development  in  Addis  Ababa  in  2015.  Tax  incentives/exemptions  have  been 
identified  as  a  major  reason  for  the  base  erosion  and  limited  tax  collection  in  developing 
countries. Moreover, they add to the complexity of tax regimes, reduce their transparency and 
put  an  additional  strain  on  tax  administrations  that  face  already  capacity  constraints.  A 
simplification and reduction of such tax regimes is important, as it will contribute to fighting 
tax avoidance, tax evasion and illicit financial flows.  

- 

EQ1(c): inclusion of substantive policy topics in the CIR:  

26   For  instance,  the  current  agreement  template  ('Pagoda2')  developed  in  2016  reflects  a  simplification  of  the  cost  eligibility  rules: 

http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/companion/welcome.do?locale=en; 

27   For instance, the current Program  Estimates ('PE') template, developed in 2015: a PE contains a work programme of activities  to be 
implemented by a Partner Country for a given budget; the Partner Country's imprest component allows procurement to be conducted by 
the  imprest  administrator,  up  to  certain  ceilings:  https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/funding/procedures-beneficiary-countries-and-other-
donors_en. An imprest is a fund of a fixed amount, within which modest expenses are paid; 

28   For  instance,  the  current  grant  template  developed  in  2015  which  now  allows  the  grant  beneficiary  to  use  its  own  procurement  

procedures, instead of imposed procedures: see the Practical Guide (PRAG) at https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/funding/about-grants_en; 
29   For example, in the field of grants where the new online tool PROSPECT provides external grant-applicants a single web-portal and 

renders the whole management of calls for proposals paperless: https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/funding/about-grants_en; 

30   Commission's proposal COM(2016) 605 final of 14/09/2016,  
31   Evaluation of the Common Implementing Regulation, Final Report June 2017, Annex pages 110 -113;  
32   Regulation (EC) No 1905/2006 of the European Parliament and the Council of 18 December 2006 establishing a financing instrument 
for development  cooperation,  OJ  L  163  of  23/06/2007;  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  1889/2006  of  the  European  Parliament  and  the 
Council of 20 December 2006 on establishing a financing instrument for the promotion of democracy and human rights worldwide, OJ 
L 386, 29/12/2006; 

33   Amendments by Regulation (EU) No 1339/2011 of the European Parliament and the Council of 13 December 2011 and by Regulation 
(EU) No 1340/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011, both published in OJ L 347, 30/12/2011; 
34   The CIR however kept the rule that taxes, duties or charges specific to EU assistance  may not be collected (article 5, 1ste sentence, 
CIR); the present SWD-section relates to taxes, duties or charges which are not specific to EU assistance: ie general taxes, such as VAT 
collected on all goods within the Partner Country; 

35   Evaluation of the Common Implementing Regulation, Final Report June 2017, Annexes, pages 95, 110, 111 and 112; 
36   For  more 

Resource  Mobilisation, 

the  Addis  Ababa 

on  Domestic 

including 

info 

conference, 

see 

https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/policies/financing-development/domestic-resource-mobilisation_en; 

8 

 
                                                 
9 

Besides  the  procedural  implementing  rules  mentioned  above,  the  CIR  also  contains  certain 
cross-cutting37  policy-considerations  applying  horizontally 
to  all  External  Financial 
Instruments'  implementation:  by  doing  so,  the  CIR  mainstreamed,  at  the  level  of 
implementation, policy issues, such as human rights, democracy and rule of law (see EQ2(b) 
below),  stakeholders'  dialogue  (see  EQ3(d)  below),  accessibility  of  people  with  disabilities 
(see EQ2(c) below) or climate change and protection of biodiversity (see EQ2(a) below). 

The independent evaluation questions the choice of substantive policy topics included in the 
CIR, stating that there was no clear rationale for why some were considered and others not38. 
Services through this Staff Working Document agree that the choice of the CIR's substantive 
policy topics is indeed not exhaustive and reflects the considerations of the legislators at the 
time of the CIR's adoption. 

Evaluation Question 2: Effectiveness  

To what extent has the CIR delivered on its objectives, e.g. improved delivery of the objectives 
of the instruments? 

-  

EQ2(a): promoting climate change and environment mainstreaming39:  

The  independent  evaluation  finds  that  the  CIR  has  had  a  limited  beneficial  effect  on  the 
mainstreaming  of  climate  change  and  environmental  action40;  increased  attention  for 
environment  and  climate  change  mainstreaming  over  the  last  few  years  has  been  driven 
mainly by broader policy agendas.  The CIR contains two references to climate change and 
environment mainstreaming.  

Article  14  CIR  contains  the  requirement  that  an  annual  estimate  of  the  overall  spending 
related to climate action and biodiversity shall be made and that the funding allocations shall 
be  subject  to  a  tracking  system  based  on  the  OECD  methodology  (“Rio  markers”).  Climate 
change  and  biodiversity  related  funding  is  now  systematically  tracked  on  the  basis  of  Rio 
markers.  The  data  available,  reported  in  the  Mid-term  review  of  the  MFF41,  indicates  that 
there  is  evidence  of  significant  progress  in  the  mainstreaming  of  climate  and  environment 
action  since  2014,  especially  in  the  DCI.  However  more  remains  to  be  done  to  have  a 
systematic  and  effective  integration  of  these  themes  across  all  sectors  of  EU  cooperation. 
Enhanced mainstreaming by the Commission and EU Delegations has been mainly driven by 
the  new  international  agenda,  mainly  the  2030  Agenda  for  Sustainable  Development42,  the 
Paris  Agreement  on  Climate  change43  and  the  Sendai  Framework  on  Disaster  Risk 
Reduction44.  Services  through  this  Staff  Working  Document  agree  with  the  independent 
evaluation  report  that  the  CIR  provided  an  additional,  useful,  legal  underpinning  for  these 
objectives but contained relatively little new guidance on implementation.  

Article  2(6)  CIR  requires  that  appropriate  environmental  screening  be  undertaken  at  project 
and  programme  level,  including  the  use  of  environmental  assessments  where  appropriate.  
Environmental  screening  is  systematically  promoted  at  the  design  stage,  while  environment 
impact  assessment  and  strategic  environmental  assessment  are  regularly  applied  where 
appropriate. In line with this provision, the Commission has further developed since 2014 a 

37   Cross-cuttings  issues  are  issues  which  must  be  appropriately  addressed  for  each  action,  irrespective  of  the  sector  focus,  delivery 

modality or geographic location of the action; 

38   Evaluation of the Common Implementing Regulation, Final Report June 2017, section 3.1.7 at page 8; 
39   For  more  info  on  'Climate  Change'  and  'Environment'  actions,  including  the  policies,  projects,  results  and  key  documents  cited,  see 

https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/sectors/environment_en; 

40   Evaluation of the Common Implementing Regulation, Final Report June 2017, page 10: 
41   Commission  Staff  Working  Document  (SWD)  accompanying  the  Communication  on  the  Mid-term  review  of  the  MFF  2014-2020, 

published at  http://ec.europa.eu/budget/mff/lib/COM-2016-603/SWD-2016-299_en.pdf; 
https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/policies/european-development-policy/2030-agenda-sustainable-development_en 
https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/sectors/environment/climate-change-disaster-risk-reduction-and-desertification/climate-change_en 
http://ec.europa.eu/echo/news/european-commission-launches-sendai-action-plan-disaster-risk-reduction_en 

42  
43  
44  

9 

 
                                                 
10 

comprehensive  offer  of  services  and  tools  to  support  environment  and  climate  change 
mainstreaming, including new guidelines, a helpdesk and a knowledge management tool. 

- 

EQ2(b): promoting human rights and fundamental freedoms45:  

Article 1(6) CIR provides that the Union shall seek to promote, develop and consolidate the 
principles  of  democracy,  the  rule  of  law  and  respect  for  human  rights  and  fundamental 
freedoms,  and  integrate  those  principles  in  the  implementation  of  the  External  Financing 
Instruments. 

With respect to improved delivery of the objectives under the EIDHR, the CIR has made an 
important  contribution  in  terms  of  increased  flexibility  by  allowing  for  providing  urgent 
assistance to human rights defenders and in emergencies or crisis situations where launching a 
Call  for  Proposals  would  not  be  suitable46.  The  fact  that  the  CIR  includes  the  possibility  of 
‘re-granting’47 (ie civil society organisations in charge of a project can award grants to non-
registered entities) has made the EIDHR more responsive in situations of shrinking space for 
civil society.  

Progress with regard to integrating human rights and gender equality in the implementation of 
External Financing Instruments seems to have mainly been driven by broader policy agendas, 
such as the 2015-2019 EU Action Plan on Human Rights  and Democracy48 and the Gender 
Action Plan II49, rather than references in the CIR. The Staff Working Document on a “Tool-
box  for  a  Rights-Based  Approach  (RBA),  encompassing  all  human  rights,  for  EU 
development  cooperation50”  was  particularly  important.  It  describes  the  RBA  as  a  working 
methodology which integrates gender equality and defines the working principles of applying 
all rights (legality, universality and indivisibility of human rights), participation and access to 
the decision making process, non-discrimination and equal access, accountability and access 
the rule of law, and transparency and access to information. 

The  Commission  has  been  pursuing  the  full  and  concrete  integration  of  the  RBA  into  EU 
development instruments and activities, using training and guidance, capacity support, results-
oriented  monitoring  guidelines  and  criteria  for  evaluation. The  RBA  has  been  integrated  in 
key internal guidance documents and templates, such as the new Action Document template51, 
the template for the assessment of cross-cutting issues and the template for Quality Support 
Groups assessments52, as well as the Budget Support Guidelines53. The Commission created 
an  internal  RBA  Help-desk  providing  thematic  support  to  colleagues  and  following  up  on 
RBA  training  and  technical  assistance and  initiated  coordination  with  Member  States  and 
other stakeholders on the RBA.  

The  2017  European  Consensus  on  Development54  reinforces  the  EU's  commitment  to  the 
RBA and extends it to Member States.  

- 

EQ2(c): inclusion of criteria regarding accessibility for persons with disabilities55:  

45   For more info on 'Human Rights and Fundamental Freedom' actions, including the policies, projects, results and key documents cited, 
see  https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/sectors/human-rights-and-governance_en,  as  well  as  https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/sectors/human-
rights-and-governance/democracy-and-human-rights_en; 

46   See article 6(c) CIR; 
47   See article 4(11) CIR; 
48   EU 
Action 

Plan 

on 

Human 

Rights 

and 

Democracy, 

49  

https://eeas.europa.eu/sites/eeas/files/eu_action_plan_on_human_rights_and_democracy_en_2.pdf; 
Joint  Commission–EEAS 
and  Women's  Empowerment, 
https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/joint-staff-working-document-gender-equality-and-womens-empowerment-transforming-lives-girls-
and_en; 

Staff  Working  Document 

on  Gender  Equality 

at 

50     http://register.consilium.europa.eu/doc/srv?l=EN&f=ST%209489%202014%20INIT;  
51   See the action documents at http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/funding/funding-instruments-programming/annual-action-programmes_en; 
52   See the Quality Support Group functioning at https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/designing-operations-quality-system_en; 
53  
54   For  more info  on  Policy  Coherence  for Development,  including  the  European  Consensus  on  Development  and  other key  documents 

https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/policies/budget-support-and-dialogue-partner-countries_en 

cited, see https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/policies/policy-coherence-development_en; 

10 

 
                                                 
11 

Article  2(7)  CIR  provides  that  in  the  design  and  implementation  of  programs  and  projects, 
criteria regarding accessibility for persons with disabilities shall be duly taken into account. 
As  a  party  to  the  UN  Convention  on  the  Rights  of  Persons  with  Disabilities56  (CRPD),  and 
signatory  of  the  2030  Agenda  for  Sustainable  Development42,  the  EU  is  fully  committed  to 
make  all  its  development  cooperation  policies  and  programs  inclusive  of  and  accessible  to 
persons  with  disabilities.  This  commitment  has  been  explicitly  translated  into  the  new 
European Consensus on Development54. The EU is one of the largest supporters of the rights 
of  persons  with  disabilities  through  development  cooperation.  Between  2010  and  2016,  it 
funded over 336 projects focusing on the rights and socioeconomic inclusion of persons with 
disabilities in over 95 countries.  

Operationalising  Article  2(7)  CIR,  a  number  of  measures  have  been  taken  regarding  the 
implementation phase of programs, to improve the mainstreaming of disability concerns in all 
development cooperation projects, notably:  

 

the PRAG57 states that accessibility requirements for persons with disabilities must be 
included in the technical specifications of EU funded tenders, following a "design for 
all approach"; 

  as an internal instruction, considerations regarding the respect of the rights of persons 
with  disabilities  are  included  into  the  assessment  of  new  projects  (i.e.  as  part  of  the 
cross-cutting issues assessment / rights-based approach for each action; 

  actions were undertaken to raise the awareness and capacity of EU staff to mainstream 
disability, such as: i) a guidance note for EU staff on disability-inclusive development; 
ii) regular training courses for EU staff both on mainstreaming gender, disability and 
child rights, and on the rights based approach (including the inclusion of persons with 
disabilities);  iii)  the  creation  of  a  platform  for  exchange  on  disability  issues  on 
capacity4dev58. 

Making all development cooperation fully inclusive and accessible is a challenge that the EU 
shares with other development partners. A new EU global thematic project named 'Bridging 
the  Gap'59  precisely  seeks  to  join  forces  with  EU  Member  States,  the  Office  of  the  High 
Commissioner  for  Human  Rights,  and  networks  of  Disabled  People's  Organisations  to 
increase  awareness,  coordination  and  technical  capacity  of  development  partners  to  include 
persons  with  disabilities  in  mainstream  development  cooperation  towards  the  Sustainable 
Development Goals in a way that is consistent with the CRPD.   

Services through the Staff Working Document find that the commitment reflected in Article 
2(7)  CIR,  constitutes  a  valuable  step  in  the  larger  process  of  improving  accessibility  for 
persons with disabilities.  

- 

EQ2(d): flexibility and speed of delivery under the comitology procedures60:  

Articles 2 and 3 CIR determine the applicable comitology-provisions for action programmes 
and measures in the field of external assistance. 

55   For  more 

info  on 

'Disabilities'  actions, 

including 

the  policies,  projects, 

results  and  key  documents  cited,  see 
as 

well 

https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/sectors/human-development/social-inclusion/disability_en, 
https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/sectors/human-rights-and-governance/democracy-and-human-rights/economic-social-and-cultural-
rights_en; 
https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities.html 

as 

56  
57   See PRAG chapter 2.3.6 (page 37) at https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/about-funding_en ; 
58  

capacity4dev  is  the  European  Commission’s  knowledge  sharing  platform  for  development  cooperation  where  EU  staff,  as  well  as 
development professionals from EU member states, partner governments, civil society, academia and the private sector can collaborate: 
https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/ 

59   See  Annex  VI  of  DCI  Commission  Decision  C(2015)8571  at  https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/commission-implementing-decision-

27112015-annual-action-programme-2015-part-iii-theme-human_en; 

60   For more info on comitology, see http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regcomitology/index.cfm?do=implementing.home; 

11 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                         
12 

The contribution of the CIR to raising flexibility and speed under the comitology procedures 
by  establishing  specific  rules  is  only  possible  within  the  limits  set  out  by  the  Comitology 
Regulation22 containing the general rules. Services through this Staff Working Document find 
that  the  CIR  has  played  a  positive  role  in  terms  of  increasing  the  effectiveness  of  the 
measures' adoption process, for the following reasons: 

  Within the above-mentioned limits, and as one element of flexibility, the CIR specifies 
the  thresholds  under  which  implementing  measures  can  be  adopted  without  prior 
opinion  of  the  committees  which  only  have  to  be  communicated  to  the  committees 
after  their  adoption  (ex-post  info). While  similar  provisions  existed  in  the  last  set of 
External  Financing  Instruments  2007-2013,  the  different  thresholds  were  not 
harmonised,  which  caused  difficulties  in  the  implementation.  With  one  set  of 
thresholds  in  the  CIR  and  an  extended  scope  for  applying  this  simplified  procedure, 
the  number  of  measures  adopted  without  prior  opinion  has  risen  compared  to  the 
previous years (2011-13).   

 

In  the  past  objection  from  one  single  Member  State  to  a  written  procedure,  was 
sufficient to have the measure debated in the plenary session, now a simple majority is 
necessary. This is a qualitative change, as it means that a successful outcome can be 
expected. The use of written procedure could therefore have an impact on the speed of 
delivery.  

Finally, it must be remembered that after the opinion of the committee the adoption procedure 
within  the  Commission  has  to  be  completed  according  to  the  internal  rules  of  the 
Commission, which is not a subject matter of the CIR. 

- 

EQ2(e): monitoring61:  

Article  12  CIR  requires  that  the  Commission  shall  regularly  monitor  its  actions  and  review 
progress made towards delivering expected results, covering outputs and outcomes.  

The role played by the CIR in strengthening monitoring and thus enhancing accountability of 
External Financing Instruments as well as the likelihood of achieving the intended impact of 
EU  funded  interventions  was  –  correctly  -  positively  assessed  in  the  external  evaluation 
report62. Indeed, the monitoring and reporting systems used in the context of the current MFF 
have been upgraded.  

Since 2015, a results-framework for international cooperation and development has been put 
in  place  and  a  dedicated  section  on  results  is  currently  included  in  the  Annual  Report  on 
External Financing  Instruments63. Also with  a view to  operationalise Article  12 of the CIR, 
revised  templates  for  Action  Documents51,  accompanied  with  new  dedicated  guidances  and 
trainings, have been set up in the course of 2015, 2016 and 2017 - ultimately contributing to 
enhance results based management at all levels. 

- 

EQ2(f): evaluation64:  

Article 12 CIR provides that the Commission shall evaluate the impact and effectiveness of its 
sectoral  policies  and  actions  and  the  effectiveness  of  programming,  where  appropriate  by 
means of independent external evaluations. 

61   For  more 

info  on  external  actions  Monitoring  and  Results  Framework, 

including  key  documents  cited, 

see 

https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/monitoring-and-reporting-ec-funded-projects_en; 
62   Evaluation of the Common Implementing Regulation, Final Report June 2017, page 12;  
63   See the annual reports at https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/annual-reports_en; 
64   For more info on external actions Evaluation, including evaluation policy,  methodology, as well as project and strategic evaluations, 

see https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/using-our-experience-improve-quality-our-development-engagement_en; 

12 

 
                                                 
13 
The  external  evaluation65  found  that  the  CIR  provisions  on  evaluation  have  given  an 
additional  impetus  to  strengthen  the  evaluation  function  of  the  Directorate  General  for 
International Cooperation and Development, the Service for Foreign Policy Instruments and 
the Directorate General for Neighbourhood and Enlargement Negotiations. 

It also found that the CIR requirement that evaluations should be carried out based on “pre-
defined,  clear,  transparent  and,  where  appropriate,  country-specific  and  measurable 
indicators66”,  helped  to  strengthen  the  monitoring  and  evaluation  by  increasing  attention  to 
results  and  thereby  improving  chances  that  EFI impact  is  ultimately  achieved.  For instance, 
according to interviewees at EU headquarters, CIR provisions on monitoring and evaluation 
have contributed to the adoption of a comprehensive Results Framework67 in 2015. 

However,  several  EU  Delegations  pointed  out  in  their  responses  to  the  evaluation  survey68 
that,  while  the  rules  on  monitoring  and  evaluation  are  adequate,  they  consider  not  to  be 
sufficiently  involved  in  evaluations  and  too  much  use  of  costly  external  consultants  was 
made. 

Evaluation Question 3: Coherence  

To what extent has the CIR enhanced coherence, complementarity, synergies and added value 
between individual instruments, and across the set of instruments as well as more coordinated 
ways of working? 

-  

EQ3(a): annual reporting to the European Parliament and Council69:  

Article  13  CIR  requests  the  Commission  to  submit  to  the  European  Parliament  and  to  the 
Council an annual report on the achievement of the objectives of each Regulation by means of 
indicators, measuring the results delivered and the efficiency of the relevant Instrument. 

Implementing  the  CIR-requirement  to  produce  a  common  Annual  Report  on  all  External 
Financing  Instruments  (i.e.  those  managed  by  the  Directorate  Generals  of  European 
Commission  for  International  Cooperation  and  Development,  for  Neighbourhood  and 
Enlargement  Negotiations  and  by  the  services  of  the  European  Commission  for  Foreign 
Policy Instruments), as from 2015 required extensive upstream consultation and coordination 
between these services. The challenge at the time was to adapt the choice of indicators to the 
realities also of others than Least Developed Countries and to  ensure overall consistency of 
indicators.  Benefits  in  terms  of  enhancing  internal  coherence  in  the  reporting  on  External 
Financing  Instruments  outweighed  the  fact  that  the  publication  of  the  2015  Report  was 
considerably delayed. The delay should not recur with the publication of the 2016 Report and 
the reports of subsequent years.  

Services  through  the  Staff  Working  Document  agree  with  the  external  evaluation  that  the 
implementation of the CIR-requirement constitutes a major achievement.  

- 

EQ3(b): promoting visibility70:  

Article  4(5)  CIR  requires  that,  when  providing  the  Union's  financial  assistance,  the 
Commission  shall  ensure  the  visibility  of  the  Union's  financial  support,  including  through 
measures imposing visibility requirements on recipients of Union funds. 

65   Evaluation of the Common Implementing Regulation, Final Report June 2017, page 12; 
66   Article 12 (1) of the CIR; 
67   For more information, on the Results Framework, see https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/devcos-results-framework_en; 
68   Evaluation of the Common Implementing Regulation, Final Report June 2017, Annex pages 49-51; 
69   For more info on external actions Reporting, including the annual reports, see https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/annual-reports_en; 
70 
actions, 

Communication 

Visibility 

external 

more 

info 

and 

For 

EU 

for 

on 

see 

https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/work/visibility/index_en.htm_en; 

13 

 
                                                 
14 

The  link  between  practices  to  enhance  EU  visibility,  i.e.  project  a  coherent  image  of  EU 
external  action,  and  the  CIR  is  relatively  weak71.  References  to  EU  visibility  in  the  CIR 
remain at a general level. CIR provisions provide the legal underpinning to common practice 
that has existed at least since 2010. 

- 

EQ3(c): use of country systems:  

Art  1(5)  CIR  and  recital  18  state  that  the  Commission  shall  favour  the  use  of  the  partner 
countries' systems when possible and appropriate in light of the nature of the action.   

The  Busan  Partnership  Agreement72  builds  on  Paris  and  Accra73  in  committing  partner 
countries  to  strengthening  their  country  systems  to  the  maximum  extent  possible;  and 
commits donor countries to using partner country public financial management systems, i.e. 
that development partners will use country (procurement) systems, as the default approach for 
development  cooperation.  As  it  uses  the  full  public  finance  management  system,  budget 
support74 remains for the Commission the main modality for the use of countries' systems.  

In  addition,  also  in  project  approach,  modalities  exist  which  permit  the  use  of  country 
systems:  EU  contributions  to  international  or  regional  funds  managed  by  Member  States 
Agencies  (MSAs)  or  by  International  Organisations  (IOs),  may  result  in  the  use  of  country 
procedures to the extent that the pillar-assessed MSA or IO under indirect management75 itself 
uses partner country  procedures. As for indirect management to  Partner Countries (PC), the 
Commission  opened  in  2016  additional  possibilities:  on  the  one  hand,  within  Program 
Estimates76,  country  procedures  for  the  award  of  procurement  and  grant  contracts  may  be 
used,  when  those  procedures  have  been  previously  positively  assessed.  On  the  other  hand, 
Pool funds for sector-wide programmes may now also be managed by a Partner Country using 
its own country procedures subject to a positive full pillar assessment77. To date only a very 
limited number of financing decisions were adopted which make use of those recent openings.  

- 

EQ3(d): involvement of stakeholders in beneficiary countries78:  

Articles 4(11) and 15 CIR urge the Commission to take account of the specificities, needs and 
context  of  stakeholders  in  the  beneficiary  countries,  such  as  civil  society  organisations  and 
local authorities, as well as to duly involve them in the implementation of external actions.  

The  input  from  the  CIR  in  the  achievement  of  the  objective  to  involve  stakeholders  of 
beneficiary  countries,  is  impossible  to  isolate  as  it  is  intertwined  with  similar  objectives 
pursued  by  the  DCI's  Civil  Society  Organisations  –  Local  Authorities  (CSO-LA)  Thematic 
Program,  which  is  already  instrumental  regarding  the  involvement  of  civil  society  of 
beneficiaries' countries. Indeed, as already indicated in the Commission's Communication of 

71   Evaluation of the Common Implementing Regulation, Final Report June 2017, page 14; 
72   For more details see http://www.oecd.org/dac/effectiveness/49650173.pdf; 
73   For  more  info  on  the  EU  approach  to  development  effectiveness,  including  the  Busan,  Paris  and  Accra    agreements,  see 
as 

https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/policies/eu-approach-aid-effectiveness_en, 
http://www.oecd.org/dac/effectiveness/parisdeclarationandaccraagendaforaction.htm; 

well 

as 

74   For more detail on budget support: see https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/node/1565; 
75   The so-called 'pillar-assessment' of the systems and procedures referred to in article 60(2) FR: an assessment whether an organisation 
has procedures in the field of internal control, accountancy, audit, financing, transparency and data-protection (ie the so-called 'pillars'), 
which provide sufficient assurance to be entrusted with indirect management; 

76   A Program Estimate contains a work programme of activities to be implemented by a Partner Country for a given budget; its imprest 
component allows procurement to be conducted by the imprest administrator, up to certain ceilings (by default up to EUR 299 999);  an 
imprest is a fund of a fixed amount, within which modest expenses are paid; 

77   For more detail on partner country managed Program Estimates and Sector-wide Pool Funds, see chapter 3.2.3.3 ('Scope of delegation: 
at 

Companion 

tasks 
budget-implementation 
http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/companion/document.do?nodeNumber=3.2.3.3; 

delegated') 

the 

of 

78   For more info on 'Civil society' and ' Local authorities' actions, including the policies, projects, results and key documents cited, see 
and 

https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/sectors/human-rights-and-governance/civil-society_en 
https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/sectors/human-rights-and-governance/local-authorities_en; 

14 

 
                                                 
15 
201279,  under  the  CSO-LA  Program,  the  Commission  systematically  and  regularly  consults 
stakeholders in  order to allow them  to  play their role. The main concrete results  illustrating 
this  continuing  achievement  are  the  Policy  Forum  for  Development  (PFD)80  and  the 
implementation of EU Roadmaps for engagement of civil society in 105 partner countries81. 
The  systematic  consultation  prior  to  calls  for  proposals  in  all  EU  Delegations  can  also  be 
mentioned. 

Where  the  CIR  has  played  a  role  for  synergising  instruments,  is  definitely  by  offering 
common and more flexible rules. In that sense, through the External Financing Instruments, 
the  Commission  has  met  the  objectives  defined  in  Article  4(11)82  of  the  CIR.  The  Sub-
granting  option  has  allowed  reaching  more  smaller  and  local  organisations.  Direct  award  is 
also foreseen systematically in the call for proposals. Common new rules on nationality and 
origin  on  procurement  and  grant  award  procedures  have  helped  synergies  between 
instruments. Services through this Staff Working Document are hence of the opinion that the 
CIR favoured a better coordination between instruments in that regard. 

It  is  important  to  highlight  that  the  CSO-LA  Thematic  Program  is  based  on  a  bottom-up 
approach, allowing the leverage with other sectorial/thematic instruments and programs both 
at EU Headquarters and EU Delegations. While securing around EUR 200 million a year for 
CSO-LAs  directly,  a  total  of  EUR  2  billion  are  annually  committed  for  CSOs  and  LAs 
through all EU instruments83. 

Also the geographical programs financed by DCI, EDF, ENI and IPA, all support long term 
projects with Civil Society and local Authorities in their respective geographic areas, ensuring 
the involvement of all stakeholders in beneficiaries countries. In addition, long-term support 
for  structural  dialogue  with  civil  society  on  conflict  prevention  and  peace-building  issues 
forms an integral part of programming under IcSP84. 

Evaluation Question 4: Efficiency  

To what extent has the CIR contributed to timely and cost efficient forms of working? 

- 

EQ4(a): untying of aid: 

Articles 8 to 11 CIR lay down the rules on nationality and origin for procurement, grant and 
other  award  procedures  used  in  the  implementation  of  external  assistance.  CIR-recital  10 
frames those rules within the Union's commitments to untie Union assistance. 

Commitment to accelerate efforts to untie aid was made by the participants to the Busan High 
Level Meeting73 in  2011. This  commitment has  been  duly translated into the EU regulatory 
framework with the CIR, which harmonised the rules on nationality and origin for a number 
of External Financing Instruments under the general budget85.   

79   The roots of democracy and sustainable development: Europe‘s engagement with Civil Society in external relations, Communication 
from  the  Commission  COM(2012)492:  see  notably  its  part  on  promotion  of  a  meaningful  and  structured  participation  of  CSOs  in 
domestic  policies  of  partner  countries, 
international  processes,  published  at 
http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/1/2012/EN/1-2012-492-EN-F1-1.Pdf; 

the  EU  programming  cycle  and 

in 

in 

80   The Policy Forum For Development is the result of a Structured Dialogue, to offer CSOs and LAs from all around the world as well as 
European institutions, a multi-stakeholder space for dialogue on development issues, see https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/policy-forum-
development/; 

81   Roadmaps: Conceived as a joint initiative between the European Union and Member States, to strengthen the strategic engagement with 
civil  society  through  a  common  strategic  framework  to  improving  the  impact,  predictability  and  visibility  of  EU  actions,  see 
https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/public-governance-civilsociety/minisite/eu-country-roadmaps-engagement-civil-society-introduction; 

82   Article 4(11) related to definition financing, type of contribution, award modalities for the management of grants; 
83   OECD Report "Aid for CSOs" – December 2015: https://www.oecd.org/dac/peer-reviews;  
84  
85   For more details, see the Evaluation of the Common Implementing Regulation, Final Report June 2017, page 16; 

IcSP Regulation, Article 4.2(b); 

15 

 
                                                 
16 

The CIR allows entities to participate in calls for proposals and tenders if they are effectively 
established in86:  

-  

-  
-  

developing  countries  and  territories,  as  included  in  the  list  of  Official  Development 
Assistance  (ODA)  recipients,  published  by  the  Development  Assistance  Committee 
(DAC)  of  the  Organisation  for  Economic  Co-operation  and  Development  (OECD) 
(‘list  of  ODA  recipients’87);  for  members  of  the  G-20  group88,  only  if  they  are  the 
beneficiaries of the action; 
overseas countries and territories covered by Council Decision 2013/755/EU89, and  
to the member countries of the OECD, in the case of contracts implemented in a Least 
Developed Country (LDC) or a Highly Indebted Poor Country (HIPC), as included in 
the list of ODA recipients.  

The  external  evaluation  report  refers  to  the  2016  GPEDC  Monitoring  Report  (Global 
Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation90) which stated that EU performance had 
improved since 2010 but no major change since 201291. Services through this Staff Working 
Document  are  of  the  opinion  that  it  is  too  early  to  establish  which  effect  the  change  in  the 
regulatory  framework  has  had  on  aid  untying.  According  to  the  2017  Report  on  the  DAC 
Untying Recommendation, the EU share of untied aid to LDCs and HIPCs was 84.3% in 2015 
(93%  in  2012)92.  EU  share  in  the  total  ODA  was  62.3%  in  2015  (47.7%  in  2010).  These 
percentages refer to all EU institutions, and instruments that are tied such as IPA reduce the 
Commission's  overall  performance  in  the  total  share.  As  the  DAC  report  shows  EUs 
development aid to the LDCs is to a large extent untied.  

- 

EQ4(b): eligibility criteria93: 

While  setting  up  the  rules  on  nationality  and  origin  in  Articles  8 to  11 CIR,  the  other  main 
objectives  besides  untying  pursued  with  the  CIR  were  to  provide  more  flexibility  and 
extension on a horizontal level.  

As regards the extension of rules, the CIR achieved this in case of co-financing, where rules 
on nationality and origin have been extended to those of the partner providing co-financing. 
As a result, two sets of rules apply simultaneously, thus the entity wishing to participate in a 
contract-award has to fulfil one or the other. The same applies in indirect management with 
respect  to  the  rules  of  the  delegated  organisation.  In  addition,  in  cases  where  an  action  is 
financed  from  two  instruments  at  the  same  time,  the  rules  applicable  to  both  instruments 
apply the same way, ie. the entity wishing to participate has to fulfil one or the other.  

When  it  comes  to  increasing  flexibility,  it  is  equally  important  to  mention  that  the  CIR 
provides that IcSP and EIDHR are fully untied, which means they do not apply any rule of 
nationality or origin. In addition, rules of origin no longer apply to supplies under EUR 100 
000. As a result, the number of derogations regarding rules of origin has considerably fallen94 

86   Except for IPA II, see article 10 CIR; 
87   The OECD-DAC list of ODA recipients is published at http://www.oecd.org/dac/stats/daclist.htm; 
88   The G-20 list is published at http://www.oecd.org/g20/g20-members.htm; 
89   Council  Decision 2013/755/EU of  25  November 2013  on  the  association  of  the overseas  countries  and  territories  with  the  European 
Union  (‘Overseas  Association  Decision’),  OJ  L  344,  19.12.2013.  The  overseas  countries  and  territories  (OCTs)  are  those  listed  in 
Annex II to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), OJ, C-115 of 9.5.2008;  

90   The  Global  Partnership  for  Effective  Development  Cooperation  (GPEDC)  monitors  progress  achieved  in  implementing  the  aid-
effectiveness  principles  of  ownership,  focus  on  results,  inclusive  partnerships  and  transparency  and  accountability.  Please  see 
http://effectivecooperation.org/monitoring-country-progress/explore-monitoring-data/; 
http://www.oecd.org/development/making-development-co-operation-more-effective-9789264266261-en.htm; 

at 

https://www.oecd.org/dac/financing-sustainable-development/development-finance-

91  
92   DCD/DAC(2017)6/FINAL, 

published 
standards/2017-Report-DAC-Untying.pdf; 

93   For  more 

info  on  Eligibility 

criteria, 

see 

chapters  2.3.1 

and  2.3.2  of  PRAG 

and  PRAG-annex  A2a 

at 

https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/funding/about-funding-and-procedures/procedures-and-practical-guide-prag_en; 

94   The number of derogations on rules on nationality and origin is estimated at 720 during the period 2011-13, while this number is only 

347 for the period of 2014-2016 based on data extracted from CRIS – Common Relex Information System; 

16 

 
                                                 
17 

compared  to  the  period  2011-2013,  thereby  contributing  to  less  administrative  burden  and 
swifter implementation, which is particularly notable for grant contracts.    

-  

EQ4(c): participation of local and regional contractors95:  

The  Financial  Regulation's  procurement  rules  applicable  to  external  actions  envisage  that 
participation in tendering procedures shall be open on equal terms to all persons eligible under 
the Treaties and the relevant External Financing Instrument. All public contracts shall respect 
the  principles  of  transparency,  proportionality,  equal  treatment  and  non-discrimination. 
Contracts shall be put out to tender on the broadest possible basis, except when use is made of 
a negotiated procedure.  

It is in this framework laid down by the Financial Regulation, that Article 8(6) CIR imposes 
on the one hand, to give priority to local and regional contractors in case of single tenders and 
on  the  other  hand,  to  promote  in  all  other  procurement  cases  the  participation  of  local  and 
regional contractors. This is in line with the Outcome Documents of the High Level Meetings 
of  Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation  in Mexico (2014) and Nairobi 
(2016)96  that  confirm  the  commitment  to 
'enhance  the  localisation  of  development 
cooperation,  including  by  promoting  local  procurement'  in  order  to  strengthen  the  country 
ownership and improve especially the level of de facto untied aid. 

The  majority  of  single  tenders  are  to  be  found  within  the  imprest  components  of  program 
estimates27,76,77.  The  survey  amongst  the  EU  delegations  reveals  that  in  2016,  inside  the 
imprest  component97,  out  of  the  total  number  of  contracts  awarded  under  the  sample, 
respectively 46% (DCI), 51% (EDF) and 36% (ENI) were single tenders awarded to local and 
regional contractors98. 

The same survey shows that also in procurement procedures other than single tenders, local 
and regional contractors are successful in winning contracts: within the imprest components, 
on top of the above-mentioned single tender percentages, they received in 2016 additionally 
23%  (DCI),  31%  (EDF)  and  20%  (ENI)  of  all  contracts  awarded  under  the  sample.  This 
demonstrates  that  also  under  competitive  negotiated  procedures  and  local  open  procedures, 
local and regional contractors succeed in winning contracts. Under the competitive negotiated 
procedure, the contracting authority draws up a list of at least three economic operators of its 
choice, without publication of a notice. In a local open procedure, the contract notice is not 
published on the Official Journal of the European Union, but only in the Partner Country and 
on the Commission's website.   

For  larger-scale  contracts  subject  to  international  tendering,  by  necessity  the  financial, 
economic, professional and technical capacity requirements reflected in the selection criteria, 
match the amount at stake and may act as an obstacle for local and regional operators. Still, 
also  there,  business  opportunities  exist  through  either  subcontracting  assignments  from  the 
main  contractor  or  through  entering  into  a  consortium  with  other  partners.  In  that  respect, 
subcontracting is allowed for all procurement contracts.  

Overall,  the  above  figures  show  that  the  CIR-commitments  to  promote  the  participation  of 
local and regional contractors, is successfully implemented. 

95   For  more  info  on  external  action  procurement  procedures,  see  PRAG  at  https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/funding/about-funding-and-

procedures/procedures-and-practical-guide-prag_en; 

96   For more info on the Mexico and Nairobi meetings, see https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/policies/eu-approach-aid-effectiveness_en;  
97  
98   Final Report Annexes, page 106; 

In 2016, the imprest components committed, amounted to a total of EUR 186 720 524.96; 

17 

 
                                                 
Evaluation Question 5: Leverage  

18 

To  what  extent  has  the  CIR  contributed  to  making  the  leverage  of  further  funds  or 
political/policy engagement possible? 

- 

EQ5(a): leveraging of financial resources through budget support99:  

Article  4(2)  CIR  qualifies  budget  support  as  a  method  of  financing  based  on  mutual 
accountability  and  shared  commitments  to  universal  values,  aimed  at  strengthening 
contractual partnerships between the Union and partner countries. CIR-recital 19 promotes its 
use to support poverty reduction and the use of country systems, make aid more predictable 
and strengthen partner countries' ownership of development policies and reforms. 
A  budget  support  operation  is  composed  of  a  financial  transfer,  capacity  development  and 
policy  dialogue.  Through  budget  support,  the  EU  engages  from  the  technical  level  to  the 
highest  political  level  with  partner  countries  on  macro-economic  policies,  public    finance 
reform, including domestic revenue mobilisation, and on the public policy which is supported 
(overall  development policy  or  sector  policy depending on the type of programme).  Results 
and impact of this modality are demonstrated by numerous country evaluations and illustrated 
in the annual report on budget support covering fiscal year 2015100.  
A  budget  support  operation  can  also  act  as  a  catalyst  and  facilitate  further  leveraging  of 
financial resources and political engagement. Budget support acts at different levels. On the 
one  hand,  it  reduces  the  risks  for  investors  by  strengthening  institutions  and  promoting 
conducive  national  and  sectoral  policies,  which  are  crucial  elements  for  all  investment 
operations,  notably  to  economic  governance  and  macro-economic  stability.  The  related 
technical  assistance  envelopes  focus  on  specific  capacity  building  to  the  implementation  of 
sector policies, Public Finance Management reforms, expenditure management, statistics, etc.  
On  the  other  hand,  budget  support  can  strengthen  the  coherence  between  the  projects 
undertaken  by  private  investors  and  the  various  policies  of  the  government.  EU  financial 
assistance,  in  particular  budget  support  and  the  blending  instruments,  are  used  to  leverage 
domestic  public  resources  in  recipient  countries  as  well  as  funds  from  other  donors, 
institutions and private sector within a coherent overall framework. This is particularly critical 
in low income countries that private investors tend to avoid.  
Budget support is also an instrument which can contribute to sustaining the results achieved 
by investment. It can help with the transition of developing countries from ODA to domestic 
revenues,  increase  transparency  and  accountability  and  improve  public  investment  policies 
and execution as well as improve the investment climate and business environment.  
Domestic  revenue  mobilisation,  fiscal  transparency  and  sound  public  financial  management 
are closely interlinked and supported by a number of actions. The overall approach is clarified 
in the 2015 Staff Working Document 'Collect More – Spend Better'101 and its implementation 
is  organised  along  two  axes,  one  to  support  international  and  regional  partnerships  and  the 
other, larger one, to support to domestic public finance in the context of economic governance 
and budget support programmes at national level.  

-  

EQ5(b): leveraging of financial resources through financial instruments102:  

Articles  4(1)(e)  and  4(3)  CIR  highlight  the  financing  through  financial  instruments,  such  as 
loans,  guarantees,  equity  or  quasi-equity,  investments  or  participations,  and  risk-sharing 
instruments. CIR-recital (8) promotes the use of such financial instruments for their leverage 

99   For  more  info  on  Budget  support,  including  policy  and  key  documents  cited,  see  https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/policies/budget-

support-and-dialogue-partner-countries_en; 

100    http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/annual-report-eu-budget-support-2016-0_en;  
101   https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/sites/devco/files/swd-collect-more-spend-better.pdf 
102   For  more 

instruments 

including 

financial 

policy 

info 

on 

and 

key 

documents 

cited, 

please 

see 

https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/policies/innovative-financial-instruments-blending_en 

18 

 
                                                 
19 

effect, as an efficient use of available resources in order to optimise the impact of the Union's 
external actions.  

The CIR has contributed to the further expansion and development of blending, implemented 
through indirect management with development finance institutions. The CIR helped to create 
a  regulatory  framework  for  the  implementation  of  financial  instruments  used  in  external 
action and blending.  

Blending is the combination of non-repayable form of support as well as repayable financial 
instruments (equity,  loans, guarantee, other risk sharing capital  etc.) funded by the EU with 
loans and other repayable and non-repayable funds provided by eligible finance institutions to 
finance  investments.  It  was  introduced  in  2007  with  the  establishment  of  the  EU-Africa 
Infrastructure Trust Fund103 and the blending facility for the Neighbourhood region. Currently 
there  are  8  blending  facilities104  covering  all  regions  of  external  action,  Africa, 
Neighbourhood,  Asia,  Central  Asia,  Latin  America,  the  Caribbean,  the  Pacific  and  the 
Western Balkans.   

In external action financial instruments are also used at the level of individual, smaller scale 
projects.  These  projects  are  proposed  by  pillar  assessed75  development  finance  institutions 
that are eligible under each blending facility which implement them according to their rules. 
The CIR allows for the grouping of these financial instruments for the purposes of reporting 
and ex ante assessment, thus avoiding unnecessary bottlenecks for timely implementation.  

Through this attractive innovative instrument greater leverage, i.e. mobilisation of additional 
funds, can be achieved in two ways; firstly, blending itself leverages funds from development 
finance  institutions  through  EU  funds  availability  as  such;  secondly,  the  use  of  financial 
instruments  by  the  EU  itself  contributes  to  greater  leverage through  the repayable  nature  of 
the EU funds that can be used in a revolving manner.  

Blending experience has shown that the estimated financial leverage ratio105, on average 1:17, 
can vary considerably depending on the sector, region, country and project specifics. Projects 
are in  parallel assessed for their non-financial added-value ("additionality") they may bring, 
e.g. social, environmental, policy dialogue etc. The leverage effect is further scaled up, when 
the  EU  uses  financial  instruments,  instead  of  grants,  as  the  former  have  the  potential  of 
enhancing the use of the budget resources. Therefore, the CIR contributes also to the efficient 
use of EU funds.  

The  use  of  financial instruments  in  external  assistance  is  increasing.  A  template  for  signing 
contracts has been established based on the rules applicable in the Financial Regulation, and 
reference was made to the CIR for its own rules on reflows.  

This SWD therefore concludes that the CIR has directly contributed to the leverage of funds.  

6. Conclusions 

1.  
The  CIR  has  proven  fit  for  purpose  in  the  context  of  formulation,  implementation, 
monitoring  and  evaluation  of  External  Financing  Instruments.  It  increased  flexibility  in  the 
adoption  of  implementing  measures  under  comitology  procedures,  rules  on  nationality  and 
origin. It also provided for broader use of country systems and the use of local and regional 
contractors.  Accountability  has  been  enhanced  through  the  strengthening  of  monitoring  and 
evaluation and a more comprehensive annual report on External Financing Instruments.  

103   For more details on the EU-Africa Infrastructure Trust Fund, see https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/regions/africa/eu-africa-infrastructure-

trust-fund-eu-aitf_en; 

104   https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/policies/innovative-financial-instruments-blending_en; 
105   The  ratio  between  on  the  one  hand  the  financing  provided  by  EU  funds,  and  on  the  other  hand  the  total  financing  coming  from 

additional non-EU funds; 

19 

 
                                                 
20 

2.  
The most important added value of the CIR has been that it harmonised implementing 
rules  for  all  External  Financing  Instruments.  Harmonisation  has  been  achieved  to  a  large 
extent for comitology procedures, general financing provisions (notably general and sectoral 
budget  support),  rules  on  nationality  and  origin  (untying  of  aid)  as  well  as  monitoring  and 
evaluation.  At  the  same  time,  specific  provisions  still  had  to  be  designed  to  respond  to  the 
diverging needs of individual External Financing Instrument. These are contained in various 
legal  acts,  the  CIR  itself,  the  External  Financing  Instrument  Regulations  and  in  dedicated 
additional  Implementing  Regulations106.  The  establishment  of  a  single  set  of  rules  was 
achieved to a large extent, with due consideration given to specificities at the same time. 

3.  
The  CIR  has  proven  fit  for  purpose  in  terms  of  simplification  of  rules  to  a  lesser 
extent.  Firstly,  the  coexistence  of  implementing  rules  outside  of  the  CIR  result  in  a  legal 
architecture which is still complex. Secondly, the applicable comitology rules provide limited 
exceptions  from  examination  procedures.  Thirdly,  rules  on  nationality  and  origin  remain 
difficult  to  explain  to  external  stakeholders.  Lastly,  more  stringent  requirements  for 
monitoring,  evaluation  and  the  Annual  Report  –  albeit  enhancing  accountability  –  pose 
challenges  for  compatibility  between  multiple  indicators  in  different  External  Financing 
Instrument contexts.  

4.  
The  CIR  has  proven  fit  for  purpose  to  a  lesser  extent  as  well  in  terms  of  the  most 
efficient  use  of  available  resources to  optimise  the  impact of  external  action.    The  adoption 
procedure  for  action  programmes,  individual  measures  and  special  measures  remains  still 
lengthy.   

5.  
Finally, the CIR has proven fit for purpose to a lesser extent when it comes to some of 
the  substantive  policy-concerns:  while  the  CIR  did  provide  a  legal  underpinning  for  those 
topics, it had limited direct causal effect in ensuring their activation within the framework of 
External Financing Instruments, as the attention to these topics was often driven by broader, 
pre-existing policy agendas. In addition, the selective choice of substantive topics included in 
the CIR, implied  by contrast the possibility of non-included topics  gaining importance after 
the CIR's adoption, without being highlighted in the CIR.  

106   Commission  Implementing  Regulation  No  447/2014  of  2  May  2014  on  the  specific  rules  for  implementing  Regulation  (EU)  No 
231/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing an Instrument for Pre-accession assistance (IPA II); Commission 
Implementing Regulation (EU) No 897/2014 of 18 August 2014 laying down specific provisions for the implementation of cross-border 
cooperation  programmes  financed  under  Regulation  (EU)  No  232/2014  of  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  establishing  a 
European Neighbourhood Instrument; 

20 

 
 
                                                 
21 

Annex 1. Procedural information 

1. 

Independent evaluation: 

The evaluation is largely supported by the independent evaluation undertaken by an external 
consultant.  Data  collection  by  the  consultant  was  undertaken  through  a  two-step  approach 
involving separate but related exercises:  
-  

The application of the CIR rules has been assessed by various evaluation teams as part 
of  their  respective  evaluations  of  External  Financing  Instruments.  This  assessment 
took place by providing responses to a common set of questions (October – December 
2016) formulated by the external consultant for the CIR; 
 In  a  second  step,  responses  from  the  evaluation  teams  were  drawn  together  by  the 
external consultant for the CIR, who also collected additional information (December 
2016 – January 2017). 

- 

The  independent  evaluators  also  made  use  of  responses  to  the  general  survey  on  External 
Financing  Instruments  among  EU  Delegations.107  The  EU  Delegations  survey  consisted 
mostly of open questions soliciting narrative responses. The response rate can be considered 
as  high,  since  85  completed  questionnaires  were  received  (from  132  EU  Delegations 
contacted). The survey therefore produced much useful information from the field.  
The  independent  evaluation  teams  also  reviewed  key  documents  and  conducted  interviews 
with EU staff and other stakeholders in Brussels and during field visits. Data from different 
sources  (document  study,  interviews,  survey)  were  compared  and  checked  for  consistency, 
before formulating findings and conclusions. 

Open Public Consultation: 

2. 
The draft external evaluation report was posted on the website of the European Commission 
for an Open Public Consultation between 7 February and 5 May 2017108. All stakeholders in 
partner countries and EU Member States were welcome to participate in this consultation109.  
The objective of the web-consultation was twofold:  
- 
- 

To gather feedback from the broadest possible range of stakeholders.  
To  gather  preliminary  ideas  on  the  future  External  Financing  Instruments  after  the 
current ones expire on 31 December 2020. 

In addition, as part of the public consultation, a technical workshop with over 180 participants 
from the European Parliament and EU Member States was organised on 27-28 March 2017. 
The purpose of this workshop was to gather views on the draft external evaluation reports of 
the External Financing Instruments and start reflections on the future of the instruments post-
2020.  The  comments  received  during  the  Open  Public  Consultation  have  been  taken  into 
consideration  in  the  final  version  of  the  external  evaluation  report and  also  as  an  additional 
source of evidence and basis for the analysis. 

107   Evaluation of the Common Implementing Regulation, Final Report June 2017, Annex pages 130 - 139;  
108   https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/public-consultation-external-financing-instruments-european-union_en; 
109   For the OPC-feedback received, see the Evaluation of the Common Implementing Regulation, Final Report June 2017, Annex pages 

140-146; 

21 

 
 
 
                                                 
22 

Annex 2. Synopsis report of the stakeholders' consultation 

10 pages max 

Lead: Evaluation units 

The self-standing synopsis summarises the results of all the consultation activities in relation 
to a particular initiative and gives a qualitative analytical overview of these results. Its aim is 
twofold:  to inform policy making on the outcome of all consultation activities and to inform 
stakeholders  on  how  their  input  has  been  taken  into  account  and  to  explain  why  certain 
suggestions  could  not  be  taken  up.  The  synopsis  should  comprise  the  following  general 
elements: 

  A  key  outline  of  the  consultation  strategy,  referring  to  the  consultation  objectives  as 

defined, identified stakeholders and selected consultation methods and tools; 

  Documentation  of  each  formal  consultation  activity,  including,  if  applicable,  an 

explanation as to how and why the initial consultation strategy was modified; 

 

Information  on  which  stakeholder  groups  participated,  which  interests  they  represented 
and whether all identified stakeholder groups have been reached; 

  Description of the results of each consultation activity; if different consultation activities 
have been undertaken in the context of the same consultation scope, a comparison of their 
results  including  interdependencies,  consistencies  or  contradictions  in  relation  to 
contributions and main stakeholder categories; 

 

Information  on  identified  campaigns  for  public  consultations  (where  organisations  call 
their  members  to  participate  in  the  consultation  with  suggested  responses).  The 
information should include the share of contributions and their viewpoint.  

  For  ad  hoc  contributions  received  outside  the  formal  consultation  context,  a  separate 
paragraph  should  be  added  describing  the  origin  of  the  contributions  received  including 
identification of the type of stakeholder and their represented interests, 

  Where  applicable,  a  paragraph  summarising  the  feedback    received  on  the  roadmap  or 

inception impact assessment 

  Explanation  and  justification  on  how  the  information  gathered  in  the  context  of  the 
consultation  work  as  well  as  feedback  received  have  fed  into  the  further  work  on  the 
initiative, evaluation or fitness check. Where relevant, this should include explanation on 
why certain widely supported views were not or not entirely considered. 

 

If  National  Parliaments  have  contributed,  it  is  recommended  to  inform  in  a  separate 
paragraph which National Parliaments contributed (Member State and chamber) and what 
issues they addressed. 

The main part of the SWD should make reference to key conclusions of the synopsis where 
relevant. 

22 

 
23 

Annex 3. Acronyms 

CIR 

CSO 

CRPD 

DAC 

DCI 

Common Implementation Regulation 

Civil Society Organisation 

UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 

Development Assistance Committee 

Development Cooperation Instrument 

DG DEVCO 

Directorate General for International Cooperation and Development 

DG NEAR 

Directorate General for Neighbourhood and Enlargement Negotiations 

DRM 

EDF 

EEAS 

EFI 

Domestic Resource Mobilisation 

European Development Fund 

European External Action Service 

External Financing Instrument 

EIDHR 

European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights 

ENI 

EUD 

FR 

FPI 

GD 

European Neighbourhood Instrument 

EU delegation 

Financial Regulation  

Service for Foreign Policy Instruments 

Greenland Decision 

GPEDC 

Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation 

HIPC 

IcSP 

INSC 

IPA II 

IO 

LA 

LDC 

MFF 

MS 

MSA 

MTR 

OECD 

ODA 

OPC 

PC 

PI 

Highly Indebted Poor Country 

Instrument contributing to Stability and Peace 

Instrument for Nuclear Safety Cooperation 

Instrument of Pre-Accession Assistance 

International Organisation 

Local Authorities 

Least Developed Country 

Multiannual Financial Framework 

Member States 

Member States Agency 

Mid-Term Review 

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 

Official Development Assistance 

Open Public Consultation  

Partner Country 

Partnership Instrument 

PRAG 

EU external actions Practical Guide for Procurement & Grants 

23 

 
 
PPCM 

Programme and Project Cycle Management  

24 

PFM 

ROM 

RBA 

SDG 

Public Finance Management  

Results-Oriented Monitoring 

Rights Based Approach 

Sustainable Development Goals 

24 

 
 
 
 
25 

Annex 4. External evaluators' report, including its annexes. 

The external evaluation can be found here: https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/public-consultation-
external-financing-instruments-european-union_en 

25