COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Spending review Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE EUROPEAN COUNCIL, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS A Modern Budget for a Union that Protects, Empowers and Defends The Multiannual Financial Framework for 2021-2027
Date: 2018-05-02
Institutions: European Commission, Secretariat-General
Subjects: budget policy, budgetary procedure, commitment of expenditure, financial management, financing of the EU budget, general budget (EU)

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 2.5.2018 SWD(2018) 171 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Spending review Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE EUROPEAN COUNCIL, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS  A Modern Budget for a Union that Protects, Empowers and Defends   The Multiannual Financial Framework for 2021-2027 {COM(2018) 321 final}  
 
 
Table of Contents 
1. 

Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 3 

2.  Spending Review: process and guiding principles ............................................................. 4 

3.  Outcome of the Spending Review ...................................................................................... 7 

3.1.  EU added value ............................................................................................................ 7 

3.2.  Streamlining the budget and exploiting synergies between programmes ................. 10 

3.3.  Simplification & sound financial management ......................................................... 12 

3.4.  Flexibility and the ability to respond to crises ........................................................... 13 

3.5.  Focus on performance ............................................................................................... 14 

3.6.  Coherence with main political objectives and values ................................................ 15 

4.  Lessons learned from the 2014-2020 programmes .......................................................... 16 

4.1.  Heading 1A - Competitiveness for growth and jobs ................................................. 16 

4.1.1. 

Introduction ........................................................................................................ 16 

4.1.2.  Objectives of the Programmes ........................................................................... 17 

4.1.3.  Key achievements .............................................................................................. 20 

4.1.4.  Lessons learned .................................................................................................. 25 

4.2.  Heading 1b - Economic, social and territorial cohesion ............................................ 29 

4.2.1. 

Introduction ........................................................................................................ 29 

4.2.2.  Objectives of the Programmes ........................................................................... 29 

4.2.3.  Key achievements .............................................................................................. 30 

4.2.4.  Lessons learned .................................................................................................. 34 

4.3.  Heading 2 - Sustainable Growth: Natural Resources ................................................ 38 

4.3.1. 

Introduction ........................................................................................................ 38 

4.3.2.  Objectives of the Programmes ........................................................................... 39 

4.3.3.  Key achievements .............................................................................................. 41 

4.3.4.  Lessons learned .................................................................................................. 45 

4.4.  Heading 3 - Security and citizenship ......................................................................... 49 

4.4.1. 

Introduction ........................................................................................................ 49 

4.4.2.  Objectives of the Programmes ........................................................................... 50 

4.4.3.  Key achievements .............................................................................................. 52 

4.4.4.  Lessons learned .................................................................................................. 56 

4.5.  Heading 4 - Global Europe ........................................................................................ 59 

4.5.1. 

Introduction ........................................................................................................ 59 

4.5.2.  Objectives of the Programmes ........................................................................... 59 

1 

 
 
4.5.3.  Key achievements .............................................................................................. 60 

4.5.4.  Lessons learned .................................................................................................. 64 

4.6.  Heading 5 – European Public Administration ........................................................... 68 

2 

 
 
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION  

This  Staff Working Document  sets out the  evidence and  the analytical  underpinning for  the 
Commission’s proposals for the modernisation of the EU long-term budget. It is based on the 
results  of  a  comprehensive  spending  review  conducted  by  the  Commission  services.  This 
review  was  designed  to  identify  the  features  of  current  programmes  that  have  proven  their 
worth  and  should  be  replicated  or  amplified  in  the  future  financial  programmes.  It  also 
identifies the areas where reform is needed to make full use of the potential of the EU budget. 

The  review  responds  to  specific  requests  from  stakeholders  and  other  EU  institutions  to 
provide  evidence  that  spending  programmes  are  managed  efficiently,  and  to  ensure  that  the 
added value of financial programmes is clearly described. More specifically:  

 

 

 

the  European  Court  of  Auditors  has  argued  that  a  comprehensive  EU  spending 
review is needed before a new long-term budget is set1;  

the  European  Parliament  has  requested  a  thorough  and  comprehensive  spending 
review2; and  

the  Council  has  consistently  underlined  the  necessity  to  focus  on  budgetary 
performance, results and EU added value.  

In  a  study  on  Budgeting  and  Performance  in  the  European  Union,  the  Organisation  for 
Economic Cooperation and Development also suggested a spending review as a further aid to 
budget  responsiveness  and  flexibility,  and  as  a  means  of  assessing  critically  the  baseline  of 
public expenditures in light of performance and evaluative findings3. 

Section  2  of  this  document  provides  a  concise  explanation  of  the  process  and  guiding 
principles of the spending review. Section 3 presents the outcome of the review per theme as 
relevant in terms of the envisaged modernisation of the future EU long-term budget. 

The  final  section  presents  the  lessons  learned  from  the  implementation  of  the  2014-2020 
spending  programmes.  For  each  of  the  headings  of  the  current  long-term  budget,  it 
summarises the objectives of the programmes, the key achievements and the lessons learned. 
In line with the Commission’s better regulation framework, more detailed analysis informing 
the  future  design  of the  individual programmes  will  be  presented  in  the  impact  assessments 
accompanying the sectoral proposals. 

Analysis  of  the  functioning  of  the  own  resources  system  is  contained  in  a  separate  Staff 
Working Document accompanying the Commission’s proposals on own resources. 

1 European Court of Auditors Briefing papers:  “EU budget: time to reform?  A briefing paper on the mid-term 
review of the Multiannual Financial Framework 2014-2020”, 11/2016 and “Future of EU Finances: reforming 
how the EU budget operates”, 2/2018. 
2 European Parliament resolution on the next Multiannual Financial Framework: “Preparing Parliament’s 
position on the Multiannual Financial Framework post-2020” (2017/2052(INI)).  
3 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Journal on Budgeting, Vol 2017/1, “Budgeting and 
performance in the European Union: A review by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 
in the context of EU budget focused on results”.. 

3 

 
                                                 
2.  SPENDING REVIEW: PROCESS AND GUIDING PRINCIPLES  

Spending  reviews  are  used  as  an  instrument  to  identify  opportunities  to  improve  the 
performance  of  spending  programmes.  While  there  is  no  one-size-fits-all  methodology  for 
spending reviews, in practice spending reviews usually fall into one of two broad categories: 

i) 

ii) 

strategic reviews, which assess the objectives of policies and programmes as well as 
the  efficiency  of  spending,  with  the  aim  of  prioritising  programmes  on  the  basis  of 
policy objectives and / or performance; 

efficiency reviews, which seek to identify how an existing service or programme can 
be delivered with fewer resources. 

The  Commission  has  opted  for  a  broad  strategic  review  that  blends  detailed  bottom-up 
analysis  of  all  spending  programmes  with  top-down  guidance  from  senior  management  and 
the  political  level.  The  objectives  of  the  spending  review  were  to  identify  opportunities  to 
maximise the EU added value and efficiency of spending programmes, to simplify the budget 
and make it more flexible, and to streamline delivery mechanisms. 

In  order  to  conduct  the  spending  review  and  to  organise  work  within  the  Commission  to 
prepare the proposals for the post-2020 long-term budget, a process was set up in parallel to 
the  wide-ranging  consultations taking  place  with  key  stakeholders and Member  States.  This 
process has been steered at political level by the Vice-Presidents of the Commission together 
with  the  Commissioner  for  the  Budget.  Their  work  was  informed  by  technical  preparation 
provided  at  service  level  by  a  core  group  of  Directors-General  chaired  by  the  Secretary-
General  and  Director-General  for  Budget.  Together  with  the  systematic  review  of  all 
programmes  and  policy  clusters,  several  dedicated  working  groups  were  set  up  to  analyse 
cross-cutting issues with significant potential for synergies and streamlining. These included 
groups  focusing  on  simplification  and  flexibility;  the  performance  framework;  financial 
instruments; own resources; interdependence of programmes supporting internal and external 
policies; support to structural reforms; and mainstreaming. All relevant Commission services 
contributed to this review. 

The review took into account information available from multiple sources. These include the 
outcome  of  ex  post  evaluations  of 
interim 
reviews/evaluations  of  the  2014-2020  programmes.  Other  sources  included  relevant 
performance  information  such  as  thematic  analyses,  evaluations  performed  by  the  Member 
States for shared management programmes, and available monitoring data.  

the  2007-2013  programmes  and 

the 

The  spending  review  also  considered  the  audit  findings  contained  in  reports  and  other 
publications  from  the  European  Court  of  Auditors.  It  assessed  in  particular  performance-
related information arising from recent Special Reports, Annual Reports and briefing papers 
covering the various domains of the EU budget.  

The results of the Spending Review have also served as a key input to the impact assessment 
process  for  the  sectoral  proposals,  which  have  also  benefited  from  input  from  public 
consultations. The public interest in the recent public consultations on six of the policy areas 
to  be  covered  by  the  new  long-term  budget  was  high.  The  Commission  received  11  230 
replies in total. In addition, open public consultations in other areas, such as agricultural and 
external policy, were carried out recently and served as input to the spending review.   

4 

 
The assessment of the  EU budget  has  been guided  by six  main cross-cutting objectives and 
principles:  

(i) European added value 

By pooling resources at European level, Member States can achieve more than they could by 
acting  alone.  The  EU  budget  complements  national  budgets  and  a  wide  array  of  legislative 
and  regulatory  instruments  to  support  shared  objectives,  to  help  tackle  common  challenges 
and  to  implement  European  policies.  This  is  the  value  added  of  the  EU  budget  –  achieving 
more  together  than  could  be  achieved  separately  through  national  public  expenditure. 
European  action  is  taken  when  it  is  more  effective  and  efficient  than  national,  regional  or 
local action. 

The  Commission’s  Reflection  Paper  on  the  Future  of  EU  Finances4  clearly  identified 
European added value as a guiding principle for the future EU budget.  

Creating  European  added  value  is  about  achieving  the  objectives  set  out  in  the  Treaty  and 
helping to uphold fundamental values, rights and freedoms. It entails taking European action 
when it is more effective and powerful than national, regional or local action; by allowing the 
realization of projects which are only possible by acting together, by providing public goods 
of European dimension, by achieving better value for money through acting on the European 
level or by catalysing or complementing national or local initiatives. 

European  added  value  is  also  one  of  the  building  blocks  of  the  Commission’s  Better 
Regulation  framework.  The  assessment  of  EU  added  value,  following  the  criteria  set  out  in 
the Reflection Paper, is therefore an integral part of the impact assessment process for future 
financial programmes. 

(ii) Streamlining and synergies 

The spending review has analysed possible overlaps and complementarities between  current 
programmes, the number of which has grown over time in response to emerging priorities. It 
has  assessed  in  each  case  whether  a  spending  programme  should  continue  as  an  individual, 
stand-alone  programme  or  whether  a  merger  of  existing  EU  programmes,  if  legally  and 
practically  feasible,  would  allow  for  greater  economies  of  scale,  savings  in  implementation 
costs,  and  ultimately  stronger  performance.  A  more  streamlined  architecture  of  spending 
programmes would improve the readability of the budget and create the conditions for more 
convincing communication on the results achieved. 

(iii) Simplification of rules  

The  recent  revision  of  the  Financial  Regulation  set  a  clear  framework  and  path  for  the 
spending  review.  Excessively  complex  rules  create  red  tape  for  potential  beneficiaries  of 
Union funding as well as for implementing authorities. This may discourage eligible parties 
from applying for Union funding, make management less efficient, and therefore lead to the 
underperformance  of  programmes.  A  complex  regulatory  framework  may  give  rise  to 
differing interpretations and thus errors in its implementation. Simpler rules can therefore also 
improve compliance. 

4 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/publications/reflection-paper-future-eu-finances_en. 

5 

 
                                                 
The Commission has assessed in detail each instrument to identify opportunities to simplify 
management  and  control  of  programmes  and  the  respective  governing  rules,  while 
maintaining the highest standards of sound financial management. This builds on the progress 
made in the current generation of programmes.  The review has also considered whether the 
same  or  similar  rules  regarding  information  and  communication,  simplified  cost  options, 
combination  of  forms  of  support,  cross-reliance  on  single  audit/assessment  could  be 
established,  leading  in  time  and  to  the  extent  possible  to  a  single  rule  book  for  funds 
implemented under direct, indirect and shared management.  

(iv) Flexibility 

Developing  a  long-term  EU  budget  requires  a  combination  of  predictability  in  financial 
programming  with  an  appropriate  level  of  budgetary  flexibility  to  cope  with  unforeseen 
circumstances.  In  recent  years,  the  flexibility  in  the  budget  has  been  pivotal  in  particular  in 
allowing the EU to react to unprecedented migration flows and terrorist attacks by reorienting 
funds,  making  additional  funds  available  from  the  EU  budget  and  by  mobilising  additional 
contributions from Member States and other donors. However, this flexibility has reached its 
limits  in  the  current  framework.  The  spending  review  has  therefore  considered  options  to 
improve flexibility in programmes or funds in order to be better able to respond to unforeseen 
circumstances  or  to  address  new  spending  priorities,  by,  for  example,  facilitating 
reprogramming,  creating  reserves  or  providing  the  possibility  to  transfer  funds  from  one 
delivery mode to another. 

(v) Focus on performance 

There are growing expectations from stakeholders (citizens, businesses or local and national 
authorities)  in  relation  to  what  the  EU  budget  can  actually  deliver  for  them.  The  European 
Parliament,  Council  and  the  European  Court  of  Auditors  have  in  recent  years  placed 
increasing emphasis on the performance of the EU budget in addition to the traditional focus 
on  sound  financial  management.  The  EU  budget  can  only  be  judged  a  success  if  it delivers 
results on the ground.  

The  spending  review  has  therefore  analysed  how  to  strengthen  the  focus  on  performance 
across  all  programmes,  by  setting  clearer  objectives  and  focusing  on  a  smaller  number  of 
higher  quality  indicators  of  performance.  This  should  allow  for  improved  measurement  and 
monitoring, allowing corrective action to be taken to maximise the results achieved with the 
budget. 

(vi) Coherence with political objectives and values 

One  of  the  key  features  of  the  EU  budget  is  the  cross-programme  integration  of  key  values 
and policy objectives. Beyond dedicated programmes to support a specific policy area, many 
of  the  financial  programmes  can  contribute  to  achieving  multiple  overarching  policy 
objectives.  

Through  appropriate  programming,  coherent  objective  setting,  eligibility  criteria, 
conditionalities  and  earmarking  of  expenditure  across  programmes,  different  areas  of 
expenditure can contribute to common objectives from different angles. One specific tool to 
achieve  these  cross-cutting  objectives  is  “mainstreaming”.  This  can  be  supported  by 
quantitative targets for expenditure throughout the budget in order to facilitate monitoring of 

6 

 
the overall financial contribution to a particular objective. For example, as part of the current 
long-term  budget,  a  target  of  20%  was  set  for  climate-related  expenditure.  The  spending 
review  looked  at  options  to  continue  this  approach  and  considered  the  possibility  to  use 
programme  design  and  additional  instruments  like  eligibility  criteria  to  reach  the  Union’s 
policy objectives. 

3.  OUTCOME OF THE SPENDING REVIEW  

3.1.  EU added value 

The  spending  review  has  demonstrated  that  many  of  the  current  generation  of  programmes 
score highly in terms of delivering EU added value. They respond to large-scale and/or cross-
border needs and challenges and have generated results that could not be achieved by Member 
States acting alone. Section 4 of this document contains numerous concrete examples of this, 
across all headings of the current budget. The spending review has also identified clear room 
for improvement, particularly in terms of the implementation of individual programmes. 

Examples of EU added value: 

 

Investments in cross-border energy, transport and digital infrastructures financed through 
the  Connecting  Europe  Facility  and  the  European  Fund  for  Strategic  Investments  have 
increased growth potential and helped remove barriers to trade, investment and mobility in 
the  single  market.  For  example  in  the  energy  sector,  the  Connecting  Europe  Facility  is 
contributing  to  strengthening  interconnectivity,  aiming  at  ending  energy  isolation  and 
completing  the  internal  energy  market;  in  transport  investments  related  to  cross-border 
transport infrastructure, developing a core transport network. 

  Large-scale  projects  supporting  Europe’s  economic  growth  and  innovation-driven 
competitiveness by reason of their scale and scope require the participation of all Member 
States. This is the case for projects such as the International Thermonuclear Experimental 
Reactor  and  the  programme  for  Earth  observation  and  monitoring,  Copernicus,  which 
represents  one  of  the  world’s  largest  data  providers  and  brings  considerable  EU  added 
value. The Galileo programme ensures a network of satellites delivering navigation, safety 
and  other  services,  which  would  be  too  expensive  and  technically  challenging  to  do  at 
national level. 

  Horizon  2020  has  funded  major  cross-border  research  projects,  such  as  the  Graphene 
Flagship, a future and emerging technology project, which is a good example of the strong 
EU added value of Horizon 2020. Recent breakthroughs resulting from this project are the 
first  fully  functional  microprocessor  made  from  graphene-like  material,  which  holds 
promise for integrating computational power into everyday objects and the development of 
graphene-based neural probes to examine brain activity in high resolution, which can help 
to improve understanding of diseases such as epilepsy.  

  Both  the  Marie  Skłodowska-Curie  Actions  and  the  European  Research  Council  have 
empowered thousands of highly skilled researchers to exploit their talent to the fullest to 
the benefit of both European economy and society. In 2017, two of the three new Nobel 
laureates  in  Chemistry  have  participated  in  Marie  Skłodowska-Curie  Actions  and  other 
EU-funded  research  projects,  while  a  Marie  Skłodowska-Curie  Actions-funded  project 

7 

 
contributed  to  the  detection  of  gravitational  waves  that  led  to  the  2017  Nobel  Prize  in 
Physics.  

  The  European  Social  Fund,  the  main  EU  fund  for  investing  in  people  helps  to  address 
Union-wide needs in the  area  of employment, education, social  inclusion.  The European 
Social  Fund  helps  people  stay  in  or  return  to  quality  employment  and  education  and 
training, and plays a key role for the social resilience of EU citizens, including the young. 
The European Social Fund then supports Member States’ reform efforts in areas of crucial 
importance  for  the  European  economy:  labour  market  policies,  youth  employment, 
modernisation  of  vocational  education  and  training,  welfare  system  and  administrative 
reforms.  

  Programmes  such  as  the  Erasmus+  programme  create  EU  added  value  by  supporting 
cross-border  mobility  of  learners  (higher  and  vocational  education  students,  and 
apprentices, 
the  competence 
development and employability of these individuals as well as with indirect effects on the 
mobility of labour within the single market (both in section 4.1.2). 

trainees,  young  people),  with  positive 

impacts  on 

  The Nuclear Decommissioning Assistance Programmes bring EU added value through the 
accumulation of knowledge on decommissioning which can then be used to support all EU 
Member States to develop their own plans and measures (both section 4.1.3). 

  The  Common  Agricultural  Policy  plays  a  key  role  in  ensuring  a  level  playing  field  for 
agricultural  producers,  safe  and  environmentally-friendly  farming  practices,  international 
food export competitiveness and sustainable rural development. In addition to the benefits 
the programme delivers to EU consumers and citizens, it is more efficient and thus better 
value  for  money  to  finance  such  a  large  sectoral  spending  programme  on  the  European 
level  than  if  Member  States  were  to  do  it  individually.  An  additional  benefit  of  steering 
agricultural spending from an EU level has  been the orchestration of significant reforms 
and  improvements  in  the  policy  over  various  budgetary  cycles.  However,  the  spending 
review also revealed a need for modernisation, better delivery systems and simplification 
in  many  areas,  such  as  greening  or  cross-compliance.  More  EU  added  value  could  be 
created if improvements could be realised in these areas. 

  The  integrated  EU  framework  on  food  safety  and  animal  and  plant  health  has  both 
promoted high  levels  of trade  under safe conditions and avoided the costs of large scale 
disease  outbreaks.  Previous  outbreaks,  notably  of  foot  and  mouth  disease  and  mad  cow 
disease, incurred costs amounting to several billions at both Member State and EU level.  

  The  European  added  value  of  cohesion  policy  lies  in  decreasing  disparities  in  economic 
and  social  development  between  regions  of  the  EU  through  strategic  investments  in  key 
infrastructure, research, innovation, education and skills and social inclusion. Besides the 
upwards convergence of regions,  these investments have substantial spill-over effects and 
corresponding  economic  stimulus  in  other  countries,  by  creating  opportunities  for 
businesses and individuals, thus increasing growth and prosperity across the entire Union. 
Moreover,  by  complementing  national  budgets,  support  by  the  EU  budget  has  a 
macroeconomic  stabilising  impact  on  national  economies.  Investment  through  EU  funds 
represents a very significant share of public investment in many countries and has played a 
key role during the recent economic downturn. The implementation of structural funds has 
provided  an  important  incentive  and  a  framework  for  the  strategic  coordination  of 

8 

 
different  levels  of  administration,  establishing  high  benchmarks  for  administrative 
capacity  and  sound  financial  management,  generating  economies  of  scale  and  scope  and 
promoting synergies via the creation of a coherent framework for investment throughout 
the EU. Finally, cohesion policy has facilitated the execution of cross border actions and 
investments  which  would  not  have  taken  place  –  or  at  a  different  rhythm  and  cost  – 
without the catalytic impact of the EU budget.  

  The European Fund for Strategic Investment leads to coordinated action between Member 
States and the EU to mobilise public and private investments to support future growth and 
prosperity. It has mobilised public and private investment through the provision of public 
guarantees  to  address  the  investment  gap  in  the  EU.  In  so  doing,  through  the  lending 
activity  of  the  European  Investment  Bank,  beneficial  financing  conditions  enabled 
investment across the EU in key infrastructure of EUR 274 billion at a fraction of the EU 
budgetary cost.  

  The single market, ensuring the free movement of goods, persons and services and driving 
the competitiveness of firms via economies of scale and scope, is the economic essence of 
EU  integration  and  itself  the  key  source  of  European  added  value.  EU  programmes 
promote the functioning of the single market for the benefit of companies and citizens, and 
perform  functions  that  are  more  efficient  or  provide  better  value  for  money  for  the 
European taxpayer. The EU programme for the Competitiveness of Enterprises and Small 
and  Medium-sized  Enterprises  supports  the  competitiveness  and  cross-border  activity  of 
Small  and  Medium  Enterprises  while  a  number  of  specific  programmes  such  as  Fiscalis 
and  Customs,  Consumer  and  health  programme  reinforce  cooperation  between  public 
administrations, consumer protection, harmonization of standards, and ensure the quality 
and safety of food and living goods across the internal market.  

  The  migration  crisis  has  highlighted  the  importance  of  concerted  European  action  to 
support the effective management of Europe’s external borders to ensure the functioning 
of  the  Schengen  Area  as  well  as  to  support  common  actions  in  the  area  of  asylum  and 
return.  All  Member  States  benefit  from  the  actions  taken  in  ‘front  line’  Member  States, 
protecting the external border. The Asylum and Migration Fund and the Border and Coast 
Guard are clear sources of EU added value for all.  

  Cross-border  and  international  security  threats  such  as  terrorism,  organised  crime  and 
cybercrime, call for a comprehensive reaction at European level, as set out in the European 
Agenda on Security. The Internal Security Fund and other EU programmes are part of the 
EU response to security challenges.  

  The EU budget has also amplified the joint EU response to a variety of global challenges, 
allowing  for  the  more  efficient  use  of  public  funding  to  promote  European  values 
throughout the world and to promote common objectives in areas such as climate change 
and international development. 

 

Integrating climate action across the EU budget, including the commitment to ensure that 
least  20%  of  the  spending  is  climate  related,  has  allowed  the  EU  to  efficiently  facilitate 
and  speed  up  the  transition  to  low  carbon  and  climate  resilient  economy,  supporting  the 
achievement  of  EU  climate  and  energy  objectives  and  the  implementation  of  the  Paris 
Agreement. 

9 

 
  European added value is also created through pursuing political objectives. While cultural 
differences  clearly  exist  between  Member  States,  communicating  and  reaffirming 
European  values  –  peace,  democracy,  international  cooperation  and  respect  for  human 
dignity  –  inside  the  EU  and  in  the  world,  especially  in  a  time  when  the  world  is 
reconsidering the basic tenets of progress and growth, is crucial for the future of Europe. 
This  is  most  effectively  done  at  the  European  level  through  the  Rights,  Equality  and 
Citizenship and the Justice programmes. 

In some instances, programmes were not functioning as expected. For example: 

  The Student Loan Guarantee Facility, a part of Erasmus+, is not living up to expectations. 
It has a very low uptake due to a lack of awareness of its existence and delays in its launch 
and  failed  to  attract  sufficient  financial  intermediaries.  The  mid-term  evaluation 
highlighted that initial estimates of the numbers of potential users overestimated the needs. 

  The  European  Aid  Volunteers  programme,  created  in  2014  after  a  pilot  in  the  last  long-
term budget, experienced several challenges in deploying volunteers outside Europe. The 
programme focused its small budget on capacity building for external organizations. With 
the  creation  of  the  European  Solidarity  Corps,  synergies  in  management,  scope  and 
objectives could be achieved. 

Conclusion 

The lesson for the future long-term budget is that there is a strong case to maintain or increase 
support in areas where the EU budget has provided convincing results, such as for example in 
mobilising  finance  for  cross-border  infrastructure  projects,  pan-European  research  projects 
and  supporting  mobility.  In  some  cases  this  would  imply  building  on  and  improving  the 
positive  results  of  existing  programmes,  such  as  the  Connecting  Europe  Facility,  Horizon 
2020 and Erasmus+.  In  other  areas there may be scope for  more targeted support  to unlock 
EU added value in areas such as the digital single market, security and defence. 

3.2.  Streamlining the budget and exploiting synergies between programmes 

The spending review has also shown that the increase in the number of spending programmes 
over  time  has  resulted  in  some  cases  in  fragmentation,  overlaps  and  an  inability  to  fully 
exploit the synergies between different funding sources.  

The need to streamline the budget has been a recurrent finding in many evaluations or studies 
as reflected in section 4 of this document. For example, evaluations identified areas in which 
the synergies among programmes under the current Heading 1a such as Horizon 2020 could 
be strengthened and complementarity improved with the European Structural and Investment 
Funds,  the  European  Fund  for  Strategic  Investments  and  Erasmus+.  Synergies  could  be 
exploited  between  direct  and  shared  management  programmes  by  better  articulating  their 
respective  comparative  advantages.  For  instance,  projects  not  funded  under  the  flagship 
research  programme  but  awarded  the  “seal  of  excellence”  through  Horizon  2020  could  – 
under  certain  conditions  –  access  funding  through  the  European  Structural  and  Investment 
Funds (cf. section 4.1.4). Similar findings relate to programmes  under other headings of the 
current framework. They show for instance that there is a fragmentation of rules and overlaps 
between EU funds investing in human capital development (cf. section 4.2.4).  Despite steps 
that  were  taken  to  improve  complementarity  and  avoid  overlaps  between  EU  funding 

10 

 
instruments,  obtaining  synergies  proved  problematic  in  several  other  areas  such  as  Asylum, 
Migration  and  Security  (cf.  section  4.4.4)  and  the  numerous  instruments  in  the  field  of 
external action (cf. section 4.5.4). 

The spending review highlighted the necessity to ensure that the EU funding support related 
to  migration  and  security  is  delivered  in  a  coherent,  coordinated  manner.    The  roles  of  the 
programmes  should  be  more  clearly  articulated:  targeted,  short-term  action  through  the 
Asylum,  Migration  and  Integration  Fund  and  the  Internal  Security  Fund  and  longer-term 
support  under  the structural  funds. Consideration  should  be  given  to  limiting  the  amount  of 
funding allocated upfront to the national programmes while retaining an initially unallocated 
funding envelope (“thematic facility”) to finance new priorities or urgent actions.   

the  spending  review  some  small  programmes 

During 
lacking  flexibility  and  with 
disproportionate  costs in terms of  management and control burden were  also  identified. For 
example  it  was  found  that  there  were  clear  overlaps  between  the  two  current  anti-fraud 
programmes, the Anti-Fraud Information System and Hercule III preventing a more  flexible 
response to shifting political and investigative priorities. Similarly, in the field of protection 
and  promotion  of  European  rights,  values  and  cultural  diversity,  a  number  of  programmes 
address  similar  societal  challenges.  Better  coordination  would  allow  for  improved  focus  on 
areas of highest EU added value through more streamlined operation. 

Currently different programmes include the possibility to deploy financial instruments such as 
Horizon  2020,  the  Competitiveness  of  Enterprises  and  Small  and  Medium-sized  Enterprises 
Programme, the Employment and Social Innovation Programme, and the European Fund for 
Strategic Investments. However, each programme applies a different set of rules to the use of 
financial  instruments  and  aims  at  different  target  groups.  The  European  Court  of  Auditors 
noted in its 2016 Annual Report that the number of financial instruments benefiting from EU 
budgetary support has been increasing and that careful management is necessary to ensure the 
effective and efficient use of available funds. 

Furthermore, in order to increase effectiveness and efficiency, several aspects of the delivery 
mechanisms of the programmes were assessed in the spending review. General conclusions, 
further detailed in section 4, were drawn in relation to:  

  grants, the use of simplified cost options such as lump sums, unit costs, and flat rates; 

 

the  extended  use  of  financial  instruments  for  actions  with  a  direct  scope  for  profit 
generation  in  view  of  their  broader  impact,  higher  leverage  potential  and  better 
incentives; 

  ensuring that levels of intervention are calibrated to the beneficiary groups; 

 

the continued role of Union executive agencies in programme implementation as they 
generate cost savings and ensure operational proximity to beneficiaries and economies 
of scale. 

The economic governance cycle and new EU level policy initiatives are not always optimally 
aligned  with  the  funding  frameworks.  Funding  could  be  more  closely  aligned  with  the 
European Semester to support reforms and increase the funds’ political leverage. 

11 

 
Finally, the review also highlighted the importance of avoiding delays in the implementation 
of spending programmes, as occurred at the beginning of the current financial framework. The 
delays  in  setting  up  the  national  structures  to  implement  the  European  Structural  and 
Investment  Funds  and  the  resulting  need  to  delay  commitments,  has  acted  as  a  brake  on 
performance,  with  results  taking  longer  to  feed  through.  It  will  therefore  be  important  to 
ensure  that  the  political  process  as  well  as  legal,  financial  and  operational  preparation  is 
completed  well  in  advance  of  the  launch  of  the  next  Multiannual  Financial  Framework. 
Continuity  in  the  existing  structures  for  implementing  the  budget  at  national  or  local  level 
would help to smooth the transition between the two programming periods.   

Conclusion 

There  is  clear  scope  for  reducing  the  number  of  programmes  in  order  to  create  a  more 
coherent, focused and transparent long-term budget architecture. This conclusion is consistent 
with  the  European  Court  of  Auditors’  call  to  make  EU  spending  more  manageable  by 
reducing  the  number  of  spending  programmes  and  financial  instruments,  and  simplifying 
rules.  The  case  appears  particularly  strong  in  relation  to  external  instruments  and  financial 
instruments  and  budgetary  guarantees  where  the  potential  for  inefficient  duplication  and 
divergence  in  rules  is  high.  In  other  areas,  such  as  support  for  the  single  market  and  EU 
values,  the  large  number  of  small  programmes  limits  their  impact  and  is  a  barrier  to  their 
effectiveness and efficiency. 

3.3.  Simplification & sound financial management 

Over the years, the Commission has been successful in improving its financial management. 
This  is  evidenced  by  declining  levels  of  error  as  reported  by  the  Commission  and  the 
European  Court  of  Auditors.  These  annual  estimates  went  from  double  digit  rates  for  some 
policy  areas  (particularly  cohesion)  before  2009  to  considerably  lower  levels  at  present  – 
below 5 % in most policy areas and close to or even below 2 % in some other areas. 

Despite  these  improvements,  the  spending  review  confirmed  that  there  is  both  scope  and  a 
pressing need to reduce further the administrative burden for beneficiaries and implementing 
bodies.  In  line  with  the  recent  revision  of  the  Financial  Regulation,  inconsistencies  in 
programme-specific  rules  –  such  as  those  relating  to  eligibility  conditions,  reporting, 
monitoring and control, deadlines, audit arrangements – need to be further eliminated. 

This  is  a  cross-cutting  issue  affecting  spending  programmes  across  all  current  budgetary 
headings,  as  shown  in  the  lessons  learned  section  of  this  document.  For  example,  the 
complexity  of  the  legal  framework  and  the  number  of  new  requirements  introduced  for  the 
2014-2020 cohesion programmes disrupted implementation at the start of the current period 
and  created  the  conditions  for  increased  gold-plating  at  national  level.  The  corresponding 
administrative  burden  for  beneficiaries  and  implementing  bodies  related  to  the  funds’ 
programming,  management,  reporting  and  audit  system  slowed  down  the  efficient  and 
effective use of the funds.  

Another result of complexity of rules is that this potentially leads to more errors and increases 
the  risks  of  non-compliance  as  well  as  the  cost  of  control.  Simplifying  programme  design 
should lead to leaner controls finding the right balance between increased compliance, faster 
implementation and lower control costs. 

12 

 
In  shared  management,  sound  financial  management  is  also  dependent  on  the  smooth 
functioning of public administrations, good cooperation and governance between the different 
levels  of  government  (EU,  national,  regional,  local),  a  good  system  of  controls,  the 
effectiveness of the judiciary, and the intensity of the fight against corruption and fraud. The 
existing  system  of  conditionalities  could  be  extended  to  address  more  explicitly  the  link 
between respect for the rule of law and sound financial management. 

The review has also shown that further administrative simplification could  allow the current 
rules  on  decommitment  to  be  tightened,  thereby  promoting  more  sound  budgetary 
management and helping to avoid the current delays under cohesion policy.  

The  benefits  of  simplification  are  illustrated  by  the  mid-term  evaluation  of  Horizon  2020 
which concluded that the measures of simplification introduced in Horizon 2020 (such as the 
single reimbursement rate, the flat rate for indirect costs, or the Participant Portal) decreased 
participation  costs  and  reduced  the  time-to-grant,  which  is  now  192  days  on  average,  a 
decrease of more than 100 days compared to the predecessor 7th Framework Programme. 

The  need  for  improvement  is  also  underpinned  by  many  internal  and  external  evaluations, 
studies or performance audits. Section  4 of this report contains a series of references to, for 
example, Special Reports issued by the European Court of Auditors, or a report of the High 
Level Group on Simplification for the European Structural and Investment Funds. 

Conclusion 

Based  upon  the  lessons  learnt  from  the  2014-2020  period  and  the  preparatory  work  of  a 
specific working group on simplification, there is a strong case for moving towards a single 
rule book providing simpler and more coherent rules for recipients of EU funds. This should 
translate  in  a  reduction  of  the  burden  for  beneficiaries,  encourage  participation  in  EU 
programmes and accelerate their implementation. In addition, it can be expected that it would 
have a positive impact on the cost for beneficiaries of complying with rules and on cases of 
non-compliance.   

3.4.  Flexibility and the ability to respond to crises 

The Commission has analysed the many in-built mechanisms for flexibility crisis response in 
the  EU  budget,  covering  the  different  aspects  of  crisis  and  emergency  management  from 
prevention and preparedness to responsive action. 

During  this  period,  the  existing  flexibility  mechanisms  were  used  extensively  to  respond  to 
large-scale crises. This allowed for example the funding devoted to security and migration to 
be doubled to support the new European Border and Coast Guard and to help Member States 
receiving a significant inflow of refugees. The EU Emergency Trust Fund for Africa helped to 
address  the  root  causes  of  irregular  migration  and  displaced  persons.  The  European 
Globalisation Adjustment  Fund helped workers reintegrate  into the labour  market after they 
have  been  made  redundant,  such  as  former  coal  miners  in  Spain,  former  Nokia  workers  in 
Finland or Alitalia workers in Italy. The Turkey Refugee Facility, jointly financed by the EU 
and Member states, helped to manage the refugee crisis caused by the Syrian conflict. 

However,  available  funds  appeared  to  be  insufficient  requiring  redeployments  of  funds  or 
mobilisation of special instruments over and above the long-term budget ceilings. Already in 

13 

 
the mid-term review and revision process, the Regulation governing the current Multiannual 
Financial  Framework  was  amended  to  further  increase  the  capacity  of  the  Flexibility 
Instrument and the Emergency Aid Reserve. In addition, the procedures for mobilising funds 
that lie outside the Multiannual Financial Framework are very lengthy and complex.  For the 
next  period  there  is  a  need  to  strengthen  the  flexibility  to  be  able  to  deal  with  unforeseen 
circumstances.   

Conclusion 

The analysis concluded that overall for the next long-term budget the in-built mechanisms for 
crisis  response  of  the  EU  budget  need  to  be  improved  to  ensure  appropriate  coverage, 
flexibility, and prompt mobilisation of resources. 

The analysis shows that many of the flexibility mechanisms in the current framework should 
be  retained  and  in  some  cases  expanded  or  simplified  in  order  to  create  a  more  agile 
framework. There may be other opportunities to create flexibility by creating a Union reserve, 
established through “decommitted” funds (funds that have been committed to the EU budget 
but  which  are  ultimately  not  spent  in  the  implementation  of  EU  programmes  and  are 
cancelled), for unforeseen events and increased flexibility within and between programmes. 

The  rules  governing  the  mobilisation  of  some  of  the  instruments  are  too  burdensome  and 
could be simplified.  As regards the Common Agricultural Policy, it should be considered to 
include support for risk management tools and a new crisis reserve. The flexibility introduced 
for 2014-2020 in the Union external action instruments should be further enhanced and allow 
for  easier  reallocation  of  resources,  that  can  be  mobilised  for  emerging  needs.  Increased 
financial  flexibility  and  more  efficient  delivery  mechanisms  would  be  useful  for  the  EU 
intervention to be even more effective in the short and medium term to adapt to possible new 
political  and  economic  changes  arising  in  the  EU  neighbourhood,  Africa  and  other  regions. 
Non-programmed reserves or flexibility cushions are needed in order to deal with unforeseen 
circumstances and developments, notably related to migration. 

Possible  improvements  in  the  current  crisis  response  mechanisms  were  also  identified.  For 
example,  it  appeared  to  be  a  disadvantage  of  the  current  Emergency  Aid  Reserve  that  it 
cannot serve crises within the Union. Also, the need to create Trust Funds and facilities in the 
field  of  external  policy  showed  that  more  flexibility  is  needed  and  that  there  is  a  case  for 
leaving a larger proportion of funds unprogrammed to allow more flexibility.  

3.5.  Focus on performance 

The analysis of the performance frameworks built into the current generation of programmes 
shows  that,  compared  with  the  previous  programming  period,  significant  progress  has  been 
made. This has enabled the Commission to gradually improve its reporting on performance in 
programme statements, the Annual Management and Performance Reports and other sectoral 
reports  and  evaluations.  This  progress  has  been  recognised  by  stakeholders  including  the 
Court  of  Auditors  in  its  annual  reports  and  the  budgetary  authority  in  the  context  of  the 
discharge procedure. It is noteworthy that in a recent Organisation for Economic Co-operation 

14 

 
and  Development  review5,  the  EU  performance  framework  scored  higher  than  any  member 
country  on  the  standard  index  of  performance  budgeting  frameworks.  The  focus  on 
performance  was  reinforced  without  compromising  compliance  and  regularity  of  the 
expenditures.  

This spending review underlined, however, that the focus on performance needs to be further 
improved. Many suggestions have been made by the European Court of Auditors in a series of 
performance  audits  and  its  annual  reports,  as  referenced  in  Section  4  of  this  report.  The 
European  Court  of  Auditors  recommended,  inter  alia,  to  further  reinforce  the  intervention 
logic  of  programmes,  to  improve  the  assessment  of  needs  and  priorities  to  be  financed,  the 
targeting  of measures,  and  called  for  setting realistic  objectives  and  targets,  defining  proper 
indicators (or streamlining / reducing their number where appropriate) and strengthening the 
monitoring and evaluation provisions.  

These conclusions corroborate similar findings and recommendations made by evaluations of 
the  current  spending  programmes.  There  are  currently  too  many  objectives  and  indicators 
(more than 700) in spending programmes of highly variable quality. This creates a burden on 
reporting  authorities  and  does  not  allow  for  fully  effective  performance  measurement, 
management or reporting.  

Conclusion 

The performance framework for the future programmes should be significantly strengthened 
and  streamlined.  In  particular,  the  number  of  indicators  embedded  in  spending  programmes 
should be drastically reduced and their quality improved to  ensure consistency (relevance at 
programme  and  policy  level)  and  a  balanced  composition  of  output,  results  and  impact 
indicators  to  be  able  to  provide  meaningful  information  primarily  for  communication  and 
reporting  purposes  all  along  the  programme  execution.  Relevant  programme-specific  and 
contextual indicators need to underpin monitoring and evaluation of programmes in order to 
provide  information  on  the  results  of  each  programme  within  the  context  of  its intervention 
logic, and its contribution to the wider policy area. More meaningful performance information 
should  allow  programme  managers  to  take  better  decisions  on  programme  implementation 
and on the design of future programmes. 

3.6.  Coherence with main political objectives and values 

The  results  of  the  spending  review  indicate  that  ensuring  coherence  with  political  priorities 
and key values in the current long-term budget has been broadly successful. Programmes have 
successfully  supported  the  achievement  of  the  political  priorities  defined  at  the  time  of  the 
agreement on the current framework, and the flexibility in the budget has allowed adjustments 
to be made to realign spending with new and emerging priorities where necessary. 

In  addition  to  the  specific  objectives  of  individual  programmes,  horizontal  mainstreaming 
across  the  entire  EU  budget  was  performed  for  climate  change  and  biodiversity  while  other 
policy themes such as in particular gender equality,  sustainable development, and small and 
medium-sized enterprises were monitored on sectoral or programme level. 

5 Budgeting and performance in the EU: a review by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and 
Development  in the context of the EU Budget 

15 

 
                                                 
Most  EU  spending  for  climate  action  and  environment  is  currently  delivered  through  the 
integration (or ‘mainstreaming’) of these priorities into the main EU funds, in particular  the 
European Structural and Investment Funds, the Common Agricultural Policy, Horizon 2020, 
the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and, for the international dimension, through the 
external  funds.  The  analysis  of  climate  and  environment  mainstreaming  suggests  that  this 
approach  has  successfully  stimulated  sectoral  funds  to  take  these  objectives  into  account  in 
programme design and implementation. However, it was acknowledged that this could not be 
achieved fully through the current main EU spending programmes alone, therefore a specific 
programme  (LIFE)  exists  to  fill  gaps  and  to  catalyse  key  projects  for  developing  and 
exchanging best practices and knowledge.  

Gender  equality  has  been  pursued  in  programmes  on  employment  and  social  issues  and 
external  programmes.  Valuable  support  was  also  provided  by  the  Rights,  Equality  and 
Citizenship  Programme  to  the  European  network  of  experts  on  gender  equality,  which 
develops evidence for policy design and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. 

Conclusion 

On  the  basis  of  these  experiences,  the  possibility  to  mainstream  a  limited  number  of  policy 
priorities  in  the  future  programmes  has  been  analysed.  However,  mainstreaming  should 
neither  jeopardise  the  achievement  of  other  essential  policy  objectives  nor  the  greater 
flexibility in the post-2020 financial instruments. Such considerations lead to the conclusion 
that  the  current  approach  to  mainstreaming  should  be  maintained  for  climate  related  action. 
Other important policy priorities should be pursued through programme design with specific 
programme objectives, programme targets, eligibility criteria or appropriate conditionalities.  

Overall,  more  than  mainstreaming  or  earmarking  of  funds,  the  coherence  of  policies  has 
emerged  as  the  most  important  element  to  support  efficiently  the  policy  objectives.  This 
points to the importance of a coherent overall design for the future financial framework, and 
of ensuring that individual programmes are complementary and that implementing rules allow 
them to interact efficiently to deliver common objectives. 

4.  LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE 2014-2020 PROGRAMMES  

4.1.  Heading 1A - Competitiveness for growth and jobs 

4.1.1. 

Introduction 

The EU allocated around EUR 142.1 billion or 13% of the current EU budget for the period 
2014-20206  to  enhancing  competitiveness  for  growth  and  jobs.  Many  factors  affect 
competitiveness and the framework conditions to stimulate growth. EU actions in support of 
competitiveness are carried out in 14 different programmes covering 5 major themes (research 
and 
infrastructure,  mobility  and 
interoperability).  

innovation,  development  of  enterprises,  strategic 

Research  and  innovation  programmes  aim  at  turning  the  EU  into  a  knowledge-based 
economy  where  competitiveness  is  enhanced  via  new  solutions  to  problems  and  the 

6 Factsheet EU Budget: Where Does the Money Go?, 14 February 2018, 
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/where-does-the-money-go_en.pdf  

16 

 
                                                 
emergence  of  innovative  companies.  These  are  Horizon  2020,  the  Euratom  Research 
programme, and the Employment and Social Innovation Programme.  

Support  for  the  operations  and  growth  ambitions  of  small  and  medium-sized  enterprises  is 
provided through EU programmes aimed at the development of small businesses in Europe. 
These  are  the  European  Fund  for  Strategic  Investments  and  the  Competitiveness  of 
Enterprises and Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises Programme. 

The  competitiveness  of  Europe  also  requires  investments  in  strategic  infrastructure  in  the 
fields  of  energy,  transport  and  telecommunications.  This  is  done  through  a  number  of 
programmes: 
the  Connecting  Europe  Facility,  Nuclear  Decommissioning  Assistance 
Programmes,  the  International  Thermonuclear  Experimental  Reactor  as  well  as  space  assets 
programmes (Copernicus, Galileo and European Geostationary Navigation Overlay Service). 

The mobility and training of students, researchers, apprentices, teachers, trainees, volunteers 
and workers across European countries aims at improving knowledge of other EU countries 
and stronger feelings of belonging to the Union, enabling conditions for engaging citizens and 
workers  towards  European  competitiveness.  For  example,  the  internationally  renowned 
Erasmus+ programme and the newly created European Solidarity Corps support cross border 
mobility  and  target  in  particular  youth  education  and  training  while  the  Employment  and 
Social Innovation Programme also supports the cross-border mobility of workers.  

Finally,  competitiveness  is  also  promoted  through  the  continuous  improvement  of  services 
and  interactions  with  the  public  administrations  across  the  EU,  hence  the  need  to  develop 
common  frameworks  and  interoperability  solutions  for  public  administrations.  Customs 
2020  and  the  second  Interoperability  Solutions  for  European  Public  Administrations 
Programme serve this purpose in the areas of customs and digital public services. 

4.1.2.  Objectives of the Programmes 

Research and innovation programmes are aimed at supporting the creation of new knowledge, 
creating  and  ultimately  bringing  to  the  market  new/improved  technologies,  products  and 
processes,  thereby  boosting  innovation  and  tackling  societal  challenges  and  creating  growth 
and jobs.  

Horizon 2020 is the largest programme in the competitiveness heading with a share of 56.6% 
and  it  aims  at  strengthening  the  EU’s  science  base,  at  boosting  industrial  leadership  and 
innovation  capability  in  the  private  sector,  and  at  fostering  the  contribution  of  research  and 
innovation  to  tackling  societal  challenges  (such  as  food  security  or  climate  action)  and 
supporting  EU  policy  priorities,  as  reinforced  by  the  Sustainable  Development  Goals 
framework.  

The  recent  mid-term  evaluation  of  Horizon  2020  (2017)7  provided  indications  that  Horizon 
2020  is  producing  important  additional  benefits  compared  to  national  and  regional-level 
support  mechanisms  for  research  and  innovation  in  terms  of  scale,  speed  and  scope  and  is 
improving  the  competitive  advantage  of  participants  while,  overall,  it  increases  the  EU’s 

7 SWD(2017)221, and extended version: 
https://ec.europa.eu/research/evaluations/pdf/book_interim_evaluation_horizon_2020.pdf#view=fit&pagemode=
noe  

17 

 
                                                 
global attractiveness as a place to carry out research and innovation. Horizon 2020 creates an 
EU wide competition in research and innovation, operating transnational competitive calls for 
proposals,  keeping  in,  developing  and  attracting  research  talents  to  Europe  as  well  as 
identifying the most promising collaborative research and innovation projects. 

The Euratom research programme funds research and training in the field of nuclear energy 
with  a  budget  of  EUR  1.6  billion  for  the  period  2014-2018.  All  Member  States  face 
challenges  in  areas  such  as  nuclear  safety,  security  and  safeguards,  radioactive  waste 
management, radiation protection and fusion energy and the Euratom programme ensures that 
public financing is used in an optimal manner by avoiding unnecessary duplication.  

The Employment and Social Innovation Programme is an umbrella programme which in 
the  current  2014-2020  programming  period  merged  three  different  programmes.  With  a 
budget  of  almost  EUR  1  billion,  it  supports  the  testing  and  introduction  of  social  policy 
innovations, access to finance for vulnerable people, micro-enterprises and social enterprises 
and the geographical mobility of workers in the EU.  

In  order  to  ensure  growth  and  jobs,  businesses  also  need  opportunities  to  develop  through 
access to finance and appropriate support to undertake riskier projects. 

To do this, the European Fund for Strategic Investments was set up in 2014 and became 
operational  shortly  after  with  the  aim  of  mobilising  investments  and  increasing  access  to 
financing  for  SMEs  and  mid-cap  companies  by  supplying  a  risk-bearing  capacity  to  the 
European Investment Bank. The fund operates to increase the volume of higher risk projects 
in  Europe  and  as  a  result  helps  address  the  market  failures  and  sub-optimal  investment 
situations which hinder investment8. 

The  Competitiveness  of  Enterprises  and  Small  and  Medium-sized  Enterprises 
Programme is a diverse programme, encompassing numerous actions for the support of small 
and  medium-sized  enterprises  delivered  via  grants  and  financial  instruments.  Its  financial 
envelope  for  the  period  2014-2020  is  EUR  2.3  billion.  Preliminary  evidence  from  the 
forthcoming evaluation points towards  the programme allowing economies of scale in areas 
such as support to small and medium-sized enterprises abroad or to intellectual property rights 
enforcement by the bundling of national efforts and by establishing services that would lack 
critical  mass  if  provided  at  national  level.  Preliminary  findings  of  the  evaluation  further 
indicate  that  the  programme  brings  EU  added  value  through  for  example  the  Enterprise 
Europe  Network  that  is  a  network  of  business  service  centres  providing  advice,  partnership 
services  and  support  in  particular  for  small  and  medium-sized  enterprises  seeking  to  export 
outside their own country within the EU Single Market as well as outside Europe. Such EU 
level action complements but also helps enhance national, regional and local efforts.  

Also,  the  Employment  and  Social  Innovation  Programme  supports  access  to  finance  for 
vulnerable people, micro-enterprises and social enterprises.  

Moreover,  the  development  of  strategic  infrastructure  across  the  EU  ensures  enhanced 
competitiveness  through  the  achieved  economies  of  scale  and  improved  coordination  and 
greater cohesion through increased connectivity.  

8 SWD(2016)297, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=SWD:2016:297:FIN  

18 

 
                                                 
For  the  first  time,  transport,  energy  and  the  digital  sector  were  brought  together  under  the 
Connecting Europe Facility, which is the key tool under the current Multiannual Financial 
Framework for funding the development of trans-European networks. With a budget of over 
EUR 30 billion, the programme focuses on EU integration projects aiming at funding cross-
border  sections  and  eliminating  bottlenecks  in  transport,  ending  energy  isolation  and 
increasing  security  of  supply  in  energy  and  by  providing  EU  wide  solutions  in  the  digital 
services infrastructures that can benefit all Europeans.  

Among financed infrastructures, large infrastructure projects relating to nuclear power (both 
as regards research and concerning decommissioning) represent unique opportunities to build 
up knowledge that can ensure increased safety for citizens and the environment across the EU. 

The  International  Thermonuclear  Experimental  Reactor,  while  not  a  programme  in  the 
usual sense, is a unique long-term project agreed internationally, that could not be achieved 
solely through industry initiatives at this stage of development of the technologies involved. 
Currently  one  of  the  largest  international  research  projects  under  construction  in  the  world, 
the  experimental  reactor  is  intended  to  prove  the  viability  of  fusion  as  a  sustainable  energy 
source. No single country has the capacity to develop a project of this size.9  

The Nuclear Decommissioning Assistance Programmes have been put in place to provide 
financial  support  to  Bulgaria,  Slovakia  and  Lithuania  following  their  commitment  to  shut 
down and decommission three nuclear power plants before the end of their lifetime because of 
safety  concerns.  Given  that  the  main  issue  in  this  case  relates  to  the  safety  of  workers,  the 
environment  and  ultimately  EU  citizens,  reaching  the  decommissioning  end  state  is  very 
important but technically complex and costly.  

EU economy and society are increasingly dependent on satellite navigation applications and 
services, with a potential disruption likely to be very costly in terms of revenues to business, 
and more importantly, in terms of human safety10.  

Copernicus  is  the  EU’s  programme  for  Earth  observation  and  monitoring  and  as  such 
represents  one  of  the  world’s  largest  data  providers  that  brings  considerable  added  value, 
especially when compared with what could be achieved at national level. Based on a system 
of  satellites  and  sensors  (ground  stations,  airborne  sensors,  sea-borne  sensors),  Copernicus 
provides  reliable  and  up-to-date information  through  services  addressing six  thematic  areas: 
land,  marine,  atmosphere,  climate  change,  emergency  management  and  security.  This 
information supports various applications from environment protection to regional and local 
planning, agriculture, sustainable development and border surveillance. 

Galileo and the European Geostationary Navigation Overlay Service are the EU’s satellite 
navigation programmes. Together, these programmes provide positioning and timing signals 
used  in  critical  economy  areas  such  as  mobile  phone  networks,  in-car  navigation  and 
increased precision for landing aircrafts.  

A  competitive  EU  market  requires  an  educated  workforce  with  the  right  skills  and 
competences. A number of programmes support this goal through mobility schemes.  

9 SWD(2017)323, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52017SC0232  
10 SWD(2017)346, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52017SC0346  

19 

 
                                                 
Erasmus+  is  a  well-established  Union  programme  supporting  actions  in  the  fields  of 
education  and  training,  youth  and  sport  with  a  budget  of  EUR  16.45  billion  for  the  period 
2014-2020.  Besides  this  envelope  and  in  order  to  promote  the  international  dimension  of 
higher education, additional funding is provided by the different external instruments. Thirty 
years  after  its  beginning  in  the  field  of  higher  education,  Erasmus+  has  expanded  to  other 
sectors such as schools, vocational education and training, adult learning, youth and sport and 
has become a flagship programme of the EU with undisputed European added value, notably 
linked  to  the  building  of  a  European  identity.  Other  schemes  funding  comparable  action  at 
national  level  remain  significantly  smaller  both  in  volume  and  scope.  It  is  consistently 
identified by citizens as one of the three most positive results of European integration11. 

Also the Employment and Social  Innovation  Programme helps the geographical  mobility of 
workers  in  the  EU  through  support  services,  including  a  mobility  portal,  and  calls  for 
proposals funding targeted mobility schemes and cross-border mobility. 

The European Solidarity Corps started operating in 2017 and has so far allowed  almost 4 
000  young  people  from  all  Member  States  to  start  their  placements  with  nearly  2  000 
organisations. The programme’s target is to enable 100 000 placements by 2020. 

Finally,  ensuring  greater  cooperation  between  Member  States  at  the  level  of  public 
administrations is essential for a competitive EU market given today’s global challenges like 
globalisation or e-commerce.  

Customs 2020 aims to improve the functioning and modernisation of the customs union by 
providing the framework, mechanisms and budget for enhanced cooperation between national 
customs administrations. Deeper operational integration is essential and avoids  less efficient 
bilateral  and  bilateral/multilateral  approaches  that  Member  States  would  otherwise  have  to 
use.  

The  Interoperability  Solutions  for  European  Public  Administrations  Programme 
supports  the  development  of  digital  solutions  that  enable  public  administrations,  businesses 
and  citizens  in  Europe  to  benefit  from  interoperable  cross-border  and  cross-sector  public 
services12.  The  programme  supports  over  40  actions  focused  on  the  development  of  tools, 
services  and  frameworks  in  the  area  of  e-Government.  Most  solutions  and  services  are 
available free of charge to any interested public administration in Europe13. 

4.1.3.  Key achievements 

Evidence  gathered  to  date,  mainly  in  the context  of  the  mid-term  evaluations,  indicates that 
the programmes designed to support EU competitiveness are generally on track to deliver on 
their objectives. 

Horizon 2020 combines funding for innovation and research. The mid-term evaluation (2017) 
provided  indications  that  the  programme  is  on  track  to  deliver14  despite  acknowledging  the 

11 SWD (2018) 40, https://ec.europa.eu/assets/eac/erasmus-plus/eval/swd-e-plus-mte.pdf  
12 https://ec.europa.eu/isa2/isa2_en  
13 https://ec.europa.eu/isa2/actions_en  
14 Data show that in the first three years of programme implementation, participants from 131 different countries 
(including  87  third  countries)  received  funding  from  Horizon  2020.  Participants  in  EU-28  countries  received 

20 

 
                                                 
 
usual  long  time  lags  in  research  and  innovation  for  which  results  cannot  be  expected  yet  at 
mid-term stage. The programme’s EU added value and additionality is also very strong; 83% 
of projects would not have gone ahead without Horizon 2020 funding15. 

Horizon 2020 has succeeded in generating, and can legitimately be expected to continue to 
generate,  significant  scientific  advances  reflected  in  a  large  number  of  top  class  scientific 
publications  and  data  which  are  to  a  large  extent  openly  accessible  to  the  wider  scientific 
community and public.  

For  instance,  the  Graphene  Flagship  is  a  telling  example  of  the  strong  EU  added  value  of 
Horizon 2020. This is one of Europe’s biggest ever funded research initiatives with a duration 
of  10  years.  More  than  150  partners  in  over  20  European  countries  from  both  industry  and 
academia  are  jointly  developing  applications  in  areas  such  as  5G  mobile  technologies, 
batteries, aerospace, medical applications, and automotive. Recent breakthroughs are the first 
microprocessor  made  from  graphene-like  material,  which  has  great  potential  for  use  in 
everyday objects and for applications to examine brain activity in high resolution, which can 
help to better understand diseases such as epilepsy. 

The  mid-term  evaluation  of  Horizon  2020  also  concluded  that  the  simplification  measures 
introduced in Horizon 2020 (such as the single reimbursement rate, the flat rate for  indirect 
costs,  or  the  Participant  Portal)  have  decreased  participation  costs  and  reduced  the  time-to-
grant, which is now 192 days on average, a decrease of more than 100 days compared to the 
predecessor  7th  Framework  Programme.  Four  Executive  Agencies  are  responsible  for  the 
Horizon  2020  management  across  most  (55%)  of  the  programme16,  continuing  the  trend  of 
externalising  programme  implementation  that  began  under  the  predecessor  research 
programme. For specific parts of the programme, programme management  is carried out by 
different  types  of  partnerships,  with  the  private  sector  (Public-Private  Partnerships)  and  the 
public sector (Public-Public Partnerships).  

Compared  to  the  previous  programme,  greater  efforts  have  been  made  to  increase  the 
synergies between Horizon 2020 and other programmes, notably the European Structural and 
Investment  Funds  and  the  European  Fund  for  Strategic  Investments.  Examples  of  increased 
synergies  include  the  Seal  of  Excellence,  i.e.  the  award  of  a  European  high-quality  label  to 
proposals  rated  above  a  quality  threshold  but  not  funded  with  a  view  to  allow  them  to  find 
funding by alternative private or public funding sources. This award helps interested funding 
bodies  willing  to  invest  in  promising  proposals  (including  national  &  regional  authorities 
through European Structural & Investment Funds) to identify these projects more easily. The 
Seal  of  Excellence  however  could  further  benefit  from  increased  alignment  among  existing 
rules to increase funding opportunities for the projects concerned. 

approximately  93%  of  the  funding  for  their  higher  education  and  research  organisations  (roughly  70%),  and 
private  sector  (roughly  30%).  Approximately  75%  of  all  funding  so  far  went  to  instruments  supporting 
collaborative  activities,  bringing  many  organisations  across  countries  together.  The  remaining 25%  of  funding 
went to single beneficiaries to support excellent science through European Research Council grants, for instance, 
or research and innovation projects for SMEs. 
15 Study "Assessment of the Union Added Value and the Economic Impact of the EU Framework Programmes", 
PPMI, 2017 
16 Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises, European Research Council Executive Agency, 
Innovation and Networks Executive Agency; Research Executive Agency.  

21 

 
                                                                                                                                                         
The mid-term evaluation17 of the European Institute of Innovation and Technology concluded 
that the activities of the Knowledge and Innovation Communities are starting to bear fruit, in 
the  form  of  225  innovations  introduced  to  the  market  (over  the  period  2010-2015),  230 
innovative  businesses  created  and  new  start-ups,  and  820  individuals  graduated  from 
European  Institute  of  Innovation  and  Technology  Masters  and  PhD  programmes  with 
entrepreneurial  skills  (over  the  same  period).  The  European  Institute  of  Innovation  and 
Technology has been effective in establishing and building networks of partners and has built 
relationships with regional and national policy-makers. The evidence for the systemic impact 
of the European Institute of Innovation and Technology on job creation and economic growth 
is still limited18.  

The interim evaluation (2017)19 of the Euratom programme concluded that the programme is 
a key part of the European nuclear research landscape. 

The European Fund for Strategic Investments was set up in a very short period of time and 
quickly become operational. Initially, the fund was intended to mobilise EUR 315 billion of 
total investment in the real economy and the assessment carried out showed the fund to be on 
track20.  In  order  to  further  boost  investment  and  provide  stability  for  project  promoters,  the 
EU decided to extend the duration and size of fund with the new target being EUR 500 billion 
to be mobilised by 2020. The experience so far shows that the  European Fund for Strategic 
Investments  has  led  to  an  increase  in  the  volume  of  European  Investment  Bank  special 
activities and guarantees in support of small and medium-sized enterprises and mid-caps, in 
particular given the high profile of the initiative and related market expectations21. Figure 1 
below illustrates the progress to date. 

17 COM(2018) 50, http://ec.europa.eu/assets/eac/erasmus-plus/eval/swd-e-plus-mte.pdf  
18 SWD(2017) 352 final, p.31-32, https://ec.europa.eu/education/sites/education/files/swd-2017-351-eit-
evaluation_en.pdf 
19 SWD(2017) 426, 
https://ec.europa.eu/research/evaluations/pdf/archive/other_reports_studies_and_documents/swd_2017_426_inte
rim_evaluation_of_direct_actions_of_euratom_programme.pdf  
20 European Investment Bank evaluation, September 2016, 
http://www.eib.org/attachments/ev/ev_evaluation_efsi_en.pdf  
21 SWD(2016)297, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=SWD:2016:297:FIN 

22 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
European Fund for Strategic Investment per sector 

Smaller  Companies 
29% 

RDI 
22% 

Energy 
21% 

Digital 
11% 

Transport 
11% 

Social  Infrastructure 
4% 

Environment 
resource 
4% 

and 
efficiency 

Of 
EUR 38.3bn 
signed 

which 

EUR 53.2bn 
Approved  
EFSI financing 

EUR 264.3bn 
Total investment related to 
EFSI approvals 

Target by 2020 
EUR 500 bn 

Figure 1 –Investment by the European Fund for Strategic Investments as of February 
2018 (Source: EIB, http://www.eib.org/efsi/) 

Start-ups and small and medium-sized enterprises which find it hardest to access finance due 
to  their  perceived  higher  risk  or  lack  of  sufficient  collateral  could  count  on  the 
Competitiveness  of  Enterprises  and  Small  and  Medium-sized  Enterprises  Programme  to 
operate  easily  accessible  financing  schemes  with  the  support  of  the  European  Investment 
Fund. Preliminary results of the mid-term evaluation show that up to September 2017, more 
than  237 000  small  and  medium-sized  enterprises  in  25  countries  received  financing  worth 
more than EUR 10 billion to address their operating needs. Preliminary findings also point to 
a  high  leverage  effect  of  the  programme  turning  1  euro  of  the  EU  budget  into  30  euros  of 
financing for small and medium-sized enterprises. 

Infrastructure projects funded by the Connecting Europe Facility are still at an early stage of 
implementation  and  the  overall  objectives  of  the  programme  are  also  supported  by  other 
policy tools at EU and national level. Nevertheless, the mid-term evaluation22 provides some 
indications  of  the  achievements  of  the  programme.  In  transport,  86%  of  the  funds  currently 
allocated relate to cross-border transport infrastructure, mainly focused on the development of 
the  core  network  and  the  nine  corridors  that  need  to  be  completed  by  2030.  In  the  energy 
sector,  the  programme  is  contributing  to  strengthening  interconnectivity,  aiming  at  ending 
energy isolation and completing the internal energy market. The Connecting Europe Facility 
contributes  to  accelerating  the  realisation  of  cross-border  connections  and  interoperable 
services  that  may  not  have  been  financed  without  it23.  Moreover,  EU  level  action  ensures 
limitations in information and cooperation among Member States are overcome. 

22 SWD(2018)44, https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/legislation/swd-2018-0044-mid-term-
evaluation-cef-ia-part2.pdf 
23 SWD(2018)44, https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/legislation/swd-2018-0044-mid-term-
evaluation-cef-ia-part2.pdf  

23 

 
 
                                                 
The  construction  of  the  International  Thermonuclear  Experimental  Reactor  involves  the 
building  of  over  10  million  components  with  around  75%  of  its  investment  aimed  at  the 
creation of  new knowledge  and cutting-edge  materials  and technology. All  this represents a 
unique opportunity for European high-tech industries and small and medium-sized enterprises 
to  innovate  and  even  develop  spin  off  products  for  exploitation  outside  the  project  (e.g. 
nuclear magnetic resonance scanners). Between 2008 and 2016, over 800 contracts and grants 
have been awarded with a value of EUR 3.8 billion spread all over Europe24. 

One  of  the  ways  in  which  the  Nuclear  Decommissioning  Assistance  Programmes  bring  EU 
added value is through the building up of knowledge on decommissioning which can then be 
used  to  support  all  EU  Member  State  to  develop  their  own  plans  and  measures.  Figure  2 
below illustrates the relevance of such knowledge in the EU given the over 80 reactors that 
are shut down but not fully decommissioned that can greatly benefit from this knowledge.  

Status of nucelar power reactors in the EU as at 31 December 2015 

Shut down: 
91 reactors 
(of  which  3  completely 
decommissioned) 

Under  construction: 
4 reactors 

In operation: 
129 reactors 

Figure 2 – Nuclear reactors in the EU (Source: European Court of Auditors25) 

Copernicus is on track to deliver on its objectives although not all are being achieved to the 
same extent.26 The data provided is of good quality and reliability, which, together with  the 
adoption of the free data policy, is one of the programme’s strengths. As an example, during 
the refugee crisis in 2015 and 2016, Copernicus provided imagery to help monitor ports and 
beaches identified as departure points for migrant vessels.27 

Both  Galileo  and  the  European  Geostationary  Navigation  Overlay  Service  are  progressing 
well  in  delivering  on  their  objectives.  At  the  end  of  2016  more  than  230  airports  in  20 
countries  were  using  the  European  Geostationary  Navigation  Overlay  Service  landing 
approach procedures28. From 2018, all new car models sold in the European Union will rely 
on  the  European  Geostationary  Navigation  Overlay  Service  and  Galileo  to  calculate  the 
position of emergency calls in case of accidents.29   

24 COM(2017)319, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52017DC0319  
25 European Court of Auditors, Special Report No 22/2016 EU nuclear decommissioning assistance programmes 
in  Lithuania,  Bulgaria  and  Slovakia:  some  progress  made  since  2011,  but  critical  challenges  ahead, 
https://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/SR16_22/SR_NUCLEAR_DECOMMISSIONING_EN.pdf  
26 SWD(2017)347, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52017SC0347 
27 SWD(2017)347, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52017SC0347  
28 European GNSS Agency: Summary of Achievements in 2016, p.6, 
https://www.gsa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2016_gsa_summary_report.pdf  
29 COM(2017)616, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM:2017:616:FIN  

24 

 
 
                                                 
The  recent  midterm  evaluation  of  Erasmus+  (2018)  showed  that  the  programme  is  well  on 
track to achieve its performance objectives, with notably over 1.8 million individuals taking 
part  in  mobility  activities,  and  more  than  240  000  organisations  involved  in  cooperation 
projects  so  far.  Programme  beneficiaries  report  satisfaction  rates  above  90%.  For  learners 
(students, apprentices, volunteers, young people, etc.), Erasmus+ has a positive effect on the 
acquisition of skills and competences, thereby increasing employability and entrepreneurship 
and  shortening  the  transition  from  education  to  employment  (13%  faster,  compared  to 
individuals who did not take part in Erasmus+ or its predecessor programmes). The evaluation 
indicates that the Erasmus+ programme fosters willingness to work or study abroad (+31%) 
and  the  development  of  foreign  language  skills  (7%  higher  in  tested  proficiency).  The 
Erasmus+ programme  encourage positive civic behaviour and a sense of feeling ‘European’ 
(+19% compared to non-participants).  

To overcome financial barriers as a major obstacle to mobility, the Student Loan Guarantee 
Facility  was  an  innovation  in  Erasmus+.  The  mid-term  evaluation  found  that  it  has  so  far 
failed  to  attract  financial  intermediaries  in  sufficient  numbers.  While  the  Student  Loan 
Guarantee Facility already shows signs of promoting social fairness, its visibility at this early 
stage is far from being sufficient throughout the supply chain. 

The  Employment  and  Social  Innovation  Programme  answers  to  the  high  demand  for 
information  regarding  cross-border  mobility,  recruitment  and  placement,  as  well  as 
counselling  and  trainings.  The  EURES  portal  is  gaining  importance  as  an  efficient  way  to 
share vacancies on one platform throughout Europe, attracting around 1.76 million users each 
month 

4.1.4.  Lessons learned 

The programmes designed to support EU competitiveness have generally demonstrated their 
EU value added by enabling investments throughout the EU, strengthening interconnectivity 
in  transport,  energy  and  telecommunications,  enabling  strategic  cross-border  infrastructure, 
generating knowledge widely accessible across the EU, using free data policy when providing 
Earth monitoring data, increasing common frameworks and interoperability solutions and by 
allowing mobility for students and young professionals.  

The results of the mid-term evaluations have also identified a number of challenges and areas 
for  improvement.  Notably  complementarity  between  programmes  needs  to  be  further 
strengthened  to  avoid  overlaps  (in  particular  for  the  use  of financial instruments);  synergies 
need to be further maximised to ensure the best use of the available resources; flexibility is 
particularly  important  in  order  to  adapt  to  emerging  policy  priorities  linked  to  global 
challenges;  and  monitoring  systems  need  to  be  carefully  assessed  in  order  to  allow  for 
adequate progress measurement. 

Financial instruments 

While financial instruments are available under several programmes and are becoming more 
widely  used,  the  distinctive  features  of  individual  schemes  are  in  some  cases  not  clear  and 
there  is  scope  for  improving  complementarities  and  avoiding  overlaps  among  existing 
financial instruments.  

25 

 
Currently several programmes include the possibility to deploy financial instruments (Horizon 
2020,  the  Competitiveness  of  Enterprises  and  Small  and  Medium-sized  Enterprises 
Programme, the Employment and Social Innovation Programme, and the European Fund for 
Strategic Investments). Each programme applies a different set of rules to the use of financial 
instruments  and  aims  at  different  target  groups.  Mainstream  small  and  medium-sized 
enterprises are targeted by the  Competitiveness of Enterprises and  Small and Medium-sized 
Enterprises programme. Innovative small and medium-sized enterprises are able to apply for 
funding  from  Horizon  2020.  Micro-enterprises  and  social  enterprises  are  eligible  under  the 
Employment  and  Social  Innovation  Programme,  while  small  and  medium-sized  enterprises 
and mid-cap can use the European Fund for Strategic Investments. However, distinctions are 
not always clear-cut and can give rise to confusion and duplication.  The European Court of 
Auditors noted in its 2016 Annual Report that the number of financial instruments benefiting 
from EU budgetary support has been increasing and that careful management is necessary to 
ensure the effective, efficient and economical use of available funds. 

More specifically on loan guarantee instruments, the European Court of Auditors30 found that 
they require a better targeting of beneficiaries and better coordination with national schemes. 
As  there  are  various  EU-funded  guarantee  instruments,  the  Court  also  called  on  the 
Commission to provide an assessment of the effectiveness of such instruments and their real 
implementation costs. 

Coherence between objectives and resources 

In  some  cases  the  mid-term  evaluation  pointed  to  a  mismatch  between  the  objectives  of 
programmes and the means allocated to achieve them, which may lead to suboptimal scale of 
interventions. For example the preliminary  evidence collected in the framework of the mid-
term  evaluation  of  the  Employment  and  Social  Innovation  Programme  (forthcoming)  points 
out that the ambitions of the programme exceed what the budget allows for, especially when it 
comes  to  the  financial  support  to  social  enterprises  and  microcredit.  However,  good  results 
have been registered in the other strands, with the number of youth job placements in another 
Member  States  increasing  from  3  433  in  2014  to  5  720  in  2016,  with  the  support  of  the 
European Employment Services network (EURES).  

A significant part of the budget of the Competitiveness of Enterprises and Small and Medium-
sized  Enterprises  Programme  is  spread  over  a  large  number  of  relatively  small  actions. 
Without questioning the usefulness of flexible pilot actions, which are by their very nature of 
a small scale, preliminary results of the mid-term evaluation indicate that this fragmentation 
influences  negatively  the  potential  for  cost-efficiency  in  programme  implementation  and 
accentuates the limits in strategic direction and coordination of the programme.  

The Interoperability Solutions for European Public Administrations Programme could benefit 
from being part of greater efforts towards supporting the digital economy, also in the national 
public administrations. 

30 Special Report 20/2017 of the European Court of Auditors 

26 

 
                                                 
The mismatch between the objectives of programmes and the means allocated is also stressed 
by  the  European  Court  of  Auditors  in  the  context  of  several  EU  interventions  concerning 
energy supply, transport and Horizon 202031. 

Synergies  

While  significant  progress  has  occurred  in  the  coherent  and  complementary  implementation 
of  programmes  under  Heading  1a  the  available  evaluations  identified  areas  in  which  the 
synergies among programmes could be strengthened.  In this context,  the European Court of 
Auditors  stressed  for  instance  in  its  last  two  Annual  Reports  that  the  links  and 
complementarity  between  Europe  2020,  the  new  Commission  priorities  and  Horizon  2020 
needed to be clarified and enhanced. 

The Connecting Europe Facility has proven its complementarity with Horizon 2020 and the 
European Structural and Investment Funds. A number of measures have been taken in order to 
address the substitution effect initially observed between the Connecting Europe Facility and 
the  European  Fund  for  Strategic  Investments.32  Transport,  energy  and  digital  services  were 
brought together under one programme because of the common goals and challenges. Having 
common procedures for the projects in all three fields has contributed to achieving synergies 
at programme level, however synergies at project level under the Connecting Europe Facility 
have not been fully realised33.  

In addition, coordination between Horizon 2020 and the European Structural and Investment 
Funds  can  be  strengthened  further  particularly  in  view  of  research  and  innovation  capacity 
building for lower performing regions. The European Institute of Innovation and Technology 
fills  a  gap  within  the  European  innovation  landscape,  but  its  coherence  with  other  Horizon 
2020 programmes could be strengthened. 

The  preliminary  results  of  the  mid-term  evaluation  of  Competitiveness  of  Enterprises  and 
Small  and  Medium-sized  Enterprises  Programme  show  that  it  is  overall  coherent  with 
Horizon  2020.  Actions  focusing  on  technological  innovation  were  ‘transferred’  in  2014  to 
Horizon 2020, while actions focusing on the enhancement of competitiveness were kept in the 
Competitiveness  of  Enterprises  and  Small  and  Medium-sized  Enterprises  Programme.  The 
preliminary  findings  however  point  to  the  possibility  to  create  more  synergies  and 
complementarity.   

Flexibility 

Flexibility  has  proven  key  to  successful  programmes.  Mid-term  evaluations  report  several 
cases  where  the  programme  structure  allowed  for  the  needed  flexibility  to  respond  to 
unforeseen  challenges.  For  instance,  Horizon  2020  has  been  flexible  to  support  research  on 
urgent new needs such as the Ebola and Zika outbreaks34. In the context of the refugee crisis 
Erasmus+  started  as  of  2016  to  provide  online  language  assessment  and  courses  for  newly 

31 See for instance Special Report 16/2015 on Security of Energy Supply and the 2015 Annual Report. 
32 SWD(216) 298 final, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=SWD:2016:297:FIN  
33 SWD(2018)44,  https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/legislation/swd-2018-0044-mid-term-
evaluation-cef-ia-part2.pdf 
34 Evaluation SWD(2017)222, page 55 and European Court of Auditor's 2016 Annual Report 

27 

 
                                                 
arrived third country nationals, the prevention of radicalisation through education and actions 
in the youth field were identified as a priority under Erasmus+ actions.  

Governance and management structures 

Evaluations have highlighted the importance of robust governance and management structures 
to the success of the programmes. 

The  Connecting  Europe  Facility  is  centrally  managed  which  allows  for  fast  delivery  of  EU 
support.  The  management  by  the  Innovation  and  Networks  Executive  Agency  has  brought 
economies  of  scale  and  a  number  of  simplifications  and  improvements  in  the  application 
process (electronic tools for exchange with beneficiaries). The possibility to quickly identify 
and  re-use  credits  not  consumed  by  certain  actions  is  proving  particularly  efficient35. 
Nevertheless,  the  mid-term  evaluation  points  to  a  need  for  improving  coordination  amongst 
the actors involved in the digital services infrastructures.  

The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor encountered a number of challenges 
in terms of both schedule and cost estimates because of the technical complexity inherent in a 
first-in-kind  undertaking  but  also  linked  to  weaknesses  in  governance.  Because  of  the 
monitoring  systems  in  place  (the  International  Thermonuclear  Experimental  Reactor 
Agreement36  provides  for  a  regular  management  assessment),  new  management  was 
appointed  and  proposed  more  reliable  planning  and  cost  estimates37.  The  EU  has  proposed 
measures to improve monitoring and governance including the decision to have regular risk 
reviews focused on critical areas of the project38.  

The  Nuclear  Decommissioning  Assistance  Programmes  experienced  difficulties  and  delays 
during the previous Multiannual Financial Framework. The European Court of Auditors also 
cautioned against challenges that remain to be tackled during the current financing period39. 
One of the issues identified is the need to increase ownership of the process by the Member 
States.  The  Member  States  were  required  at  the  onset  of  the  current  financing  period  to 
formally  submit  updated  cost  estimates  as  part  of  their  updated  detailed  decommissioning 
plans. The Commission has assessed these and determined the plans to be comprehensive and 
complete  and  based  on  sound  estimations40.  Based  on  preliminary  findings  of  the  mid-term 
evaluation the planning proposed in 2014 appears to have been largely respected to date. 

35 SWD(2018)44, https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/legislation/swd-2018-0044-mid-term-
evaluation-cef-ia-part2.pdf 
36 https://www.iter.org/doc/www/content/com/Lists/WebText_2014/Attachments/245/ITERAgreement.pdf  
37 SWD(2017)232, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52017SC0232 
38 COM(2017)319, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52017DC0319 
39 Special Report No 22/2016 EU nuclear decommissioning assistance programmes in Lithuania, Bulgaria and 
Slovakia: some progress made since 2011, but critical challenges ahead, 
https://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/SR16_22/SR_NUCLEAR_DECOMMISSIONING_EN.pdf 
40 COM(2017)328, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52017DC0328  

28 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Monitoring systems 

The  evaluations  for  the  Connecting  Europe  Facility  and  Horizon  2020  have  identified  the 
need  for  better  indicators  to  support  the  monitoring  and  measurement  of  progress.  The 
European Court of Auditors has reiterated this conclusion for Horizon 2020 in general41. 

Targeting and prioritisation 

Evaluations identified the possibility to further improve the EU support to innovation and to 
open up successful EU schemes like Erasmus+ to wider populations.  

For example, the evaluation of Horizon 2020 identified room for improving EU support  for 
market-creating  innovations.  Other  areas  for  improvement  identified  in  the  mid-term 
evaluation are the need for further alignment of Horizon 2020 to support the implementation 
of EU policy priorities, its role to effectively influence the alignment of national research and 
innovation strategies and policies, the capacity to bring research results closer to citizens and 
civil society and broadening the participation to Horizon 2020 to new research and innovation 
actors. The mid-term evaluation of Erasmus+ showed grounds to further boost the inclusion 
dimension  of  the  programme  notably  concerning  disadvantaged  and  vulnerable  groups  in 
education and training, youth and sport activities.  

4.2.  Heading 1b - Economic, social and territorial cohesion 

4.2.1. 

Introduction 

Heading  1b  covers  the  ‘European  Regional  Development  Fund’,  the  ‘Cohesion  Fund’,  the 
‘European Social Fund’42 — including the ‘Youth Employment Initiative’ (a specific top-up 
allocation), and the ‘Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived’.  

The  European  Regional  Development  Fund,  Cohesion  Fund  and  European  Social  Fund 
constitute the cohesion policy of the EU with a budget of EUR 356.06 billion for 2014-2020. 
Cohesion  policy  fosters  lasting  socio-economic  convergence,  resilience  and  territorial 
cohesion. It contributes to the delivery of the Europe 2020 objectives supporting growth and 
job creation at EU level and structural reforms at national level. The funds in this area deliver 
a critical mass of investments in priority areas of the EU through shared management between 
the  Commission  and  the  Member  States.  These  funds  help  the  EU  achieve  its  political 
objectives by translating them into action on the ground. 

4.2.2.  Objectives of the Programmes 

Cohesion  policy has  set  11 thematic objectives supporting growth  for  the period  2014-2020 
(see  diagram  below).  The  objectives  of  the  European  Regional  Development  Fund,  the 
European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund contribute to these thematic objectives.  

41 European Court of Auditors 2015 Annual Report 
42 The European Regional Development Fund, Cohesion Fund and the European Social Fund work together with 
the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund to form 
the  European  Structural  and  Investment  Funds.  The  latter  two  are  covered  by  Budget  Heading  2  (Sustainable 
Growth).   

29 

 
                                                 
Cohesion Policy 2014-2020 

  Investment policy covering 1/3 of the EU budget 

  Supports 11 thematic objectives of smart, sustainable and inclusive growth 

1. Research and  Innovation 

5. Combating climate change 

8. Employment and Mobility 

2. Information and  
Communication 
technologies 

6. Environment and 
resource efficiency 

9. Social inclusion 

3. Competitiveness of SMEs 

7. Sustainable transport 

10. Better education, training 

4. Low-carbon economy 

11. Better public administration 

The  goal  of  these  objectives  is  to  focus  cohesion  policy  funding  on  areas  that  deliver  the 
highest  benefits  to  citizens,  creating  synergies between  the  funded  projects  and  avoiding  an 
excessive fragmentation of funding. 

4.2.3.  Key achievements 

Programme design in the 2014–2020 period included a number of new  elements to improve 
the delivery of results: 

  Stronger focus on results: clearer and measurable targets for better accountability. 

  Conditions: introduction of sector specific or general preconditions at an early stage of 
programme  implementation  to  address  systemic  obstacles  to  effective  and  efficient 
public  spending.  The  introduction  of  these  ex  ante  conditionalities  help  set  suitable 
conditions  for  programme  success,  providing  fulfilment  criteria  for  lifting  barriers  to 
investment, supporting structural changes, implementing the EU acquis and improving 
administrative capacity. 

  Link to economic reform: the Commission may suspend funding for a Member State 

which does not comply with EU economic rules.  

  Concentration requirements to incentivise investments in line with the Commission’s 

priorities (in the area of innovation, digital agenda and energy ) 

  Strengthened urban dimension and promotion of social inclusion: a specific amount 
of  European  Regional  Development  Fund  was  earmarked  for  integrated  projects  in 
cities. The same was done with the European Social Fund to  promote social inclusion 
and combat poverty.  

  The  Youth  Employment  Initiative  was  integrated  into  the  European  Social  Fund 

programmes to address the problem of youth unemployment.  

30 

 
 
 
Compared  to  the  2007-2013  Multiannual  Financial  Framework,  the  cohesion  policy 
regulatory framework for 2014-2020 was adopted about 6 months later. This late adoption of 
the  legal  acts  together  with  new  requirements  seeking  to  enhance  the  performance  of  the 
policy  and  the  quality  of  delivery  (e.g.  annual  accounts,  designation  of  programme 
authorities) have led to a delayed start of implementation of the 2014-2020 programmes.  

While starting more slowly than in the 2007-2013 period, the rate of project selection in the 
current programming period has now caught up with 53.4% of the funding being allocated to 
projects by January 2018. This level of project selection over 2014-2016 is comparable to the 
early years of the 2007-2013 period43 and it can reasonably be expected that implementation 
rates from now on will further increase. 

Funding 
selected 
(2007-2013 and 2014-2020 comparison) 

committed 

to 

projects 

as  % 

of 

available 

total  

100,0%

80,0%

60,0%

40,0%

20,0%

0,0%

2008/2015

2009/2016

2010/2017

2007-2013

2011/2018
2014-2020

2012/2019

2013/2020

Source:  DG  Regional  and  Urban  Policy,  based  on  monitoring  data  provided  by  Member 
States 

Looking  at  the  first  years  of  the  2014-2020  programmes,  initial  results  are  taking  shape. 
Around 670 000 projects have been selected all over Europe, amounting to EUR 192 billion 
or  53.4%  of  the  total  financing  available  for  the  period.  793  490  businesses  are  being 
supported and 7.8 million people have been helped so far in their search for a job, training, or 
education44. Concerning the Youth Employment Initiative, by September 2017 Member States 
had  already  declared  that  1.7  million  young  people  had  benefited  from  the  Youth 
Employment Initiative. Evaluations carried out by the responsible national authorities showed 
that in the case of Cyprus and Bulgaria 45% of participants were in employment after leaving 
the  Youth  Employment  Initiative  intervention.  Similarly,  in  Italy  around  35%  of  the  young 
people  who  have  completed  the  Youth  Employment  Initiative  interventions  are  now  in 
employment.  

43 COM(2017) 755 final (page 5) - 
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docoffic/official/reports/strat_rep_2017/strat_rep_2017_en.pdf 
44 COM(2017) 755 final (page 2) - 
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docoffic/official/reports/strat_rep_2017/strat_rep_2017_en.pdf 

31 

 
 
                                                 
The accelerated pace of project selection and implementation reported across cohesion policy 
programmes is now expected to be followed up by a similar increase in actual spending.  

The European Regional Development Fund and Cohesion Fund will co-finance more than 500 
major projects in the period 2014-2020. These projects are subject to climate proofing, which 
helps to ensure that the cost-benefit analysis takes into account the greenhouse gas emissions 
and that the project will be resilient to the current and future climate. 

Given that spending periods overlap with the closure of one period stretching into the next45, 
findings  from  the  ex-post  evaluations  of  the  2007-2013  European  Regional  Development 
Fund-Cohesion  Fund46  and  European  Social  Fund47  programmes  were  also  relevant  for  this 
spending review. The 2007-2013 European Regional Development Fund-Cohesion Fund ex-
post  evaluation  estimated  that,  in  the  EU-12  countries,  the  cohesion  policy  funds  and  rural 
development investments led to increased Gross Domestic Product in 2015 by 4 % above 
what  it  otherwise  would  have  been,  and  in  Hungary,  by  over  5  %.  This  impact  is  sustained 
(and in some cases even increases) in the longer term. In Poland, for example, by 2023, Gross 
Domestic Product is estimated to be almost 6 % above what it would be without Cohesion 
Policy investment in the 2007-2013 period. In regions of more developed Member States, the 
impact  is  smaller  but  remains  positive  even  taking  into  account  the  fact  that  these  Member 
States  are  net  contributors  to  the  policy.  The  same  evaluation  showed  that  one  euro  of 
Cohesion  Policy  investment in  the period  2007-2013 is  estimated to  generate EUR 2.74 of 
additional  Gross  Domestic  Product  by  2023,  with  a  total  estimated  return  of  nearly  EUR 
1 trillion  of  additional  GDP  by  2023.  This  Gross  Domestic  Product  effect  is  of  a  similar 
scale to the entire EU budget for 2007-2013 (EUR 975.8 billion) and 2014-2020 (EUR 908.4 
billion). 

According  to  the  findings  of  the  European  Regional  Development  Fund-Cohesion  Fund 
ex-post evaluation a wide range of results were achieved across the fields of economic, social 
and territorial cohesion, including: 

  The EU funds played a crucial countercyclical role with stabilising impact during the 
global  economic  and  financial  crisis.  The  programmes  increased  the  co-financing 
rates,  so  national  contributions  decreased  for  cohesion  policy  programmes  in  the 
Member  States  where  problems  were  most  severe.  This  helped  the  countries 
concerned  to  meet  their  part  of  the  funding  needed  to  carry  out  programmes,  so 
enabling  them  to  take  up  the  EU  financial  support  available.  Additionally,  the 
eligibility rules were changed to provide access to working capital for firms, in order 
to remain in business and to maintain employment.   

  Confirming  the  EU  added  value  of  such  investments,  the  European  Regional 
Development  Fund  support  contributed  to  helping  Small  and  Medium-sized 
Enterprises  to  withstand  the  economic  and  financial  crisis,  at  a  time  when  national 
budgets were highly constrained. 400 000 Small and Medium-sized Enterprises were 

45 COM(2017) 755 final (page 5) - 
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docoffic/official/reports/strat_rep_2017/strat_rep_2017_en.pdf  
46 SWD(2016) 318 final - 
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/evaluation/pdf/expost2013/wp1_swd_report_en.pdf  
47 SWD(2016) 452 final – http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?pager.offset=5&advSearchKey=ex-
post&mode=advancedSubmit&catId=22&policyArea=0&policyAreaSub=0&country=0&year=0  

32 

 
                                                 
financially supported and this support led directly to the creation of 1.2 million jobs. 
To  put  this  into  perspective,  a  net  total  of  3  million  jobs  were  created  in  the  EU 
economy over the 2007-2013 period. 

  European  Regional  Development  Fund-Cohesion  Fund  investments  helped  make 
progress in removing transport bottlenecks, reducing travel times and supporting urban 
trams and metros. Vital to economic development, this included the construction of 4 
900  km  of  roads,  mostly  motorways  (of  which  2  400  km  on  the  Trans-European 
Transport  Network).  It  also  included  the  construction  or  upgrading  to  necessary 
standards of 2 600 km of Trans-European Transport Network railway. As a sign of the 
EU  added  value  of  European  Regional  Development  Fund-Cohesion  Fund  support, 
Member  States  were  provided  with  incentives  to  prioritise  investments  in  Trans 
European Transport Network infrastructure, ensuring support for transport networks in 
line  with  the  EU  objectives  and  enhancing  the  economic  and  territorial  cohesion 
between various parts of the EU. 

  The  European  Regional  Development  Fund  and  Cohesion  Fund  also  made  a 
significant contribution to the environment. Confirming the EU added value of these 
instruments,  cohesion  policy  enabled  budget  limited  public  authorities  to  achieve 
progress  in  meeting  EU  policy  goals  even  during  the  financial  crisis.    A  substantial 
number  of  landfill  sites  which  did  not  comply  with  EU  standards  were  closed  down 
while  in  the  Czech  Republic,  Hungary,  Lithuania,  Poland  and  Slovenia,  as  well  as 
Croatia,  the  proportion  of  waste  which  was  recycled  was  increased  by  over  10 
percentage points.  

 

Investment in social infrastructure led to tangible results such as the modernisation of 
schools and colleges in Portugal, benefiting over 300 000 children and young people 
as well as the upgrading of schools and healthcare facilities in Poland for 1.9 million 
people. 

Concerning the European Social Fund, studies48 have shown that each euro spent at the EU 
level in employment and social investment generates about EUR 3 in  outcome. At least 9.4 
million  Europeans  found  a  job  and  8.7  million  people  gained  a  qualification  or  certificate 
between  2007  and  2014  with  the  contribution  of  support  from  the  European  Social  Fund49. 
The  ex-post  evaluation  confirmed  that  the  fund  was  highly  relevant  in  addressing  the  main 
policy challenges towards achieving the Europe 2020 headline targets and contributing to the 
EU guidelines defined for labour market policies, social and education and training policies, 
while also contributing to the development of the institutional capacity to deliver policies and 
reforms.  

The European Social Fund 2007-2013 has also been an important instrument contributing to 
the  social  Open  Method  of  Coordination  and  the  Education  and  Training  2020  strategic 
framework. The specific challenges identified by the Country Specific Recommendations are 

48 Calculation based on the 2007-2013 budget against the EU GDP for 2014 and the results of the Ex-post 
evaluation of the 2007-2013 European Social Fund Programmes 
49 SWD(2016) 452 final – http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?pager.offset=5&advSearchKey=ex-
post&mode=advancedSubmit&catId=22&policyArea=0&policyAreaSub=0&country=0&year=0 

33 

 
                                                 
also well reflected in the operational programmes co-financed by the European Social Fund in 
2014-2020. 

The European Social Fund ex-post evaluation also showed that the fund provided EU added 
value by broadening the scope of national interventions and by supporting policies that would 
have  been  realised  to  a  significantly  lesser  extent  had  it  not  been  for  EU  investment  (e.g. 
active  labour  market  measures,  gender  equality).  By  making  use  of  European  Social  Fund 
interventions,  Member  States  were able  to  offer  more  tailored  and  better  quality  services  to 
specific  target  groups  such  as  people  with  disabilities,  young  people  at  risk  of  early  school 
leaving, refugees and other vulnerable migrants or unemployed with low qualifications. These 
groups would otherwise not have had access to targeted services or would only have access to 
mainstream  services.  As  a  follow-up,  some  successful  European  Social  Fund  interventions 
were  taken  up  into  mainstream  national  policy,  e.g.  in  Belgium,  France,  Italy,  and  Sweden. 
EU added value is also about the promotion of EU values and respect of the EU Charter of 
Fundamental Rights 

4.2.4.  Lessons learned 

The Commission has carried out a number of evaluations50 and studies51 analysing the results 
of  the  2007-2013  period  and  the  early  stages  of  programming  and  implementation  of  the 
2014-2020  cohesion  policy  programmes.  The  evidence  collected  confirms  the  important 
contribution  of  cohesion  policy  investments  in  generating  growth,  jobs  and  investment,  as 
well  as  their  significant  impact  for  boosting  socio-economic  convergence,  improving  the 
environment  and  territorial  cohesion  across  EU  Member  States  and  regions.  Reforms  are 
nonetheless needed in a number of areas.  

Cohesion policy responded  to the  financial  crisis and  emerging  needs such as the migration 
crisis  but  its  capacity  to  adapt  to  new  circumstances  and  challenges  was  limited.  This 
confirms the need to review how cohesion policy can better prepare and react to unexpected 
developments, crises and societal changes.  

While  there  have  been  positive  examples  of  closer  alignment  between  EU  funding 
instruments  in  the  2014-2020  period,  synergies  with  sectoral  policies  and  other  spending 
programmes need to be maximised.  

Project  beneficiaries  still  find  difficulties  in  accessing  these  funds  and  deliver  projects 
quickly. Authorities at national and regional level also find the policy too complex to manage. 
Therefore, a strong effort for further simplifying implementation and allowing for more agile 
and flexible programming is needed for the future. 

Based on this analytical work, the recommendations of the European Court of Auditors52, the 
High Level Group for Simplification of the European Structural and Investment Funds53 and 
those of the REFIT Platform54, the following areas for improvement have been identified:  

50 http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/policy/evaluations/ and 
http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?langId=en&catId=701  
51 http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/policy/analysis/    
52  Special  Reports  1/2015,  3/2015,  8/2015,  08/2016,  19/2016,  23/2016,  24/2016,  36/2016,  02/2017,  04/2017, 
05/2017, 13/2017, 15/2017, 18/2017, 01/2018, 06/2018 

34 

 
                                                 
Simplification  

Despite  recent  efforts  to  simplify  the  delivery  of  cohesion  policy  funds  in  the  2014-2020 
period, a strong effort for further simplifying implementation and allowing for more agile and 
flexible programming is needed for the future. This was also highlighted in the four opinions 
adopted  by  the  REFIT  platform55  on  cohesion  policy,  aiming  at  reducing  bureaucracy, 
simplifying  the  administrative  and  monitoring  systems,  and  encouraging  more  proportional 
efforts in European Territorial Cooperation.  

The  High  Level  Group  on  Simplification  for  post  2020  in  its  conclusions  recommended 
fewer,  clearer  and  shorter  rules  aligned  between  EU  funds,  as  well  as  a  stable  yet  flexible 
framework.  It  also  recommended  the  extension of  the  single  audit  principle and  reliance  on 
national  public  expenditure  procedures  to  a  much  larger  extent,  promoting  genuine 
subsidiarity and proportionality. 

The  complexity  of  the  legal  framework  and  the  number  of  new  requirements  aimed  at 
improving  the  performance  of  the  policy  and  the  quality  of  delivery  disrupted  the 
implementation at the start of the current period and created the conditions for increased gold-
plating  at  national  level.  The  volume  of  rules,  including  more  than  600  pages  of  legislation 
(more  than  double  that  in  the  period  2007-2013)  and  over  5  000  pages  of  guidance  created 
difficulties for programme beneficiaries and authorities involved56. 

The corresponding administrative burden for beneficiaries and implementing bodies related to 
the  funds  programming,  management  and  audit  system  slowed  down  the  efficient  and 
effective  use  of  the  funds.  The  introduced  single  audit  principle  constitutes  a  positive  step 
forward,  but  stakeholders  still  find  that  the  overall  control  and  audit  burden  remains  too 
high57.  

In a number of special reports58 the European Court of Auditors has made observations and 
recommendations with regards to simplification,  calling for the streamlining of performance 
schemes,  for  the  reduction  of  the  administrative  burden  and  implementation  delays,  for  the 
alignment  of  national  development  plans  and  for  the  rationalisation  of  the  number  of 
indicators in use. 

Contribution to policy objectives and structural reforms 

The cohesion policy funds were found not to provide sufficient incentives to Member States 
to ensure that policy objectives are met. The economic governance cycle and new EU level 
policy  initiatives  are  not  always  optimally  aligned  with  the  funding  frameworks.  Funding 

53 http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/newsroom/pdf/simplification_proposals.pdf  
54 https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-making-process/evaluating-and-improving-existing-laws/refit-making-eu-
law-simpler-and-less-costly/refit-platform/refit-platform-recommendations-and-other-work_en#regional-policy  
55 https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-making-process/evaluating-and-improving-existing-laws/refit-making-eu-
law-simpler-and-less-costly/refit-platform/refit-platform-recommendations-and-other-work_en#regional-policy  
56 Final conclusions and recommendations of the High Level Group on Simplification for post 2020 - 
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/newsroom/pdf/simplification_proposals.pdf  
57 Conclusions on cross-cutting audit issues from the High Level Group on Simplification for post 2020 -
https://ec.europa.eu/futurium/en/system/files/ged/hlg_16_0015_04_conc_recomendations_on_audit_0.pdf  
58 Special Report 23/2016 Maritime transport, Special Report 2/2017 Partnership Agreements, Special Report 
18/2017 Single European Sky, Special Report 13/2017 Rail traffic 

35 

 
                                                                                                                                                         
should be more closely aligned with the European Semester to support reforms and increase 
the funds’ political leverage. 

The conditionalities introduced in the 2014-2020 period were a step in the right direction but 
the  policy’s  link  with  the  economic  governance  and  the  European  Semester  should  be 
strengthened  further  to  ensure  that  the  system  is  simpler,  more  transparent  and  provides 
positive incentives to implement concrete reforms to foster convergence. 

Around 75% of all applicable ex-ante conditionalities59 were fulfilled at the time of adoption 
of the 2014-2020 programmes. For the non-fulfilled ones, over 800 distinct action plans were 
included in the programmes. Had it not been for ex-ante conditionalities, reforms might not 
have  happened  or  they  might  have  happened  at  a  much  slower  pace60.  According  to  the 
European  Court  of  Auditors61,  ex-ante  conditionalities  provided  a  consistent  framework  for 
assessing the Member States’ readiness to implement Cohesion policy, but the extent to which 
this has effectively led to changes on the ground was not always evident. At the level of the 
Member  States,  the  effort  to  fulfil  ex-ante  conditionalities  was  sometimes  considered  to  be 
high and disproportionate62. In particular, the fulfilment of the conditionalities often required 
additional  resources,  which  was  not  easy  to  secure,  especially  in  the  context  of  austerity  in 
several Member States (e.g. the fulfilment of employment related conditionalities was linked 
to  the  increase  in  the  capacity  of  public  services  employment).  In  some  cases,  legislative 
changes  were  needed  including  environmental  or  state  aid  legislation,  which  also  took  time 
and resources.  

The importance of the local business environment and innovation ecosystem emerged as a key 
lesson in helping regions move up the value chain. Support to small and medium enterprises 
should focus more on helping dynamic businesses grow, on smart specialisation strategies and 
facilitating  regions  to  move  up  the  economic  chain,  rather  than  trying  to  maintain  the 
economy of the past. For large enterprises support needs to be very selective, targeting firms 
which  match  the  structure  of  the  regional  economy  and  can  make  links  to  local  enterprises, 
research centres and universities. The most effective strategy to attract large enterprises is not 
financial incentives  but  improving  local  conditions,  such  as  the  local  business  environment, 
transport  and  communication  networks  and  the  skills  of  the  local  workforce.  This  avoids  a 
wasteful subsidy race.     

Shortcomings  in  administrative  capacity  and  institutional  quality  are  often  key  obstacles  to 
economic, social and territorial progress. Continuous investment in good administration will 
contribute to deliver policy objectives, which are not only about money but also about know-
how and good governance. This long term investment includes the exchange of good practices 
between peers, professionalization of fund management and development of competencies in 

59  Pre-conditions  aimed  at  making  sure  that  Member  States  have  put  in  place  adequate  regulatory  and  policy 
frameworks and that there is sufficient administrative capacity before investments are made in order to maximise 
the performance of the funding.   
60 Seventh report on economic, social and territorial cohesion - 
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docoffic/official/reports/cohesion7/7cr.pdf  
61 Special Report 15/2017 - 
https://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/SR17_15/SR_PARTNERSHIP_EN.pdf  
62 Study "The implementation of the provisions in relation to the ex-ante conditionalities during the 
programming phase of the European Structural and Investment  Funds" - 
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/policy/how/studies_integration/impl_exante_esif_report_en.pdf 

36 

 
                                                 
public  procurement  and  state  aid.  It  also  targets  anti-fraud  and  anti-corruption,  including 
integrity pacts on fair public procurement.  

Flexibility  

The  European  Regional  Development  Fund/Cohesion  Fund  and  European  Social  Fund  ex-
post evaluations confirmed that cohesion policy rose to the challenge of the financial crisis in 
the 2007-13 period. The implementation of the 2014-2020 programmes so far also shows that 
cohesion  policy  investments  have  been  able  to  respond  to  emerging  needs  such  as  the 
migration  crisis63.  Nevertheless,  the  capacity  of  current  programmes  to  adapt  to  changing 
political environment turned out to be limited. This confirms the need to review how cohesion 
policy can better prepare and react to unexpected developments, crisis, economic and societal 
changes.  

Result orientation  

The  result  orientation  of  the  programmes  could  be  further  improved  and  there  are  still 
difficulties to fully capture the contribution of the funds to EU policy priorities. The European 
Court of Auditors concluded that the current set up of the performance reserve provides little 
incentive  for  a  better  result  orientation  of  the  cohesion  policy  programmes64.  At  this  early 
stage of implementation of the cohesion programmes and as the performance reserve is going 
to  be  released  in  2019,  final  conclusions  would  be  premature.  The  European  Court  of 
Auditors recommended the Commission to consider turning the performance reserve for the 
post-2020  period  into  a  more  result-oriented  instrument  that  allocates  funds  to  those 
operational  programmes  that  achieved  good  results.  It  also  recommended  to  establish  a 
common definition of output and result indicators across relevant EU funds65 and to apply the 
concept of a performance budget66. Further efforts are needed to ensure that cohesion policy 
funds are more effectively implemented through the sound definition of targets and results to 
be achieved.  

Synergies 

The  2014-2020  framework  included  a  number  of  measures  aimed  at  better  coordination 
between the five European Structural and Investment Funds and more potential synergies with 
other  EU  instruments.  These  included  the  alignment  of  national  eligibility  rules,  the  use  of 
cross-sectoral  fora,  the  running  of  joint  monitoring  committees  or  specific  coordinating 
bodies, the establishment of networks within the relevant administrations and the application 
of new information technology solutions.  

Nevertheless,  the  experience  from  the  2014-2020  period  shows  that  additional  efforts  to 
harmonise  rules  are  still  needed67  and  that  the  synergies  with  sectoral  policies  and 

63 COM(2017) 755 final (page 17) - 
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docoffic/official/reports/strat_rep_2017/strat_rep_2017_en.pdf 
64 Special Report 15/2017 - 
https://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/SR17_15/SR_PARTNERSHIP_EN.pdf 
65 Special Report 2/2017 Partnership Agreements, 
https://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/SR17_2/SR_PARTNERSHIP_AGREEMENT_EN.pdf 
66 Special Report 2/2017 Partnership Agreements 
67 COM(2017) 755 final (page 12) - 
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docoffic/official/reports/strat_rep_2017/strat_rep_2017_en.pdf 

37 

 
                                                 
programmes  such  as  LIFE,  Connecting  Europe  Facility,  Horizon  2020,  Erasmus+,  Asylum, 
Migration  and  Integration  Fund/Internal  Security  Fund  were  not  exploited  to  their  full 
potential.  The  diverging  rules  for  similar  interventions  under  different  funding  sources  (e.g. 
state  aid,  public  procurement,  maturity  of  projects)  created  uncertainty  for  programme 
beneficiaries. A more coherent use of EU funds would  therefore enable establishing a  more 
visible link between EU policies and the needs and realities at national and regional level. 

Rules differ between EU funds investing in human capital development.  This fragmentation 
leads  to  inefficiencies.  There  are  overlaps  in  target  groups  and  actions,  often  with  different 
sets of rules (starting with co-financing rates). Also, complementarities, impact and visibility 
of measures are hindered by the current fragmentation of funds. For example, basic material 
assistance  provided  by  the  Fund  for  European  Aid  to  the  Most  Deprived  could  be  better 
integrated with social inclusion and employability measures under the European Social Fund. 
The  current  divergence  in  rules  and  monitoring  requirements  cause  additional  burden  to 
beneficiaries. Moreover, the impact and visibility of current actions are diluted by the current 
number of funds.  

Stabilisation impact 

During the financial crisis, EU funds played a countercyclical role with a stabilising effect, by 
increasing the co-financing rates and lowering the national contribution for affected Member 
States.  It  is  now  appropriate  to  increase  national  co-financing  rates,  in  order  to  increase 
ownership  at  national  level.  In  particular  as  long  as  the  European  Investment  Stabilisation 
function is not yet in place, this would also allow keeping a margin of co-financing rate for 
potential stabilising action in the future. 

4.3.  Heading 2 - Sustainable Growth: Natural Resources 

4.3.1. 

Introduction 

Heading  2 covers  expenditure linked to  the policies on sustainable use of natural  resources, 
financing the Common Agricultural Policy, the Common Fisheries Policy and environmental 
and climate actions. 

The  Common  Agricultural  Policy  is  financed  by  two  funds.  The  European  Agricultural 
Guarantee  Fund  takes  up  the  largest  share  within  Heading  2  with  EUR  308  billion  for  the 
period 2014-2020, after taking into account the transfers to Rural Development. It primarily 
finances income support via direct payments to farmers and measures regulating or supporting 
agricultural  markets.  The  European  Agricultural  Fund  for  Rural  Development  amounts  to 
EUR  100  billion  for  the  period  2014-2020  and  finances  the  EU’s  contribution  to  rural 
development programmes.  

A total of EUR 6.4 billion is allocated to the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund that helps 
Member  States  to  meet  the  obligations  imposed  on  them  by  the  Common  Fisheries  Policy. 
The  2014-2020  envelope  for  shared  management  amounts  to  EUR  5.7  billion  in  support  of 
Member States’ operational programmes. The 2014-2020 envelope for direct management of 
actions  to  support  EU  wide  objectives  in  maritime  and  coastal  affairs  amounts  to  EUR  647 
million. Heading 2 also finances the international dimension of the Common Fisheries Policy 
(EUR  0.9  billion)  including  compulsory  contributions  deriving  from  EU  membership  in 
international bodies, including various Regional Fisheries Management Organisations as well 

38 

 
as  contributions  under  Sustainable  Fisheries  Partnership  Agreements  with  several  third 
countries in exchange to access to their waters in favour of the EU fishing fleet. 

Within  Heading  2,  the  Programme  for  the  Environment  and  Climate  Action,  called  LIFE, 
takes  up  EUR  3.5  billion  for  the  period  2014-2020,  or  0.3%  of  the  EU  budget.  LIFE  as  a 
dedicated fund for the environment and climate has on its own relatively modest budget, but it 
complements the commitment of the EU to mainstream climate action and biodiversity across 
all EU budget programmes. There are two sub-programmes, Environment and Climate, each 
covering three priority areas. 

4.3.2. 

 Objectives of the Programmes 

The  Common  Agricultural  Policy  contributes  to  smart,  sustainable  and  inclusive  growth 
through three general objectives: viable food production, with a focus on agricultural income 
and market support; the sustainable use of natural resources and climate action; and balanced 
territorial development.  

Pillar  I  of  the  Common  Agricultural  Policy,  financed  from  the  European  Agricultural 
Guarantee  Fund  adds  value  by  operating  at  EU  level  to  respond  more  effectively  and 
efficiently  to  cross-border  challenges  –  such  as  ensuring  food  security,  mitigating  climate 
change,  caring  for  natural  resources  and  strengthening  economic  and  social  cohesion.  This 
fund  provides  direct  payments  to  farmers  as  basic  income  support,  contributing  to  relative 
income  stability  to  farmers  facing  significant  price  and  production  volatility.  Market 
instruments contribute to developing the potential of certain sectors, organisation and quality 
improvement  and  supplement  the  protection  offered  by  direct  payments  as  well  as  to 
stabilising agricultural markets in times of serious disturbance. At the same time, the fund is 
closely  tied  to  requirements  and  public  benefits  of  importance  to  EU  citizens  through  cross 
compliance  and  the  greening  measures  that  have  been  introduced  in  the 2013  reform  of  the 
Common Agricultural Policy. It also aims to meet consumer expectations while contributing 
to a level playing field in the single market and ensures a stronger common position in trade 
negotiations. The European Agricultural Guarantee Fund not only supports directly the farm 
sector but also helps to limit losses of viable jobs and output in the sectors which depend on it. 

Under Pillar II of the Common Agricultural Policy, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural 
Development  supports  rural  development  plans  that  are  designed  to  contribute  to  six 
economic, social and environmental EU priorities while taking into account the national and 
regional  specificities  of  agriculture  and  rural  areas  across  the  EU.  The  fund  invests  in  the 
digitisation and development of farms and other rural businesses, improving competitiveness 
whilst promoting sustainable management of natural resources and preservation of nature and 
landscapes.  Support  for  interactive  innovation  projects  under  the  European  Innovation 
Partnership for Agriculture as well as support for training and diversification aim to deliver on 
the Europe 2020 objectives as they encourage innovation and entrepreneurship. 

39 

 
 
 
 
 
General and specific objectives of the Common Agricultural Policy 

CAP general objectives 

Viable food 
production 

Sustainable management of natural 
resources and climate action 

Balanced territorial 
development 

CAP specific objectives 

Enhance farm income 

Improve agricultural 
competitiveness 

Foster innovation 

Provide environmental 
public goods 

Pursue climate change 
mitigation and 
adaptation 
Maintain agricultural 
diversity across the EU 

Maintain 
market stability 

Meet consumer 
expectations 

Pillar I specific objectives 

Promote 
socioeconomic 
development of 
rural areas 

Pillar II specific objectives 

CSF* 
thematic 
objectives 

*CSF: Common Strategic Framework including the European Regional Development Fund, 
European Social Fund, Cohesion Fund, European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development 
and European Maritime and Fisheries Funds. 

Given  the  limits  of  the  financial  resources  of  individual  Member  States  and  the  structural 
nature  of  the  challenges  facing  the  European  fisheries  and  aquaculture  sector,  the  problems 
encountered in these sectors are better addressed at EU level through multi-annual financing, 
with  a  focus  on  a  select  number  of  relevant  EU  priorities.  The  European  Maritime  and 
Fisheries  Fund  supports  the  implementation  of  operational  programmes  set  out  by  Member 
States,  measures  to  support  fisheries,  aquaculture  and  community-led  local  development, 
processing and marketing, compensation for the outermost regions, control and data collection 
activities as well as the Integrated Maritime Policy. The fund helps fishermen in the transition 
to sustainable fishing and finances projects that create new jobs. The European Maritime and 
Fisheries  Fund  is  not  only  directed  to  fisheries  and  innovation  in  fisheries,  aquaculture  and 
processing,  but  also  to  support  diversification  and  promote  the  economic  development  of 
coastal  communities.  Direct  management  is  used  to  implement  scientific  advice,  specific 
control and enforcement measures, voluntary contributions to regional fisheries management 
organisations,  Advisory  Councils,  market  intelligence,  operations  for  the  implementation  of 
the  Integrated  Maritime  Policy  and  communication  activities.  Maritime  policy  and  the 
development of the blue economy in the various sea basins surrounding Europe is by nature 
cross-sectoral  and  transnational.  Therefore,  action  at  EU-level  leads  to  efficiency  gains  and 
reduction of fragmentation and duplication of actions.  

40 

 
 
 
Sustainable  Fisheries  Partnership  Agreements  between  the  European  Union  and  third 
countries  have  the  objective  of  contributing  to  a  regulated  framework  for  EU  long-distance 
fishing fleet while ensuring a sustainable exploitation of the third countries’ relevant fisheries 
resources and supporting competiveness of the Union’s fishing fleet.   

The Programme for the Environment and Climate Action, referred to as LIFE, is exclusively 
dedicated to the environment, nature protection and climate action and complementary to the 
mainstreaming  of  environmental  and  climate  concerns  in  other  major  EU  funding.  LIFE’s 
general objective is to help implement and develop EU environmental and climate policy and 
legislation by co-financing projects with EU added value. The programme is not intended to 
solve  the  environmental  and  climate  problems  but  initial  evidence  confirms  that  it  acts  as  a 
catalyst for accelerating changes.68 It promotes the exchange of best practices and knowledge 
on implementing EU legislation and policies and it allows testing new approaches for future 
scaling-up.  The  fitness  check  of  the  Birds  and  Habitats  Directives69  confirmed  the  strategic 
role that the LIFE programme plays in supporting the Directives’ implementation. While not 
being its primary aim, LIFE also contributes to innovation and job creation. 

The  delivery  mechanism  works  through  three  broad  types  of  funding:  grants,  financial 
instruments  and  public  procurement  contracts.  LIFE  is  giving  grants  for  demonstration 
projects, pilot projects and best practice projects. It also provides grants to integrated projects 
facilitating  implementation  of  plans  by  Member  States  and  local  authorities  and  raising 
awareness  to  induce  behavioural  change.  The  financial  instruments  promote  lending  to 
revenue generating investments in nature conservation and energy efficiency. 

4.3.3.  Key achievements 

As regards the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund, substantial changes have been made to 
the  direct  payments  system  compared  to  its  predecessor.  Distribution  of  payments  is  more 
balanced  thanks  to  a  system  of  convergence  between  and  within  Member  States:  first  data 
show  that  the  average  direct  payments  per  hectare  are  converging  (at  Member  State  and 
farmer  levels)70.  Payments  are  also  better  targeted,  thanks  to  new  payment  schemes  (some 
mandatory  for  Member  States,  some  only  optional)  addressing  the  particular  needs  of  the 
young farmers, smaller farmers and specific sectors or regions with structural problems.  

In  claim  year  2015  (corresponding  to  financial  year  2016),  which  was  the  first  year  of 
implementation  of  the  reformed  system,  about  6.8  million  farmers  benefited  from  direct 
payments and the total determined area paid covered some 90% of the EU utilised agriculture 
area (155.7 million ha). 

Under  the  European  Agricultural  Guarantee  Fund,  support  programmes  are  operating  for 
specific  sectors  such  as  the  wine,  fruit  and  vegetables,  apiculture  and  olive  oil  sectors.  The 
success  of  the  programmes  is  witnessed  by  the  long-term  development  of  EU  exports, 
especially  in  the  wine  sector.  Moreover  various  market  measures  such  as  the  exceptional 
support for fruit and vegetables, the storage measures in the dairy and pig meat sectors, and 
exceptional measures covering adjustment aid for the livestock sectors as well as for a scheme 

68 SWD(2017)355 final, Mid-term evaluation of the LIFE Programme 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/news/newsarchive2017/documents/swd_mid_term_evaluation2017_.pdf 
69 SWD(2016)472 final, Fitness Check of the EU Nature Legislation (Birds and Habitats Directives) 
70 https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/sites/agriculture/files/statistics/facts-figures/direct-payments.pdf 

41 

 
                                                 
aiming to temporarily reduce milk production, have helped rebalance the sectors concerned. 
They  effectively  helped  to  increase  prices  for  farmers,  proving  much-needed  support  to 
affected  producers  in  the  Member  States  following  the  Russian  embargo  on  imports  of 
agricultural products from the EU and other situations of market imbalances within the EU.  

The  "greening"  layer  of  direct  payments,  introduced  with  the  2013  Common  Agricultural 
Policy  reform,  accounts  for  30  percent  of  Member  States’  annual  direct  payment  ceilings. 
However,  the  evaluation  on  the  payment  for  agricultural  practices  beneficial  for  the  climate 
and the environment71 found that the greening measures have not fully realised their intended 
potential to provide ambitious benefits for climate and environment. Based on data from 2015 
and  2016  implementation,  the  overall  effects  are  uncertain  but  appear  fairly  limited  and 
variable across the Member States. They appear to have had a negligible effect on production 
or economic viability of farms. 

The  2014-2020  rural  development  programmes  had  a  relatively  late  start  mainly  due  to  the 
late  adoption  of  the  legislative  acts.  The  annual  implementation  reports  overall  confirm  a 
steady acceleration in spending levels that has made up for the initial delays. In January 2018, 
spending levels reached 25.7 % of total EU rural development resources, matched by 42 % in 
terms of commitments over planned total public expenditure.  

Evolution of reimbursement claims by the Member States 
(total Union contribution, billion EUR on 31/01/2018) 

As  a  result  of  the  implementation  of  rural  development  programmes  the  following  targets, 
amongst  others,  are  expected  to  be  achieved  at  the  level  of  the  Union  at  the  end  of  the 
programming period:  

• 

• 

25% of agricultural land farmed with specific practices that promote  biodiversity 
and the protection of water and soils; 3.8 million training places to be funded; 

15  000  co-operation  projects  for  innovation  and  local  food  production  to  be 
supported; 

71 Evaluation study of the payment for agricultural practices beneficial for the climate and the environment, Final 
Report  -  https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/sites/agriculture/files/fullrep_en.pdf,  Commission  Evaluation  Staff 
Working Document to be published in 2018 

42 

 
 
                                                 
• 

• 

• 

• 

more than 331 300 farmers to modernise and improve their production facilities  

support for 177 700 young farmers to set up their businesses;  

603 359 farms to be covered by risk management schemes; 

113 900 non-agricultural jobs to be created, of which: 

o  79  900  from  the  creation,  diversification  and  other  development  of  small 

businesses; 

o  44 000 through the LEADER approach to local development; 

• 

50 million rural citizens to benefit from improved services.  

Sustainability  gave  an  impetus  to  knowledge  creation  and  sharing.  While  the  uptake  of  the 
innovation partnership approach was voluntary it is being implemented in 26 Member States, 
which  testifies  to  the  perceived  need  for  its  distinctive  approach  to  innovation  in  which 
farmers  (alongside  other  essential  actors)  are  active  participants  in  the  co-creation  of 
innovative solutions.72 

For the 2014-2020 rural development programming period, a number of initiatives have been 
launched  in  order  to  improve  efficiency  and  effectiveness  of  the  EU  rural  development 
expenditure.  Simplified  Cost  Options  are  increasingly  being  used  by  Member  States  and 
regions.  The  use  of  financial  instruments  is  key  for  leveraging  and  revolving  the  rural 
development  budget.  The  fund  is  well  on  track  to  meet  the  target  of  doubling  the  use  of 
financial instruments as compared to 2007-2013. 

The  rural  development  basic  act73  was  modified  in  2017  through  the  so-called  Omnibus 
Regulation,  inter  alia  to  improve  risk  management  tools  for  farmers,  reduce  administrative 
burden for beneficiaries and simplify conditions for financial instruments. 

The  late  adoption  of  the  European  Maritime  and  Fisheries  Fund  Regulation74  (May  2014) 
entailed a delay in the adoption of the Operational Programmes and to preparatory work for 
implementation such as the setting up of the fund’s Monitoring Committees. This meant that 
during  the  first  years  implementation  remained  low.  However,  during  2017  the  rate  of 
implementation  started  to  take  off  considerably.  The  number  of  operations  (excluding 
technical assistance) more than doubled, from 6 200 in 2016 to 15 500 in 2017. The number 
of fishing vessels benefitting from the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund almost tripled 
from  3  600  in  2016  to  over  9  600  in  2017.  The  number  of  small-scale  coastal  fishing  fleet 
vessels benefitting from the fund doubled. The provided support promotes sustainable balance 
between  fishing  fleets  and  resources  and  the  protection  of  the  marine  ecosystems.  The 
European Maritime and Fisheries Fund has also supported better management of more than 60 
000  km²  of  Natura  2000  areas,  and  almost  1.5  million  km²  of  other  marine  protected  areas 
(2016  data).  Through  projects  facilitating  transboundary  cooperation  on  Maritime  Spatial 

72 Evaluation study of the implementation of the European Innovation Partnership, November 2016: 
https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/external-studies/2016-eip_en 
73 Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 
74 Regulation (EU) No 508/2014 

43 

 
                                                 
Planning,  it  prepares  the  ground  for  a  sustainable  development  of  the  maritime  economy  in 
sea  basins with  an  increasing  amount  of  economic  activities.  Supported  operations  not  only 
benefit the (legal or  natural) persons that  officially  act as beneficiaries of the operation, but 
also others. It is estimated that more than 71 000 fishermen, their spouses/partner and 25 000 
members of producer organisations benefit from the support, as well as 77 000 employees and 
32 000 other persons. By the end of 2017, the 368 Fisheries Local Action Groups had selected 
1156  projects  for  implementation  and  an  additional  56  cooperation  projects  with  other 
Member States were under preparation. 

The  2017  Our  Ocean  Conference  in  Malta  confirmed  the  EU’s  role  as  the  world’s  ‘oceans 
champion’  and  as  a  strong  global  actor.  In  particular,  the  conference  resulted  in  437 
measurable  commitments  worth  EUR  7.2  billion,  addressing  critical  issues  such  as 
environmental  protection  (marine  pollution,  biodiversity,  climate),  maritime  security,  and 
sustainable fisheries.  

A total of 200 EU vessels flagged in one of the EU Member States currently benefit from a 
fishing authorisation granted under Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Agreements, providing 
them the access they need, also providing jobs and growth in the EU. These agreements have 
also been  contributing to the development of the fisheries sector  in the 12 partner  countries 
and  to  better  governance  of  their  fisheries  sector.  At  the  same  time,  they  contribute  to 
eliminating illegal fishing and providing good framework conditions for local fishermen. 

Since 2016 the European Fisheries Control Agency was given new tasks, in cooperation with 
the  European  Border  and  Coast  Guard  Agency  and  the  European  Maritime  Safety  Agency, 
each within its mandate, to support the national authorities carrying out coast guard functions, 
through the improvement of co-operation and co-ordination. 

The LIFE mid-term evaluation75 came at an early stage of the programme’s implementation 
and  therefore  focussed  mainly  on  the  processes  put  in  place  to  reach  the  programme’s 
objectives  and  on-going  activities.  Still,  it  provides  reasonable  assurance  that  the 
programme’s  implementation  is  on  the  right  track  to  deliver  on  environmental  and  climate 
objectives.  

Some  280  traditional  projects  across  all  priorities  have  been  selected  and  financed,  plus  15 
integrated projects, 6 projects for the European Voluntary Corps76 and  some other  technical 
assistance and preparatory projects. Ongoing projects expect to reach 70 % of the milestones 
envisaged  for  2017.  They  are  doing  this  by,  for  example,  targeting  the  improvement  of  the 
conservation status of 59 habitats, 114 species and 85 Natura 2000 sites. The mid-term review 
of  the  EU  biodiversity  strategy  to  202077  concluded  that  ‘the  LIFE  programme  remains  a 
small but highly effective funding source for nature and biodiversity’.  

Two pilot financial instruments to test innovative approaches have been introduced at the end 
of 2014, under which agreements have been signed for the financing of nature conservation 
and energy efficiency projects.   

75 SWD(2017) 355 final - https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/report-on-the-mid-
termevaluation_swd_355_en.pdf  
76 COM/2016/0942 final 
77 COM(2015)478 final, Mid-term review of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 

44 

 
                                                 
As regards efficiency, the mid-term evaluation estimated that the benefit to society of some of 
the  projects  selected  following  the  2014  call  for  proposals  will  amount  to  EUR  1.7  billion, 
which  represents  four  times  the  cost  of  the  overall  LIFE  budget  for  2014.  Moreover,  the 
transfer of most of the grant management from the Commission to the Executive Agency for 
Small  and  Medium-sized  Enterprises  is  exceeding  the  expected  efficiency  gain  of  EUR  8.2 
million initially planned for 2014-2020. Following the controls done in 2017, LIFE registers a 
low error rate of 0.25.  

LIFE  is  designed  to  be  complementary  to  other  EU  funding  programmes.  The  mid-term 
evaluation found that initial results showed that LIFE and other EU funding programmes  are 
contributing  to  environmental  and  climate  objectives  in  different  and  in  some  cases 
complementary ways with a limited risk of overlap. In particular, synergies are exploited by 
giving  preferential  treatment  to  LIFE  project  proposals  that  are  taking  up  results  from  EU 
funded research and innovation. Also, larger scale deployment of measures successfully tested 
in  LIFE  projects  may  be  financed  through  other  EU  funding  programmes,  e.g.  a  more 
sustainable  fishing  practice  can  be  promoted  through  the  European  Maritime  and  Fisheries 
Fund.  Furthermore,  LIFE  integrated  projects  that  ensure  environmental  and  climate  policy 
implementation at a large territorial scale are channelling funding from other sources towards 
environmental  and  climate  objectives.  It  is  expected  that  the  funding  of  LIFE  integrated 
projects in 2014-2016 of EUR 251 million will result in funding of environmental and climate 
actions  amounting  to  EUR  5.7  billion,  of  which  EUR  3  billion  is  coming  from  other  EU 
programmes,  such  as  the  European  Agricultural  Fund  for  Rural  Development  and  the 
European Regional Development Fund. 

4.3.4.  Lessons learned 

The  experience  so  far  and  evidence  collected  clearly  point  to  a  need  for  simplification  and 
better delivery of EU spending under the Common Agricultural Policy towards common and 
clearly defined objectives. The Communication on the future of food and farming78 sets out 
the future delivery system for a modernised Common Agricultural Policy that should be more 
result driven, boost subsidiarity by giving Member States a much greater role in rolling out 
the  funding  schemes,  pursue  agreed  realistic  and  adequate  targets,  and  help  reduce  the  EU-
related administrative burden for beneficiaries. This new approach requires careful definition 
and monitoring of objectives, targets and indicators. Environmental and climate standards and 
targets under the Common Agricultural Policy should be aligned with existing EU legislation 
and policy objectives. To effectively deliver on EU objectives, clear responsibilities, effective 
controls and real simplification for beneficiaries need to be ensured. 

The  ex  post  evaluation  of  the  European  Fisheries  Fund  (2007-2013)79  concluded  that  there 
was  scope  for  improvement,  notably  to  reinforce  the  link  between  funding  and  policy 
objectives. It also concluded that there was a need to take a more strategic approach to making 
aquaculture  more  competitive  and  increasing  production  and  to  take  better  account  of  the 
specific challenges faced by the small-scale and coastal fisheries. Except in the case of local 
development,  complementarities  and  synergies  with  other  funds  remained  limited.  These 
conclusions were taken on board in the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund 2014-2020. 

78 COM(2017) 713 final 
79 SWD(2017) 274 final 

45 

 
                                                 
The tracking of climate  and biodiversity expenditure in  the EU budget  for the period 2014-
2020  shows  that  the  mainstreaming  approach  is  successful,  but  with  some  limitations 
identified in particular for biodiversity. This approach and a strong emphasis on sustainability 
should  therefore  be  continued  after  2020,  avoiding  conflicts  between  objectives,  and  with  a 
complementary  LIFE  programme  that  continues  to  act  as  catalyst  to  pilot  actions  and  new 
measures. 

Targeting and prioritisation 

The  study  Mapping  and  analysis  of  the  implementation  of  the  Common  Agricultural  Policy 
(2016)80 reveals that the Member States’  strategy to reach the  objectives of the 2013  policy 
reform is not sufficiently documented: the implementation choices are more influenced by the 
consideration to “maintain the status quo” than by a long-term strategy that takes into account 
the  general  Common  Agricultural  Policy  objectives.  The  degree  to  which  funds  have  been 
targeted to certain needs might not be sufficient to have a significant impact. The European 
Court of Auditors found that Member States did not coordinate Pillar 1 payments with Pillar 2 
support  to  young  farmers81  and  did  not  always  ensure  complementarity,  coordination  and 
synergies with other EU funds/support schemes82. 

The  synthesis  of  ex  ante  evaluations  of  Rural  Development  Programmes  2014-202083 
concluded that the prioritisation of needs and description of links between the planned actions 
and  expected  results,  needs  to  be  further  enhanced.  In  the  same  vein  preliminary  findings 
from  the  synthesis  of  ex-post  evaluations  of  Rural  Development  Programmes  2007-201384 
show  that  the  lack  of  priority  and  budget  seem  to  have  had  a  limiting  effect  on  innovative 
approaches.  

The  mid-term  evaluation  of  LIFE  concluded  as  points  for  improvement  increasing  the 
strategic  focus  of  the  demand-driven  part  of  the  programme,  e.g.  by  targeting  topics  not 
covered by the projects funded in previous years. Also more should be done to reproduce the 
projects  and  transfer  their  results,  e.g.  by  developing  the  capacity  to  plan  and  implement 
investments and by addressing the lack of financial resources. 

Performance monitoring  

A  comprehensive  common  monitoring  and  evaluation  framework  for  the  Common 
Agricultural Policy was put in place for the 2014-2020 period. In several Special Reports, the 
European  Court  of  Auditors  highlighted  areas  of  EU  spending  where  a  sound  intervention 
logic  was  lacking85  and  raised  concerns  with  respect  to  unclear  objectives,  performance 

80 https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/external-studies/mapping-analysis-implementation-cap_en,  
81  Special  Report  No  10/2017:  EU  support  to  young  farmers  should  be  better  targeted  to  foster  effective 
generational renewal. 
82 Special Report No 25/2015: EU support for rural infrastructure: potential to achieve significant great value for 
money, Special Report No 20/2015: the cost-effectiveness of EU rural development support for non-productive 
investments  in  agriculture,  Special  Report  No  5/2018:  Renewable  energy  for  sustainable  rural  development: 
significant potential synergies, but mostly unrealised. 
83 https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/evaluation/rural-development-reports/ex-ante-rdp-synthesis-2014-2020_en 
84 Staff Working Document to be published in 2018 
85  Special  Report  No  10/2017:  EU  support  to  young  farmers  should  be  better  targeted  to  foster  effective 
generational  renewal,  Special  Report No  21/2017: Greening:  a  more  complex  income  support scheme,  not yet 
environmentally effective. 

46 

 
                                                 
indicators/monitoring,  reporting  and  evaluation  systems  that  do  not  provide  information  in 
time  to  direct  future  policy,  achieve  objectives  and  manage  the  budget  by  results86.  The 
European Court of Auditors also found that even though the performance framework aimed to 
enhance  the  results‐based  approach,  the rural  development  programmes  were  approved  late, 
were  long  and  complex  documents,  with  shortcomings  that  would  hinder  the  focus  on 
performance and results87. 

The  development  of  the  common  monitoring  and  evaluation  system  for  the  European 
Maritime and Fisheries Fund has been a common learning process involving the Commission 
and the Member States. Progress has been made and initial shortcomings have been solved in 
cooperation with the Member States. A recent report on the implementation of the  common 
monitoring and evaluation system88 makes recommendations  for further improvement  based 
on  the  experience  so  far.  While  Member  States  should  have  the  flexibility  to  use 
supplementary  indicators  at  national  level,  the  common  indicators  should  cover  all 
investments in order to allow for aggregation at EU level and to provide an overall picture of 
the use of the funds.  

As regards coherence with under funds through other programmes that complement the funds 
dedicated to fisheries and maritime policy under the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund, it 
has been difficult to guarantee and track policy achievements and the impact of such support 
without a clear system of monitoring and ring fencing. 

The  mid-term  review  of  the  multiannual  financial  framework  confirmed  that  the  climate 
mainstreaming approach has worked well89. Setting a 20% target for climate-related spending 
has  incited  the  consideration  of  climate  in  the  design  and  implementation  of  all  EU 
programmes,  including  by  putting  in  place  transparent  processes  and  monitoring  that 
strengthen the added value of programmes90. 

Simplification 

Preliminary  findings  from  the  ongoing  evaluation  of  the  impact  of  measures  under  the 
Common Agricultural Policy towards the general objective of "viable food production" show 
that the administrative and management costs of the current Common Agricultural Policy are 
considered to be generally higher than in the previous period.  

86 Special Report No 5/2015: Are financial instruments a successful and promising tool in the rural development 
area,  Special  Report  No  20/2015:  the  cost-effectiveness  of  EU  rural  development  support  for  non-productive 
investments in agriculture, Special Report No 25/2015: EU support for rural infrastructure: potential to achieve 
significant  great  value  for  money,  Special  Report  No  1/2016:  is  the  Commission’s  system  for  performance 
measurement in relation to farmers incomes well designed and based on sound data, Special Report No 16/2017: 
Rural Development Programming: less complexity and more focus on results needed,  
87  Special  Report  No  16/2017:  Rural  Development  Programming:  less  complexity  and  more  focus  on  results 
needed 
88 COM(2018) 48 final 
89 COM(2016) 603 final http://ec.europa.eu/budget/mff/figures/index_en.cfm#com_2016_603   
90 As shown for example in the 2017 ESIF Strategic Report 
 http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docoffic/official/reports/strat_rep_2017/strat_rep_2017_swd_en.pdf 

47 

 
                                                 
The  evaluation  on  the  payment  for  agricultural  practices  beneficial  for  the  climate  and  the 
environment91  concluded  that  the  overall  current  environmental  and  climate  architecture  of 
the Common Agricultural Policy has proved to be more complex and difficult to manage. The 
European  Court  of  Auditors92  concluded  that  greening  added  significant  complexity  to  the 
Common Agricultural Policy, which was not justified in view of the results that greening was 
expected  to  produce.  It  mentioned  that  as  greening  overlaps  with  the  other  environmental 
instruments  under  the  Common  Agricultural  Policy,  there  is  risk  of  deadweight  and  double 
funding,  although  certain  decisions  and  actions  by  the  Commission  and  Member  States 
mitigate these risks.  

With  the  rural  development  fund  in  the  period  2014-2020  forming  part  of  the  European 
Structural Investment Funds, conclusions mentioned under Heading 1b relating to complexity 
of the legal framework and administrative burden also hold true for the European Agricultural 
Fund  for  Rural  Development.  The  European  Court  of  Auditors  concluded  that  significant 
administrative  effort  on  the  part  of  national  authorities  was  needed  to  meet  the  extensive 
content  requirements  and  that  despite  the  efforts  made,  the  implementation  of  the  rural 
development programmes did not start earlier than in the previous period. 

The  REFIT  Platform93  also  highlighted  in  its  10  opinions  on  agriculture  the  need  for 
modernisation and simplification in order to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the 
Common Agricultural Policy (in particular the greening payment) and to simplify and ensure 
coherence  between  the  European  Agricultural  Fund  for  Rural  Development  and  other 
Structural  and  Investment  Funds.  The  European  Court  of  Auditors  identified  simplification 
potential  in  the  areas  of  cross-compliance  management  and  control  systems94,  and  Land 
Parcel  Identification  System  rules95.  It  also  highlighted  the  limited  impact  of  the  basic 
payment scheme for farmers on simplification, targeting and the convergence of aid levels96, 
and advocated the use of (off-the-shelf) simplified cost options97.  

The  main  lesson  learnt  up  to  now  with  the  implementation  of  the  programmes  under  the 
European Maritime and Fisheries Fund is that the current delivery system and eligibility rules 
need  to  be  substantially  simplified  to  facilitate  access  to  funding  and  alleviate  the 
administrative  burden  for  both  administrations  and  beneficiaries,  in  a  sector  where  small 
grants  are  predominant.  As  regards  direct  management,  consideration  should  be  given  to 
further externalise direct managed funds to executive agencies.  

  https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-making-process/evaluating-and-improving-

91 Evaluation study of the payment for agricultural practices beneficial for the climate and the environment, Final 
Report - https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/sites/agriculture/files/fullrep_en.pdf; 
92 Special Report 21/2017   
93  REFIT  Platform  Opinions 
existing-laws/refit-making-eu-law-simpler-and-less-costly/refit-platform/refit-platform-recommendations-and-
other-work_en 
94  Special  Report  No  26/2016:  making  cross-compliance  more  effective  and  achieving  simplification  remains 
challenging. 
95 Special Report No 25/2016: The Land Parcel Identification System: a useful tool to determine the eligibility of 
agricultural land – but its management could be further improved. 
96  Special  Report  10/2018:  Basic  payment  scheme  for  farmers  –  operationally  on  track,  but  limited  impact  on 
simplification, targeting and the convergence of aid levels. 
97  Special  Report  11/2018:  New  options  for  financing  rural  development  projects:  simpler  but  not  focused  on 
results. 

48 

 
                                                 
The  mid-term  evaluation  of  LIFE  pointed  to  the  need  to  simplify  grant  management 
procedures, in particular the application and reporting processes.  

Synergies 

There is scope to enhance coherence between the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund with 
other  EU  funds.  In  particular  on  the  support  for  local  coastal  communities,  synergies  and 
complementarity (delineation of interventions) among the different structural funds should be 
ensured. 

The LIFE mid-term evaluation confirmed the catalyst role of the LIFE integrated projects as 
they  are  able  to  mobilise  complementary  financial  resources.  This  leveraging  effect  of  the 
programme  should  be  further  enhanced  and  synergy  mechanisms  more  systematically 
developed  in  particular  between  LIFE  and  the  European  Structural  Investment  Funds.  In 
particular,  biodiversity  and  Natura  2000,  energy  efficiency  and  renewables  are  areas  where 
more synergies are needed. 

4.4.  Heading 3 - Security and citizenship 

4.4.1. 

Introduction 

Heading  3  includes  programmes  supporting  pressing  political  challenges  such  as  security, 
asylum,  migration  and  integration  of  third  country  nationals,  justice,  health  and  consumer 
protection, as well as those relating to dialogue with citizens and support to Europe’s cultural 
and creative sectors. The programmes under Heading 3 contribute mainly to the Commission 
priorities of ‘Justice and Fundamental Rights’ and ‘Migration’ but also to the internal market 
and Europe 2020 achievements as well as the European Agenda for Culture.  

The  European  Union  is  designed  to  create  an  area  of  freedom,  security  and  justice  without 
controls  at  internal  borders.  Strengthening  EU  security,  safety  and  health,  values,  rights, 
culture  and  justice  has  profound  and  direct  impact  in  people’s  day-to-day  lives.  In  an  era 
where  terrorism  and  other  serious  crime  operate  across  borders,  preventive  measures, 
coordination  and  cooperation,  as  well  as  a  sense  of  shared  European  identity  and  common 
values, enhance security.  

Two dedicated funds address the challenges in the security and migration areas: the Asylum, 
Migration  and  Integration  Fund  and  the  Internal  Security  Fund  including  Internal  Security 
Fund Borders and Visa and Internal Security Fund Police. Large-scale information technology 
systems  for  collecting,  processing  and  sharing  information  relevant  to  external  border 
management  are  financed.  The  Asylum,  Migration  and  Integration  Fund  promotes  the 
development  of  a  common  Union  approach  to  asylum  and  migration  and  contributes  to 
inclusive growth while the Internal Security Fund contributes to the security of the Union. 

Further,  the  Union  Civil  Protection  Mechanism,  as  well  as  the  Instrument  for  Emergency 
Support within the EU, contributes to the protection of citizens from  natural and man-made 
disasters. The Consumer and the Food and Feed  Programmes protect consumers’ rights and 
their health and safety and creates a level playing field in the Internal Market where goods can 
be  traded  under  safe  conditions.  The  Health  Programme  addresses  the  increasing  trend  of 
health  inequalities,  with  a  specific  focus  on  refugees.  This  programme  also  stands  on  the 
crossroads  between  smart  and  inclusive  growth  by  funding  the  up-take  of  innovation  and 

49 

 
supporting Member States in their health systems’ reforms. Justice Programme contributes to 
the development of a European area of justice based on the rule of law, on mutual recognition, 
by  facilitating  access  to  justice,  by  promoting  judicial  cooperation  and  the  effectiveness  of 
national  justice  systems.  The  Rights,  Equality  and  Citizenship  Programme  promotes  and 
protects  equality  and  the  rights  of  persons,  as  enshrined  in  the  Treaty,  the  Charter  and 
international  human  rights  conventions  while  Europe  for  Citizens  Programme,  by  working 
directly with citizens, provides an unique forum to involve people via a grassroots approach.  
The  Creative  Europe  Programme  supports  culture  and  creativity  by  funding  joint  European 
projects, such as film co-productions and TV series, capable of reaching millions of citizens. 
It contributes to the Digital Single Market strategy by helping Europe’s creative industries to 
scale up and adapt, including by promoting European content online.  

4.4.2.  Objectives of the Programmes 

Both the European Union and its Member States have a responsibility towards their citizens to 
deliver  an  area  where  individuals  are  protected,  in  full  compliance  with  EU  fundamental 
rights.  Member  States  have  the  front  line  responsibility  but  cannot  address  transnational 
threats effectively acting on their own. That is why, at European level, the environment and 
the infrastructure need to be built in such a way that national authorities can effectively work 
together and with international organizations to tackle shared challenges. 

Through  the  Asylum,  Migration  and  Integration  Fund  the  EU  promotes  the  efficient 
management of migration flows and the development of a common Union approach to asylum 
and  migration.  It  contributes  to  the  achievement  of  four  specific  objectives,  namely 
strengthening  and  developing    the  Common  European  Asylum  System,  supporting  legal 
migration  to  EU  Member  States  in  line  with  the  labour  market  needs  and  the  effective 
integration  of  third-country  nationals;  it  also  helps  to  enhance  fair  and  effective  return 
strategies and to ensure solidarity and responsibility sharing between the EU Member States, 
in particular those most affected by migration and asylum flows. 

The  Internal  Security  Fund  aims  to  ensure  a  high  level  of  security  in  the  Union,  while 
safeguarding  the  free  movement  within  it  and  facilitating  legitimate  travel.  This  includes 
under Borders and Visa the effective management of the external border and the support for 
the common visa policy to ensure the smooth legitimate crossing of the external borders while 
detecting illegal movements. The other component of the fund, Internal Security Fund Police, 
focuses on crime prevention and the fight against  cross-border, serious and organised crime 
and on risk and crisis management. EU State authorities need to cooperate on preventing and 
tackling crime and on border management to ensure the security of citizens and travellers in 
the EU.  

A  number  of  information  sharing  systems  are  central  to  this  cooperation:  the  Visa 
Information System allows Schengen States to exchange visa data; the Schengen Information 
System allows Schengen States to exchange data on suspected criminals, on people who may 
not  have  the  right  to  enter  into  or  stay  in  the  EU,  on  missing  persons  and  on  stolen, 
misappropriated or lost property. 

Preventing major outbreaks of diseases and pest, through control and surveillance measures in 
the  food  chains  and  protection  of  consumers  rights  contributes  to  make  sure  that  European 
citizens have access to safe consumer goods and high quality food, safeguarding health and 
safety.   

50 

 
In ortder to do this, the EU provides financial support of EUR 2.34 billion over the seven-year 
period 2014–2020 to contribute to healthy citizens and a safe food chain. The Food and Feed 
Programme  finances  protection  measures  improving  control  and  surveillance  of  the  food 
chain and emergency measures preventing the spread of diseases and pests and the disruption 
of  trade.  The  Health  Programme  complements  and  supports  national  policies  aimed  at 
improving the health of EU citizens and reducing health inequalities.  

The  Union  Civil  Protection  Mechanism  aims  at  strengthening  the  cooperation  and 
coordination  in  the  field  of  civil  protection  against  man-made  and  natural  disasters  through 
the  improvement  of  response,  prevention  and  preparedness  to  address  disasters  at  both 
national and EU level.  

The Instrument for Emergency Support within the EU provides a needs-based emergency 
response,  complementing  the  response  of  the  affected  Member  States,  aimed  at  preserving 
life, preventing and alleviating human suffering, and maintaining human dignity wherever the 
need arises as a result of an ongoing or potential natural or man-made disaster. 

The  Consumer  Programme  supports  EU  consumer  policy.  It  helps  citizens  to  actively 
participate in the Single Market. The programme focuses on four key areas: a single market of 
safe  products,  where  citizens,  well  represented  by  consumer  organisations,  exercise  their 
rights,  enjoying  access  to  redress  mechanisms  and  where  national  bodies  support  the 
enforcement of consumer rights. 

Political and  societal  developments  in  Europe  over  the last  decade  have  brought  citizenship 
issues  to  the  fore  and  emphasised  the  need  to  increase  the  value  EU  citizens  see  in  the 
European  project.  Enabling  people  to  exercise  their  rights  as  EU  citizens  helps  to  enhance 
trust and confidence in the EU.   

The Justice Programme contributes to the development of a European area of justice based 
on  mutual  recognition  and  trust.  The  programme  promotes  judicial  cooperation  in  civil  and 
criminal  matters  and  judicial  training  to  foster  a  common  judicial  culture.  The  programme 
supports effective access to justice in Europe, as well as initiatives in the field of drugs policy. 

The  Rights,  Equality  and  Citizenship  Programme  contributes  to  promoting  non-
discrimination, rights of persons with disabilities, equality between women and men, gender 
mainstreaming, the rights of the child, as well as the rights deriving from Union citizenship. 
The programme combats intolerance, prevents violence against groups at risk, and ensures the 
highest  level  of  data  protection  and  consumer  rights.  Closely  related  stands  the  Europe  for 
Citizens Programme. This programme contributes to citizens’ understanding of the EU, its 
history and diversity and values. It also encourages participation of citizens at EU level. 

The Creative Europe Programme provides financial support of EUR 1.46 billion to support 
the  European  cultural  and  creative  sectors,  in  particular  audiovisual,  in  order  to  promote 
cultural  and  linguistic  diversity  and  stimulate  European  competitiveness.  Creative  Europe 
aims  to  unlock  the  potential  for  growth  by  overcoming  the obstacles created  by  fragmented 
markets,  responding  to  fierce  international  competition  and  adapting  to  the  digital 
transformation  of  society.  The  MEDIA  sub-programme  fosters  the  creation  of  audiovisual 
content (films, TV series, videos). 

51 

 
4.4.3.  Key achievements 

In recent years, the most important issues of concern stated by European citizens are terrorism 
and migration98. In the areas of migration, integration and security the Union faces important 
and  constantly  changing  needs.  The  increasing  volumes  of  migrants,  asylum  seekers  and 
people in return processes put more pressure on the migratory systems of the Member States. 
The number of irregular arrivals to the European Union in the wake of the migratory crisis has 
been unprecedented, with more than 1.8 million irregular border crossings detected in 2015, 
challenging the proper functioning of the Schengen area. The number of asylum applications 
in  2016  was  approximately  5.6  times  higher  when  compared  to  2008.  There  is  also  a  high 
level of heterogeneity of needs of the Member States. 

In  this  context,  the  Asylum,  Migration  and  Integration  Fund  proved  to  be  an  important 
instrument  providing  both  short-term  emergency  support  and  more  long-term  capacity 
building.  It  has  strongly  improved  the  reception  conditions  that  were  put  under  extreme 
pressure in 2015 and 2016. This resulted in a more dignified, safe and healthy environment. 
For  example,  the  setting  up  of  hotspots99  with  support  from  Internal  Security  Fund  Borders 
and Visa, contributed to reach a capacity of more than 7 500 places in Greece and more than 1 
500  places  in  Italy.  In  2015,  before  the  setting  up  of  these  facilities,  only  58%  of  migrants 
were  fingerprinted  on  arrival  in  Italy;  today,  thanks  to  the  new  approach,  almost  100%  are. 
The hotspot approach was audited by the European Court of Auditors who overall found that 
the approach has helped improve migration management in the two frontline Member States, 
under very challenging and constantly changing circumstances, by increasing their reception 
capacities,  improving  registration  procedures,  and  by  strengthening  the  coordination  of 
support  efforts.100  Overall,  the  Fund  contributed  in  varying  degrees  to  strengthening  the 
Common  European  Asylum  System.  Almost  814  000  refugees  and asylum  seekers  received 
assistance. The Fund has significantly contributed to enhancing solidarity and responsibility-
sharing between Member States mainly through the emergency assistance and the relocation 
mechanism.  Incentives  to  engage  in  solidarity  activities,  with  the  fund  were  reinforced: 
Member  States  could  receive  lump  sums  for  persons  resettled  from  a  third  country  or  from 
another  EU  country.  Emergency  assistance  helped  swiftly  in  the  period  until  EU  budget 
allocated  to  national  programmes  could  be  brought  in.  Also,  with  the  help  of  emergency 
assistance through the Fund and the Emergency Support Instrument, shelter has been provided 
to 35 000 people in Greece, including more than 400 safe places for unaccompanied minors. 
While less progress was made until now in the area of legal migration, with the help of the 
Fund, return rates of irregular migrants have steadily increased and the return conditions have 
improved.  

Internal Security Fund Borders and Visa contributed significantly to the EU common visa 
policy and integrated border management. Information-exchange and training activities have 
supported  the  uniform  implementation  of  the  Union’s  acquis.  The  Fund  combated  irregular 

98 According to the Eurobarometer carried out in 2015-2017; latest Eurobarometer 
http://data.europa.eu/euodp/en/data/dataset/S2142_87_3_STD87_ENG 
99  'Hotspot  areas"  are  defined  in  Article  2(10)  of  Regulation  (EU)  2016/1624  as  "an  area  in  which  the  host 
Member  State,  the  Commission,  relevant  Union  agencies  and participating  Member  States  cooperate,  with  the 
aim  of  managing  an  existing  or  potential  disproportionate  migratory  challenge  characterised  by  a  significant 
increase in the number of migrants arriving at the external borders". 
100 Special Report No 6/2017: EU response to the  refugee crisis:  the ‘hotspot’ approach 
https://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/SR17_6/SR_MIGRATION_HOTSPOTS_EN.pdf 

52 

 
                                                 
migration,  facilitate  legitimate  travel  and  reinforce  Members  States’  capacities  to  purchase 
technical  equipment.  It  helped  develop  EU  information  technology  systems,  with  particular 
regard to the Visa Information System, containing information on 52 million short-stay visa 
applications  at  the  beginning  of  2018,  and  the  Schengen  Information  System,  a  database 
which included 76 489 461 alerts, 5 173 194 992 searches and 243 503 hits in 2017. The Fund 
supported national information sharing platforms to combat visa abuse and document fraud. 
New technologies allowed addressing the changing requirements of the common visa policy, 
including  the  collection  of  biometric  identifiers  of  all  applicants  for  short-stay  visas.  The 
Operating  Support  for  Visa  was  extremely  useful  to  cover  part  of  the  costs  for  the  uniform 
implementation  of  the  EU  common  visa  policy.  The  Fund  contributed  to  the  upgrading  of 
border  control  and  surveillance  equipment  and  introduced  additional  Automated  Border 
Control  gates  to  speed  up  border  crossings  at  airports.  The  Fund  also  co-financed  the 
European  Border  Surveillance  System101  to  improve  situational  awareness  and  increase  the 
reaction  capability  at  the  external  borders.  Under  the  Fund,  Member  States  were  also 
supported  in  acquiring  border  management  equipment  that  is  put  at  the  disposal  of  the 
European Border and Coast Guard Agency. 

Internal  Security  Fund  Police  funded  numerous  actions  targeting  financial  and  economic 
crime,  cybercrime  and  drug  trafficking  and  supported  crucial  cooperation  needs  of  EU  law 
enforcement authorities. The Fund contributed to secure coordination between existing early 
warning and crisis cooperation actors, a key action being the ATLAS network. The upgrading 
of  Europol’s  secure  communication  system  Secure  Information  Exchange  Network 
Application,  which  resulted  in  870,000  messages  exchanged  in  2015  is  representative.  The 
fund  also  supports  the  implementation  of  the  Prüm  Decision102  which  resulted  in  2015  in 
2 219  311  DNA,  fingerprinting  and  vehicle  registration  number  matches.  In  addition,  the 
Fund has supported the continued development of the ‘Universal Message Format’ resulting 
in shorter response times and improved data quality. The Fund also supported the creation of 
dedicated  Passenger  Information  Units  in  the  context  of  the  Passenger  Name  Record 
Directive103.  Internal  Security  Fund  Police  also  successfully supports  actions  to  prevent  and 
counter  radicalisation,  such  as  the  Radicalisation  Awareness  Network  and  the  EU  Internet 
Forum. In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks in Paris in 2015, emergency assistance funding 
helped to put in place a digital solution to process surveillance data, increasing preparedness 
to possible following threats. 

The Health Programme delivered relevant and useful outcomes with high EU-added value, 
in  particular  for  crisis  management  and  for  the  safety  and  security  in  Europe,  improving 
Member States’ capacity against health threats. The Health Programme has been effective in 
protecting  citizens  from  cross-border  health  threats,  in  creating  scale  in  rare  disease 
initiatives,  in  promoting  economies  of  scale  in  health  technology  assessment,  and  in 
promoting the implementation of best practices. The programme has contributed to the EU’s 
migration policy, supporting responses to the health needs of migrants and refugees. Actions 

101 Regulation (EU) No 1052/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 
establishing the European Border Surveillance System (Eurosur) 
102 The purpose of this decision is to step up cross-border police and judicial cooperation between European 
Union (EU) countries in criminal matters. In particular, it aims to improve the exchanges of information between 
the authorities responsible for the prevention and investigation of criminal offences. 
103 Directive (EU) 2016/681 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the use of 
passenger name record (PNR) data for the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of terrorist 
offences and serious crime, OJ L 119, page 132-149 

53 

 
                                                 
include  sharing  of  lessons  learnt,  toolkits  and  guidelines,  training  and  testing  of  EU 
preparedness  mechanisms.  The  programme  focused  also  on  fostering  health  cooperation, 
enabling testing in real settings in close cooperation with competent authorities. The aim is to 
help  Member  States  design  and  implement  their  own  cost-effective  policies  while  taking 
needs  for  system  reforms  into  consideration.  The  eHealth  Network  developed  political 
recommendations  and  instruments  for  cooperation  directly  feeding  into  the  anchoring  of 
eHealth  in  the  Digital  Single  Market.  Aspects  covered  are  (i)  interoperability  and 
standardisation,  (ii)  monitoring  and  assessment  of  implementation,  (iii)  exchange  of 
knowledge and (iv) global cooperation and positioning.  

The Food and Feed Programme ensures EU citizens’ access to safe food and a uniform and 
high  level  of  protection  throughout  the  EU.  The  EU  has  an  active  animal  health  policy  and 
finances  Member  States’  programmes  to  eradicate,  control,  and  monitor  certain  animal 
diseases.  Animal  health  has  a  direct  impact  on  public  health,  because  of  food  safety  issues, 
and because some animal-borne diseases are transmissible to humans. In its related audit, the 
European Court of Auditors could overall confirm that the animal disease eradication, control 
and  monitoring  programmes  adequately  contained  animal  diseases.104  The  programme 
includes  training  and  reference  laboratories  for  an  EU  wide  uniform  implementation  of 
controls and targeted co-funding activities, especially around animal diseases and plant pest. 
The  financial  solidarity  ensures  that  effective measures  can  be  taken by  concerned  Member 
States  to  reduce  or  elimate  risks  in  the  food  chain  which  can  impact  on  health  and  disrupt 
trade. The analysis of indicators for the period 2014-2016 showed a positive epidemiological 
trend  for  all  priority  diseases  receiving  EU  financial  support.  Diseases  and  pests  could  be 
detected  early  and,  emergency  measures  could  be  applied  immediately.  The  measures  have 
thereby  also  contributed  to  the  reputation  and  thus  competitiveness  of  European  food 
production. 

The  Union  Civil  Protection  Mechanism  was  established  to  promote  swift  and  effective 
operational cooperation between national civil protection services, with an important role for 
the  European  Commission  to  facilitate  coordination.  The  Commission’s  facilitation  of 
coordination was strengthened through the widespread dissemination of information products. 
The  coordination  among  Commission  departments,  as  well  as  with  other  EU  and  non-EU 
bodies, was inclusive. The Commission also respected the United Nations’ overall lead, and 
took steps to ensure a smooth transition into the recovery phase. The Mechanism was audited 
by  the  European  Court  of  Auditors  who  concluded  that  the  Commission  has  been  broadly 
effective in facilitating the coordination of responses to disasters outside the Union since the 
beginning  of  2014.  The  activation  of  the  Mechanism  was  considered  timely  and  the 
Commission’s coordinating role and its round-the-clock crisis centre were mentioned as good 
examples of value added by European cooperation.105 

The Instrument for Emergency Support within the EU was established as an expression of 
EU  solidarity  towards  Member  States  that  have  been  affected  by  an  ongoing  or  potential 
natural or man-made disaster, where the exceptional scale and impact of the disaster is such 
that it gives rise to severe wide-ranging humanitarian consequences in one or more Member 
States. In the event of such a disaster, the Council decides, on the basis of a proposal by the 
Commission,  whether  and  for  what  duration  to  activate  emergency  support,  and  only  for 

104 https://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/SR16_06/SR_ANIMAL_DISEASES_EN.pdf 
105 https://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/SR16_33/SR_DISASTER_RESPONSE_EN.pdf 

54 

 
                                                 
exceptional circumstances where no other instrument available to Member States and to the 
Union is sufficient. The Council activated emergency support on 16 March 2016 for the influx 
of  refugees  and  migrants  into  the  Union,  for  a  period  of  three  years.  The  advantages  of  the 
Instrument  have  been  identified  in  the  report  on  the  first  year  of  the  implementation  of  its 
Regulation.106  They  include  speed  in  the  delivery  of  assistance,  the  involvement  of 
experienced  humanitarian  partners  addressing  the  needs  of  the  affected  population,  a  clear 
focus on humanitarian assistance, a complement to existing national capacities, as well as the 
availability of proven expertise and monitoring capacity. 

The Consumer Programme supports the enforcement of consumer legislation, in particular 
by strengthening the knowledge base and the review of the Consumer Protection Cooperation 
Regulation  and  through  enhancing  administrative  cooperation  on  product  safety  legislation. 
The  cooperation  between  authorities  was  reinforced  through  "Sweep  2015  on  Consumer 
Rights  Directive"  in  which  Member  States’  authorities  checked  743  websites,  ranging  from 
smaller players to big e-commerce platforms. Irregularities were confirmed 63% of the cases. 
In October 2016, the majority of these websites were corrected, while national administrative 
or  legal  proceedings  continue  for  others.  The  Rapid  Alert  System  for  dangerous  non-food 
products improved the exchange of information between Member States and the Commission. 
Feedback  to  notifications  indicating  "serious  risk"  significantly  increased.  Since  2004,  there 
have been over 25 000 alerts concerning dangerous products in the EU. A quarter of the alerts 
concerned the safety of toys. 

All  the  activities  funded  by  the  Justice  Programme  have  a  transnational  dimension.  These 
activities  resulted  in  better  implementation  of  EU  justice  instruments,  in  criminal,  civil  and 
commercial  law  (e.g.  European  Investigation  Order,  European  Arrest  warrant).  Faster 
proceedings  were  obtained  through  cooperation,  exchange  of  information,  training  and 
harmonisation  of  practices.  For  example,  the  programme  funded  the  Electronic  Criminal 
Records  Information  System,  a  decentralised  information  technology  system  that  facilitated 
exchanges of more than eight fold comparing 2017 to 2012. In 2016, more than 13 500 legal 
practitioners were trained. The programme also finances the maintenance and extension of the 
e-Justice  Portal  which  includes  documents  and  databases  facilitating  access  to  justice  for 
citizens  and  businesses.  Case  law  and  the  information  on  national  judicial  systems,  etc.  are 
also  available  for  legal  practitioners.  In  2017,  the  number  of  hits  by  users  –  close  to  2.7 
million - showed a six fold increase compared to 2012.  

The Rights, Equality and Citizenship Programme supported important projects in the area 
of preventing and combatting racism, xenophobia and other forms of intolerance. In the non-
discrimination and Roma integration policy area, the programme supported actions to ensure 
that  discrimination  is  prohibited  whenever  possible  in  the  same  way.  The  programme  also 
supports  the  European  network  of  experts  on  gender  equality  which  develops  evidence  that 
feeds  into  the  Europe  2020  process  and  recently  to  the  2020  Agenda  on  Sustainable 
Development. 

The  Europe  for  Citizens  Programme  promoted  civic  participation,  the  sense  of  belonging 
together  and  mutual  understanding.  It  helped  to  strengthen  awareness  of  EU  issues  and 
identification with Europe, as well as the awareness of remembrance and the common history. 
The  programme  played  a  positive  role  in  encouraging  civic  participation  and  democratic 

106 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52017DC0131&from=EN 

55 

 
                                                 
engagement,  reaching  out  to  a  large  number  of  citizens  who  would  not  otherwise  have 
engaged with the European project. Altogether, more than 7 million citizens were directly or 
indirectly involved in activities supported by the programme. The programme reached almost 
4 500 towns in Europe through town twinning projects.  

Preliminary  results  from  the  mid-term  evaluation  of  Creative  Europe  conclude  that  the 
Programme  has  clear  added  value  and  its  intervention  logic  is  both  relevant  and  coherent. 
Creative Europe has contributed to delivering the EU policy agenda, stimulating investment 
and  job  creation  (3000  jobs  created  over  2014-16)  and  deepening  the  internal  market 
especially through greater circulation of creative content.  

The Guarantee Facility has helped cultural and creative small and medium-sized enterprises, 
which have difficulties accessing loans  due to the intangible  nature of their  assets. From its 
launch  in  2016  to  end  2017,  eight  financial  intermediaries  in  six  countries  had  already 
participated, demonstrating the relevance of this instrument. As of  second half of 2017, 161 
small  and  medium-sized  enterprises received  loans  for  a  total  value  of  EUR  32  million,  for 
over 200 projects employing more than 900 people. A top-up of EUR 60 million, equivalent 
to 50% of the total budget, was provided already in 2017 allowing a quicker deployment of 
guarantee support.  

Generally, all programmes achieved progress at a reasonable cost. Efficiency gains within the 
management  of  the  programmes  have  been  observed  across  the  board  due  to  multi-annual 
programming  and  innovative  measures  such  as:  simplified  costing  regime  in  Asylum, 
Migration  and Integration and Internal Security Funds, Food and  Feed  and Creative Europe 
Programmes; digitalisation of application or monitoring and reporting in Health and Creative 
Europe  Programmes;  the  streamlining  of  the  decision  making  process  in  Food  and  Feed 
Programme. 

Moreover, steps to improve complementarity, avoid overlaps and create  synergies were also 
made across all the programmes. Synergies were obtained for example in the Creative Europe, 
which  allowed  seizing  more  effectively  the  opportunities  of  the  digital  shift.  Also,  the 
complementarity of funds e.g. by covering direct costs to tackle animal diseases through the 
Food  and  Feed  Programme  while  compensating  owners  for  market  losses  through  the 
agricultural  funds  has  proven  effective  in  ensuring  the  competitiveness  of  agricultural 
products and should be continued. 

4.4.4.  Lessons learned 

At mid-term, all programmes under Heading 3 achieved progress in reaching their objectives 
and responding to needs of the citizens and of the Member States and EU as a whole. National 
funding alone would not have allowed effective and efficient funding of the necessary actions.  
Actions  would  have  been  much  more  difficult  and  not  in  the  same  scale,  quality  and 
timeframe.  The  programmes  under  this  Heading  increased  internal  and  cross-border 
cooperation,  solidarity,  EU  and  national  capacities  and  joint  actions,  reaching  with  limited 
funding  millions  of  citizens.  The  programmes  enhanced  the  sharing  of  information  and 
practices and contributed to their harmonization or recognition at EU level. Training showed 
to  be  a  relevant  mechanism  to  ensure  EU  added  value  since  it  supported  a  common 
understanding  across  the  EU.  Several  programmes  bolstered  the  interconnection  of 
information systems and adaption to technological developments. Europe’s cultural diversity 
and the competitiveness of the cultural and creative sectors were strengthened.  

56 

 
In the future, improved performance monitoring is expected to help steer the EU intervention 
and the programmes’ effectiveness. Further flexibility and prioritization in function of rapidly 
changing  needs  should  be  pursued.  Savings  and  simplification  measures  in  the  programmes 
management  and  implementation  could  be  taken  to  minimize  unnecessary  burden  while 
delivering on their objectives.  

Flexibility 

Several programmes under Heading 3 facilitated the EU’s capacity to respond swiftly to crises 
and  evolving  needs,  respecting  citizens’  fundamental  rights  and  supporting  their  well-being 
and confidence in Europe.  

Inherent  flexibility  and  prioritisation  led  to  a  better  focus  on  current  needs.  Nonetheless, 
beneficiaries with the greatest needs could be more effectively targeted. Continued efforts to 
increase flexibility are necessary to keep up with developments, such as the digital shift, new 
challenges due to migration or emerging pests arriving at our borders or the rise of terrorism. 
Nevertheless,  ensuring  stability  and  predictability  of  financing  in  the  programming  remains 
equally important. 

Challenges  in  the  area  of  migration,  border  management  and  security  showed  that  more 
flexibility  would  be  needed  for  the  national  programmes  and  the  distribution  system.  For 
example,  the  emergency  assistance  under  the  Asylum,  Migration  and  Integration  and  the 
Internal Security funds contributed to ensure flexibility and helped bridging the gap until the 
national  programmes  were  prepared  but  it  was  used  at  a  significantly  higher  scale  than 
originally  intended  to  respond  adequately  to  the  unprecedented  large-scale  migratory 
movements  and  security  challenges.  The  allocations  for  Member  States,  which  were  fixed 
based on statistical data at the beginning of the programming period, did not reflect changes 
in the needs of Member States during the implementation period. The possibility to providing 
additional funding to the national programmes following a mid-term review was also limited 
in the case of Asylum, Migration and Integration and Internal Security - Police Funds. 

The migration and security crises have shown that flexibility was needed from the beginning 
of the programming period onwards to be able to react to changes on the ground. 

Simplification 

Increased  efficiency  of  the  Programmes  contributed  to  a  reduction  of  administrative  burden 
but further simplification could be envisaged across the board.  

The interim evaluations of the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund and Internal Security 
Fund confirm that the changes introduced by the current Funds simplify the management of 
the programmes. These changes addressed the needs identified in the previous programming 
period:  multiannual  programming 
the 
Management and Control System, further alignment with rules applicable to other EU shared 
management Funds, the introduction of Simplified Cost Options as well as providing Member 
States  with  more  flexibility  in  setting  up  the  rules  on  the  eligibility  of  expenditure,  using 
national  rules  that  need  to  comply  with  the  provisions  of  the  legal  bases.  Nevertheless,  the 
interim evaluations also confirm that the administrative burden is perceived to be too high and 
further improvements are needed. 

instead  of  annual  programming,  simplifying 

Monitoring 

57 

 
The  framework  and  tools  to  carry  out  performance  assessment  should  be  improved.  A  full 
monitoring and evaluation system and robust indicators are needed, linked to the objectives of 
the programmes and identified early on in the design phase. This will allow a consistent and 
uniform  monitoring  of  progress.  For  example,  the  types  of  indicators  used  in  the  Asylum, 
Migration and Integration and the Internal Security Funds do not allow sufficiently measuring 
the performance of the national programmes. The European Court of Auditors, in the context 
of its audit on the hotspot approach, found that monitoring and reporting by the Commission 
on the progress and problems at the hotspots has been regular and extensive, but that reporting 
on  some  key  performance  indicators  was  lacking107.  In  addition,  performance  reporting  on 
Union Civil Protection Mechanism was identified by the European Court of Auditors as one 
area for improvement108. Therefore, the current monitoring and evaluation mechanism needs 
to  be improved in  order to  enable better tracking of whether the Funds deliver  the intended 
results and inform any future revisions of policy interventions, both under shared and direct 
management. This includes the provision of clear definitions of indicators. . 

Synergies 

Synergies  between  policy  objectives  require  further  coordination  efforts  between  the 
programmes. Despite steps that were taken to improve complementarity and avoid overlaps of 
EU funding instruments, obtaining synergies proved problematic in several areas.  

The current Health Programme implemented recommendations from the ex-post evaluation of 
the previous Health Programme109, for instance synergies were developed with the European 
Social Fund and the Structural Reform Support Programme in setting up a national screening 
programme for colorectal cancer. However,  a continued effort is needed to develop synergies 
with the Commission’s main priorities and other programmes.  

As  regards  the  Asylum,  Migration  and  Integration  Fund  and  the  Internal  Security  Fund 
although  the  main  objectives  of  these  Funds  are  distinct,  they  have  significant  linkages  and 
synergies,  as  shown  by  the  hotspots  approach.  The  Commission  has  been  stressing  the 
importance of a holistic approach in the use of EU funds as regards asylum, migration, border 
management  and  security  challenges.  In  general,  in  the  areas  of  migration,  integration  and 
security,  the  Commission  undertook  steps  during  the  design  and  programming  stages  to 
facilitate  coherence  and  complementarity  amongst  EU  funding  instruments.  Nevertheless, 
increasing synergies is still necessary in some areas such as supporting asylum and integration 
objectives through the European Structural and Investment Funds and the Asylum, Migration 
and  Integration  Fund  and  the  programmes  operating  in  third  countries  in  all  the  strands  of 
migration and security challenges. Efforts are also necessary to increase synergies among EU 
instruments  in  the  area  of  security  and  those  that  support  border  management,  return  and 
reintegration measures and the development of protection systems in third countries.   

107 Special Report No 6/2017: EU response to the  refugee crisis:  the ‘hotspot’ approach 
https://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/SR17_6/SR_MIGRATION_HOTSPOTS_EN.pdf 
108  Special  Report  No  33/2016:  Union  Civil  Protection  Mechanism:  the  coordination  of  responses  to  disasters 
outside the EU has been broadly effective  
https://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/SR16_33/SR_DISASTER_RESPONSE_EN.pdf 
109 COM(2016) 243 final: http://ec.europa.eu/health/programme/policy/2008-2013/evaluation_en 

58 

 
 
                                                 
 
4.5.  Heading 4 - Global Europe 

4.5.1. 

Introduction 

The EU remains the world’s biggest provider of humanitarian aid and development assistance. 
It  is  a  global  player  in  supporting  peace  and  stabilisation  and  in  promoting  democracy  and 
human rights.  Through its external actions it aims to reduce poverty, promote global and EU 
interests  and  fundamental  values  (such  as  democracy,  human  rights,  peace,  stability, 
solidarity, and prosperity) and support the safeguarding of global public goods.  

The external action instruments make up the 2014-2020 Multiannual Financial Framework’s 
Heading 4 "Global Europe". The initial total amount of Heading 4 was EUR 66.2 billion (i.e. 
6 % of the MFF). In addition, the 11th European Development Fund, which is outside the EU 
budget, has an allocation of EUR 30.5 billion.110 

To promote coherent external action, efforts were deployed in previous Multiannual Financial 
Framework  cycles  to  streamline  and  simplify  the  architecture  of  instruments,  although  it  is 
still  complex  and  compartmentalised.  There  is  currently  a  considerable  number  of 
instruments:  geographic  instruments  (the  geographic  component  of  the  Development 
Cooperation Instrument, European Neighbourhood Instrument, Greenland and Instrument for 
Pre-Accession  Assistance  under  the  EU  budget  and  the  European  Development  Fund 
currently  outside  the  Multi-annual  Financial  Framework,  also  financing  Overseas  Countries 
the 
and  Territories);  specialised/thematic 
Development  Cooperation  Instrument,  the  European  Instrument  for  Democracy  and  Human 
Rights,  Instrument  contributing  to  Stability  and  Peace,  Instrument  For  Nuclear  Safety 
Cooperation,  and  Partnership  Instrument)  as  well  as  instruments  for  specific  purposes 
(Humanitarian  Aid,  EU  Civil  Protection,  Common  Foreign  and  Security  Policy,  Macro-
Financial  Assistance,  European  Investment  Bank  External  Lending  Mandate  and  Support  to 
Turkish Cypriot community). 

thematic  components  of 

instruments  (the 

The  external  dimension  of  the  EU  policies  cannot  be  successful  without  supporting  internal 
policies when providing synergies and high EU added value. For instance, implementation of 
the  EU  migration  and  security  policy  has  a  clear  internal  and  external  dimension,  which 
means  that  external  components  of  the  migration  and  security  policy  instruments  should 
complement external action instruments and bridge identified gaps.  

4.5.2.  Objectives of the Programmes 

The set of instruments decided for the 2014-2020 period  built  on the criticisms observed in 
the  previous  budget  cycle,  and  measures  were  taken  to  make  the  following  generation  of 
instruments more adapted to the newest global needs and developments. In particular, this set 
of instruments was designed to allow a more extensive global reach, streamline some of the 
programming rules and harmonise implementing procedures. The overall aim was to allow a 
more  focused  approach,  a  higher  degree  of  complementarity  and  an  enhanced  political 
ambition for specific partnerships. 

110 Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council COM(2017) 720 final “Mid-Term 
review report of the External Financing Instruments”, p. 4.  
https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/sites/devco/files/mid-term-review-report_en.pdf 

59 

 
                                                 
The  instruments  were  aimed  at  fulfilling  a  varied  range  of  purposes,  most  notably  poverty 
reduction and sustainable development (Development Cooperation Instrument), the promotion 
of a culture of safe nuclear energy (Instrument for Nuclear Safety Cooperation), maintaining 
of the policy dialogues with former EU territories overseas (Cooperation with Greenland), the 
protection of human rights in fragile areas (European Instrument for Democracy and Human 
Rights),  disaster  response  inside  and  outside  the  EU  (Union  Civil  Protection  Mechanism), 
responding  to  global  challenges  and  promoting  the  EU  strategic  interests  (Global  Public 
Goods  and  Challenges  programme  under  the  Development  Cooperation  Instrument, 
Partnership  Instrument),  security  and  peace-building  activities 
in  partner  countries 
(Instrument  contributing  to  Stability  and  Peace),  assistance  for  candidate  countries  and 
potential candidates (Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance) and for the EU neighbourhood 
(European Neighbourhood Instrument), assistance to development of African, Caribbean and 
the  Pacific  countries  and  regions  as  well  as  for  the  Overseas  Countries  and  Territories 
(European  Development  Fund),  support  to  restore  a  sustainable  financial  situation  while 
encouraging economic adjustment reforms (Macro-Financial Assistance)111, support of Small 
and  Medium  Enterprises  in  targeted  third  countries  and  the  development  of  social  and 
economic infrastructure and support of projects related to climate change (including External 
Lending Mandate)112.  

4.5.3.  Key achievements 

The  mid-term  review  report  and  the  evaluations  (December  2017)  of  ten  of  the  External 
Financing  Instruments,  the  external  Coherence  Report,  the  ex-post  evaluation  reports  on 
Macro-Financial Assistance113 and the mid-term external report on the European Investment 
Bank External Lending Mandate114 conclude that the instruments were fit for purpose, overall 
relevant,  largely  congruent  with  EU  objectives  and  partner  countries’  needs  and  flexible 
enough to support and "enable" the implementation of an evolving policy framework.  

In terms of relevance, defined as the extent to which the EU priorities and the partners needs 
are  aligned,  the  instruments  and  mechanisms  had  been  considered  overall  relevant  with  the 
policy objectives at the time of their setting up (2014).115 The broad objectives and enabling 
character of the instruments, together with their flexibility, facilitated the capacity of the EU 

111 Macro-Financial Assistance is a financial instrument mobilised on a case-by-case basis to help countries that 
are mainly geographically close to the EU dealing with serious balance-of-payments difficulties. 
112 The guarantee provided under the External Lending Mandate allows EU budget funds for external regions to 
be complemented by the financial strength of the European Investment Bank, thereby increasing the benefit to 
the targeted third countries. 
113 Final report (January 2015) of the Ex-post Evaluation of the EU’s Macro Financial Assistance to Bosnia and 
Herzegovina (2009-2013), section 7.2. 
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/economy_finance/evaluation/pdf/ex_post_evaluation_of_mfa_bosnia_en.pdf   
Final report (November 2013) of the Ex Post Evaluation of the Macro-Financial Assistance to Serbia, pp. 135-
137 
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/economy_finance/evaluation/pdf/mfa_serbia_final_report.pdf 
Final report (October 2013) of the Ex-post Evaluation of the EU’s Macro Financial Assistance to the Republic of 
Moldova (2010 – 2012), section 7.2. 
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/economy_finance/evaluation/pdf/mfa_moldova_evaluation_final_report_en.pdf   
114 Final Report (June 2016) of the External evaluation of the application of the European Union Guarantee for 
the European Investment Bank lending operations outside the European Union, section 6.1.2 
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/economy_finance/evaluation/pdf/mid_term_201612-final_report_pwc_en.pdf  
115 Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council COM(2017) 720 final “Mid-Term 
review report of the External Financing Instruments”, p. 10. 

60 

 
                                                 
to  respond  to  rising  crises  and  evolving  needs  of  partner  countries.  Evidence  at  sector, 
country, strategic, programme and operational level shows that overall positive progress has 
been achieved in so far as the effective contribution of the instruments towards the fulfilment 
of EU objectives.116  

For  instance,  the  European  Neighbourhood  Instrument  was  key  for  the  progress  made  by 
Georgia in improving the economic environment for businesses, in pushing forward the public 
administration  reforms  in  Ukraine  and  Morocco,  which  resulted  in  a  better  public  financial 
management system and in promoting democratic reforms ensuring more freedom to the press 
and  higher  accountability  in  Tunisia.117  In  this  regard,  also  the  European  Court  of  Auditors 
confirmed  that  the  money  was  generally  well  spent  as  it  contributed  significantly  to  the 
democratic  transition  and  the  economic  stability  of  the  country  after  the  Arab  Spring 
revolution.118  In  the  Western  Balkans,  the  Instrument  for  Pre-Accession  Assistance  II 
contributed  to  the  implementation  of  reforms  in  key  areas,  such  as  the  judiciary,  anti-
corruption,  public  administration  and  social  inclusion,  and  supported  the  progressive 
alignment with EU legislation and standards. The Instrument for Nuclear Safety Cooperation 
raised  levels  of  nuclear  safety,  for  example  by  supporting  follow-up  to  the  joint 
comprehensive plan of action cooperation with Iran, and stress testing nuclear power plants in 
various countries. 

Many  of  the  partner  countries  benefiting  from  the  Development  Cooperation  Instrument 
successfully  managed  to  reduce  the  level  of  poverty  and  to  increase  human  and  economic 
development  in  the  last  decade;  according  to  the  2015  Millennium  Development  Goals 
Report, Vietnam reached 90% of reduction of poverty, Cambodia 88%, Peru 74% and Bolivia 
50%.  Those  achievements,  though,  cannot  be  linked  exclusively  to  this  cycle  of  the 
Development Cooperation Instrument but rather to its predecessor, in place between 2007 and 
2013 and cannot be exclusively linked to the Development Cooperation Instrument as those 
countries  benefitted  also  of  resources  coming  from  other  actors.  The  Development 
Cooperation Instrument, though, can still count on the positive achievements reached through 
some  of  its  geographic  and  thematic  programmes.  For  instance,  the  support  provided  to  the 
protection of vulnerable refugees in Pakistan and Myanmar or the improvement of provision 
of basic services in conflict or fragile contexts (as in the case of Afghanistan).119 

The Partnership Instrument effectively influenced policy developments in partner countries in 
line with EU interests and contributed to development of mutually beneficial relationship with 
third countries, complementing the larger thematic activities financed under the Development 
Cooperation Instrument, in particular the Global Public Goods and Challenges programme.120 
Both  played  an  important  role  to  support  the  preparations  leading  to  the  adoption  of  the 

116 Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council COM(2017) 720 final “Mid-Term 
review report of the External Financing Instruments”, p.10. 
117  Commission  Staff Working  Document  SWD(2017) 602  final,  “Evaluation  of  the  European Neighbourhood 
Instrument”, p. 18-19. Those results were also confirmed by some recent reports issued by the European Court of 
Auditors on the ENI and its predecessor in Tunisia and Ukraine. For details, see footnote n. 43 included in  the 
European Neighbourhood Instrument SWD evaluation mentioned above.  
118 Special report No 03/2017 of the European Court of Auditors “EU Assistance to Tunisia”, p. 62. 
https://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/SR17_3/SR_TUNISIA_EN.pdf  
119 Commission Staff Working Document SWD(2017) 600 final, “Evaluation of the Development Cooperation 
Instrument”, p. 15. https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/sites/devco/files/swd-mid-term-review-dci_en_0.pdf  
120 Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council COM(2017) 720 final “Mid-Term 
review report of the External Financing Instruments”, p. 7. 

61 

 
                                                 
United-Nations 2030 Agenda for sustainable development and to the successful conclusion of 
the Paris climate agreement. 

The mechanism governing the civil protection sector has also been found generally effective, 
with  some  shortcomings  to  be  tackled121.  The  main  achievements  reside  in  the  increased 
cooperation between the Union and Member States in disaster prevention, preparedness and 
response.122 The Bêkou EU Trust Fund is also considered a good example of relevance. In its 
relating  audit  report,  the  European  Court  explained  that  the  trust  fund  was  created  in  a 
difficult  country  context,  marked  by  humanitarian  and  development  challenges  and  fragile 
state  authorities  that  were  unable  to  meet  the  population’s  needs.  It  concluded  that  the 
establishment  of  the  fund  was  appropriate  and  that  it  has  had  some  positive  achievements 
while  the  fund’s  design  and  management  could  be  improved  to  help  it  reach  its  full 
potential.123 

In the area of humanitarian aid, a comprehensive evaluation for the period 2012-2016124 was 
finalised  in  March  2018  with  very  positive  conclusions  on  the  relevance,  coherence, 
effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability and EU added value of the EU assistance. In concrete 
terms, the humanitarian aid instrument (which is not itself time-bound) allowed the Union to 
ensure  rapid  response  to  humanitarian  needs  in  more  than  80  countries,  for  a  total  of  over 
EUR 2.2 billion in 2017 (including external assigned revenues). Key recent examples include 
the response to the humanitarian needs of Syrian refugees (in Turkey, for instance, roll-out of 
the innovative Emergency Social Safety Net provided more than EUR 1.2 million of the most 
vulnerable  refugees  with  the  means  to  cover  their  basic  needs  by  the  end  of  2017);  or  the 
Union’s  early  action  on  the  food  crisis  in  the  Horn  of  Africa  (Somalia,  Ethiopia,  Kenya), 
which  helped  avert  famine  in  2017;  as  well  as  support  for  education  in  emergencies  in  a 
number of crises, in which the Union has acted as a catalyst for other donors to step up their 
efforts. 

The  European  Court  of  Auditors  also  conducted  an  audit  on  aid  provided  to  populations 
affected by conflicts in the African Great Lakes Region and concluded that it was, generally, 
managed effectively by the Commission. It found that the needs assessment was thorough and 
the  approach  adopted  had  sufficient  built-in  flexibility  to  cope  with  the  rapidly  changing 
circumstances  in  the  conflict-affected  areas  and  that  projects  were  mainly  successful  in 
addressing urgent needs.125 

The External Lending Mandate financing operation expands greatly the access to funds for the 
local Small and Medium Enterprises and Midcaps in the targeted third countries. Moreover, 
the involvement of the European Investment Bank in the External Lending Mandate provides 

121  Commission  Staff  Working  Document  SWD(2017)  287  final,  “Interim  Evaluation  of  the  Union  Civil 
Protection Mechanism (2014-2016)”, p. 22 and further. 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52017SC0287&qid=1517222331623&from=EN  
122  Commission  Staff  Working  Document  SWD(2017)  287  final,  “Interim  Evaluation  of  the  Union  Civil 
Protection Mechanism (2014-2016)”, p. 29. 
123  Special  report  No  11/2017  of  the  European  Court  of  Auditors  “The  Bêkou  EU  Trust  Fund  for  the  Central 
African Republic: a hopeful beginning despite some shortcomings”, p. 54.  
https://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/SR17_11/SR_BEKOU_EN.pdf  
124http://ec.europa.eu/echo/funding-evaluations/evaluations/geographic-
evaluations_enhttp://ec.europa.eu/echo/funding-evaluations/evaluations/geographic-evaluations_en 
125 https://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/SR16_15/SR_GREAT_LAKES_EN.pdf 

62 

 
                                                 
additional  non-financial  benefits  for  the  final  beneficiaries  such  as  technical  assistance, 
promotion of good financial standards within the local banking sector, procurement standards. 
With regards to climate change action, the External Lending Mandate has made a substantial 
contribution of 39% of its portfolio126, which exceeds the quantitative target of 25% and the 
new target of 35% by 2020. 

Macro-Financial  Assistance  has  gained  increasing  prominence  in  the  EU  external  toolbox. 
Between 2014 and 2015, EUR 3.4 billion were made available to Ukraine of which EUR 2.21 
billion  were  disbursed  as  of  December  2016.  This  represents  an  unprecedented  case  of 
financial assistance to a non-EU country in such a short period of time. 

Some  of  the  implementation  arrangements  constitute  a  remarkable  asset  for  the  overall 
effectiveness of the instruments. Examples include simplified granting procedures for bodies 
without  legal  personality,  which  has  indeed  increased  the  flexibility  of  the  European 
Instrument  for  Democracy  and  Human  Rights  to  support  human  rights  organisations;  the 
specific  budget support arrangements in  Greenland which resulted in  an increased ability to 
plan  and  implement  policies  by  national  authorities127;  the  increased  level  of  policy 
mainstreaming  in  the  area  of  climate  change  and  environment  fulfilled  by  the  increased 
contributions  from  the  European  Development  Fund  and  the  Development  Cooperation 
Instrument.128 

The  implementation  of  the  instruments  and  the  fulfilment  of  their  policy  objectives  were 
nevertheless heavily affected by some external factors, such as the continuous refugee flows, 
the  security  threats  imposed  by  terrorism  and  the  unstable  political  contexts  of  some 
countries;  when  facing  those  challenges,  the  degree  of  flexibility  and  the  resources  had  not 
been enough to respond adequately. For example, in the area of the EU neighbourhood some 
of the newly arisen crises could not be properly tackled with the limited financial resources.129 
Likewise, despite greater flexibility through its reserve, the funds mobilised by the European 
Development  Fund  to  tackle  the  root  causes  of  migration  through  the  EU  Trust  Fund  for 
Africa are still falling short of the challenges to address.   

The  EU  added  value  of  the  external  action  instruments  and  programmes  is  clear  from  a 
number of perspectives.  

  The  political  influence  and  consequent  leverage  of  the  EU  as  a  supranational  entity; 
this  implies  that  priorities  can  be  pursued  relatively  independently  from  individual 
national agendas, which naturally enhances the credibility of the EU.  

  The  possibility  for  the  EU  to  establish  a  dialogue  as  a  fully-fledged  peer  with  other 
regional  organisations,  notably  with  the  African  Union  through  the  Pan-African 
Programme.  

126 SWD(2016) 295 final 
127  Commission  staff  working  document  on  the  evaluation  of  the  Council  Decision  on  relations  between  the 
European  Union,  on  the  one  hand,  and  Greenland  and  the  Kingdom  of  Denmark  on  the  other  (Greenland 
Decision), section 6. 
128 Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council COM(2017) 720 final “Mid-Term 
review report of the External Financing Instruments”, p. 11.  
129 Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council COM(2017) 720 final “Mid-Term 
review report of the External Financing Instruments”, p. 9. 

63 

 
                                                 
  The  EU  engagement  in  sensitive  matters  such  as  the  defence  of  human  rights  and 
electoral  observation  missions  (European  Instrument  for  Democracy  And  Human 
Rights),  in  context  where  individual  Member  States  prefer  not  to  be  associated  with 
the risk of compromising their relations with certain countries.   

 

In some areas where Member States have decided not to act, the EU remains the main 
or  sometimes  the  only  actor  to  intervene.  This  is  the  case,  for  instance,  of  upper 
middle-income countries  where Member States have renounced to intervene in order 
to  pursue  other  economic  or  political  interests  pushed  by  their  national  agendas  or 
where the context reveals to be overly sensitive to act.130  

  The  amount  of  resources  channelled  through  the  instruments,  the  relatively  flexible 
modes of management and the wide scope over a rather long period of time (European 
Development  Fund, European Neighbourhood Instrument, Development  Cooperation 
Instrument). 

  The  possibility  to  underpin  the  leadership  of  the  EU  on  issues  of  global  importance 
such  as  addressing  global  environmental  degradation,  depletion  of  natural  resources 
and the biodiversity crisis, as well as the impacts of climate change through long-term 
EU  financial  assistance  (in  particular  Development  Cooperation  Instrument  -  Global 
Public Goods and Challenges Thematic Programme).   

  The expertise brought about by the EU in some fields originating from the history of 
Europe itself (for instance, regional integration and democratic transitions) as well as 
from the successful policies of the EU (such as the expertise in  food security gained 
through the Common Agricultural Policy or in successful approaches on the transition 
to a resource efficient, circular, low carbon economy).  

  The global presence of the EU through its Delegations, which ensures a vast network 
of information on the developments experienced by countries worldwide; this allows 
the EU to be constantly aware of new needs and problems and, therefore, to re-allocate 
resources  accordingly.  As  regards  the  link  with  Member  States,  it  can  be  said  that 
complementarities between the EU action and the actions carried out by the Member 
States  exist  and  are  increasing.  This  enhances  the  political  dialogue  and  the 
cooperation,  which  is  often  channelled  through  joint  programming  with  Member 
States.  

  The  EU  is  able  to  complement  Member  States  activities  in  dealing  with  potentially 

dangerous situations or in case of particularly costly interventions. 

4.5.4. 

 Lessons learned 

Overall,  the  responsiveness  of  the  instruments  for  the  EU  External  Action  has  been 
demonstrated in different ways. The set of the external financing instruments in general, and 
in  particular,  some  specific  instruments  (Instrument  contributing  to  Stability  and  Peace, 
Common  Foreign  and  Security  Policy)  allowed  the  EU  to  respond  to  situations  of  crisis, 

130 Final report (July 2017) “Coherence Report – Insights from the External Evaluation of the External Financing 
Instruments”, p. 11-12. 

64 

 
                                                 
conflict and security  threats.  Humanitarian aid and the emergency  response to crisis outside 
the EU through the Civil Protection Mechanism has also proved to be successful, allowing the 
EU  to  be  a  first  line  responder  with  immediate  delivery  of  results  and  provide  essential 
assistance in protracted crises. The European Development Fund has successfully responded 
to unforeseen crisis needs, notably for food security and nutrition in sub-Saharan Africa and 
reconstruction  after  natural  disasters  in  the  Caribbean.  The  European  Investment  Bank’s 
External  Lending  Mandate  has  been  able  to  mobilise  funds  flexibly  thanks  to  the  sufficient 
margin in the regional ceilings, but it has proven challenging to intervene in fragile countries. 
To  meet emerging challenges,  the  Global  Public Goods  and Challenges programme and the 
Partnership  Instrument  with  their  global  scope  have  provided  a  good  contribution  in 
supporting  actions  and  building  relationships  with  strategic  partners  and  in  supporting  the 
international dimension of the Union’s internal policy priorities (for example on environment 
and  climate  change).  This  was  made  possible  because  the  instruments  for  2014-2020  were 
designed to meeting the global needs more extensively and to increase the political ambition 
of  the  EU  external  action,  with  the  help  of  more  streamlined  rules  and  approach  as  well  as 
through  the  combination  of  increased  differentiation  and  complementarities  amongst  the 
instruments.  

For certain instruments, however, responsiveness has been hindered by a lack of an adequate 
degree of financial and administrative flexibility; when new priorities have emerged, such as 
the refugee/migration crisis or change of political regimes, the re-allocation of the resources 
has been tied up through long-term programmes due to the commitments on predictability and 
the available resources stretched to their limits. 

More in detail, the evidence collected so far highlights the following areas of improvement: a) 
overly  complex  architecture  and  procedures;  b)  unsatisfactory  level  of  flexibility  for  the  re-
allocation of resources; and c) lack of fully developed monitoring systems. 

Simplification and coherence 

The modifications introduced before the 2014-2020 policy cycle had already achieved better 
results  and  led  to  an  improved  performance.  However,  despite  the  good  results,  the 
architecture  of  the  external  instruments  remains complex  and  has  created  obstacles in  using 
funds across regions and themes due to each instrument’s different scope and rules. From the 
perspective of partner countries and implementing partners, the complicated legal framework 
has created a multiplication of procedures that need to be followed. The interested parties still 
see  the  number  of  instruments  and  their  implementation  arrangements  as  not  yet  adequate, 
administratively  burdensome  and  lacking  financial  flexibility.  For  example,  the  European 
Court of Auditors recommended in its audit on EU Assistance to Tunisia to limit the number 
of  specific  priorities,  to  reduce  the  number  of  actions  in  order  to  increase  the  focus  and 
potential impact of the EU assistance and to improve the focus and coordination of the aid131. 
Apart from a few exceptions (Humanitarian aid, Civil Protection, Instrument contributing to 
Stability  and  Peace  and  Common  Foreign  and  Security  Policy)  which  have  key  special 
provisions  (e.g.  rapid  reaction  and  fast  decision  mechanisms  or  absence  of  mandatory 
programming),  complex  and  lengthy  procedures  for  programming  and  implementation  can 

131 https://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/SR17_3/SR_TUNISIA_EN.pdf  

65 

 
                                                 
contribute  to  a  perception  of  the  EU  as  a  programme  administrator  rather  than  a  political 
player132.  

The architecture of the External Financing Instruments for 2014-2020 could not foresee rapid 
responses  to  crises  of  major  impact,  such  as  the  migration  crisis;  for  this  reason,  the 
establishment  of  the  Trust  Funds  made  possible  to  move  resources  from  some  of  the 
instruments  and  ensure  a  rapid  response.133  As  an  example,  the  reserve  from  the  European 
Development  Fund  has  been  used  until  June  2017  for  mobilising  EUR  1.5  million    for  the 
European  Emergency  Trust  Fund,  established  in  the  Valletta  Summit  (November  2015)  to 
address the root causes of irregular migration and displaced people in Africa134. 

The  multi-annual  programming,  designed  for  long-term  development  objectives  pursued  by 
the  Development  Cooperation  Instrument,  the  European  Neighbourhood  Instrument  and  the 
European Development Fund, adds further rigidities when the need to adapt to new contexts 
arises.135 

Furthermore,  the  respect  of  some  international  commitments  resulted  in  heavy  processes. 
Country and horizontal programmes are sometimes not in line with each other and regarding 
geographic  instruments,  other  elements  add  up  to  the  overall  complexity,  namely  the 
involvement of National and Regional Authorising Officers, as it is the case for the European 
Development  Fund.136  In  addition,  the  implementation  arrangements  of  certain  instruments 
have not been particularly successful so far, for example the incentive-based approach of the 
European  Neighbourhood  Instrument137.  The  Macro-Financial  Assistance  instrument  would 
be strengthened by better aligning its declared objectives with the design and implementation 
practice; and maintaining the focus on dealing with serious short-term balance-of-payments or 
budget difficulties would require shortening of the approval procedures; a stronger focus on 
supporting  structural  reform  efforts  in  beneficiary  countries  might  benefit  from  introducing 
more flexibility in the way the conditions are formulated.  

The varied nature and scope of the instruments and their different institutional arrangements 
make the use of the instruments’ full potential rather difficult. Some instruments are explicitly 
foreseen to be complementary with other instruments; for instance, the European Instrument 
For Democracy And Human Rights with its independent and flexible actions, the Instrument 
contributing to Stability and Peace quick response to be complemented with short and long-
term actions, the Partnership Instrument when financing actions in the EU which could not be 
financed by other instruments, the Macro-Financial Assistance which complements other EU 
crisis  response  mechanisms  (e.g.  Humanitarian  Aid)  and  the  European  Investment  Bank 

132 Final report (July 2017) “Coherence Report – Insights from the External Evaluation of the External Financing 
Instruments”, p. 17. Examples of this complexity in terms of rules include the procedural and decision-making 
rules laid down in the EFIs and in the Common Implementing Regulation; the "Comitology" Regulation; the EU 
and European Development Fund Financial Regulations; cumbersome internal rules.  
133  Final report (July 2017) “Coherence Report – Insights from the External Evaluation of the External 
Financing Instruments”, p. 9. 
134  Commission  Staff  Working  Document  SWD(2017)  601  final,  “Evaluation  of  the  European  Development 
Fund”, p. 12. https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/sites/devco/files/swd-mid-term-review-edf_en_0.pdf 
135 Final report (July 2017) “Coherence Report – Insights from the External Evaluation of the External Financing 
Instruments”, p. 6. 
136 Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council COM(2017) 720 final “Mid-Term 
review report of the External Financing Instruments”, p. 12-13. 
137 Idem.  

66 

 
                                                 
External  Lending  Mandate,  and  the  thematic  programme  for  Global  Public  Goods  and 
Challenges  to  address  problems  of  global  importance  which  require  actions  in  specific 
countries (e.g. environment and climate change).  

Some  other  instruments  are  designed  with  the  purpose  of  ensuring  a  short-term,  non-
programmable intervention which complements some longer-term and programmable actions 
(such as the Instrument contributing to Stability and Peace complementing the interventions 
of  European  Neighbourhood  Instrument  or  the  European  Development  Fund).  In  addition 
certain  instruments  function  in  synergy  with  others  (such  as  the  Development  Cooperation 
Instrument  thematic  programme  on  Civil  Society  Organisations-Local  Authorities),  while 
some  cannot  bring  about  synergies  due  to  their  high  degree  of  specificity  (such  as  the 
Instrument  for  Nuclear  Safety  Cooperation).  Finally,  some  instruments  are,  by  nature,  not 
complementary with others due to their geographic focus (such as the Greenland Decision).   

Thematic programmes have complemented gaps, for instance on environment protection that 
could not be financed under geographic programmes because of the concentration on a limited 
number  of  focal  sectors  and  due  to  the  typically  cross-border  or  regional  nature  of 
environmental challenges. Thematic funding has also successfully been used as a leverage to 
achieve  policy  changes.  However,  despite  the  overall  fair  degree  of  complementarity  and 
synergy  amongst  the  instruments,  duplications  exist  at  several  levels:  between  the  regional 
envelopes  of  the  Development  Cooperation  Instrument  and  the  Partnership  Instrument, 
between the intra-African Caribbean Pacific programme of the European Development Fund 
and the Global Public Goods and Challenges programme.  For example, the European Court 
of Auditors audited the EU Assistance to Myanmar/Burma and found examples where the risk 
of  double  funding  was  not  sufficiently  mitigated.    Moreover,  the  intervention  of  more  than 
one  instrument  in  the  same  geographic  area  led  to  difficulties  when  creating  a  dialogue 
amongst the beneficiary regions, as is the case for the Latin America and the Caribbean, both 
covered by the Development Cooperation Fund and the European Development Fund. 

This complex landscape of external instruments clearly shows the need for simplification. A 
more streamlined approach would allow to break down silos and exploit synergies. Overlaps 
should  be  reduced  and  policy  orientations  and  operational  needs  should  drive  the 
programming rather than specific instrument rules. This would also provide an opportunity to 
rationalise the management and oversight systems of the instruments, therefore reducing the 
administrative burden. A simplified oversight system would allow the relevant institutions to 
have a better, more comprehensive view of the EU’s external funding.  

Flexibility 

The current volume of financing for external action has been stretched to the limits with all 
margins of flexibility exhausted. This is not only due to the fast-evolving circumstances, new 
crises  and  emerging  challenges  in  third  countries,  such  as  migration  and  security,  but  also 
because  of  Member  States’  and  citizens’  expectations  that  the  EU  can  do  more  in  external 
relations.  Such  pressures  and  demands  on  the  external  budget  illustrate  the  need  to  build  in 
more  flexibility  into  the  budget  so  that  the  EU  can  increase  the  possibility  of  moving 
resources across different geographic and thematic areas so as to ensure an effective response 
to arising needs and re-orientate the EU funding accordingly.  

67 

 
 
A  higher  degree  of  flexibility  should  guarantee  that  the  long-term  nature  of  the  EU 
intervention and the possibility for a quick ad-hoc response to new needs are well balanced; 
this could be fulfilled on the one hand  by ring-fencing amounts  for specific geographic and 
thematic issues, while building larger unallocated amounts at the start of the period, as well as 
a  flexible  application  of  the  principle  of  annuality  of  the  EU  general  budget,  allowing  for 
carry-overs  and  re-commitments  based  on  the  flexibilities  currently  existing  under  the 
European Development Fund. The additional flexibility of the European Development Fund 
should be preserved even if it will become part of the EU budget: continuing to make use of 
its  reserve  deployed  to  Trust  Funds  could  substantially  help  to  quickly  addressing  new 
crises138. 

Monitoring system 

A cross-cutting criticism lies in the lack of fully developed monitoring and reporting systems 
at instrument level139. The lack of a common scheme of indicators at the same level does not 
allow a fully-fledged comparison of the performance of an instrument in relation to another. 
Even  the  External  Lending  Mandate  would  benefit  greatly  from  streamlining  the  reporting 
procedures;  this  could  improve  the overall  quality  of  the  reporting,  make  it  more  consistent 
and comprehensive and therefore enable better decision-making at the policy level. Adequate 
monitoring  systems  could  meaningfully  help  to  identify  the  problems  related  to  the 
implementation and the overall performance and would then allow a sounder measurement of 
the  impact  of  the  EU  intervention.  The  European  Court  of  Auditors  covered  monitoring 
activities in several of its audits and issued a number of related recommendations with the aim 
to improve the Commission’s existing monitoring systems140.      

4.6.  Heading 5 – European Public Administration 

Several  measures  were  taken  by  the  Commission  and  by  other  Institutions  to  contain  the 
administrative expenditure of the Union in the current long-term budget period.  

The most visible of these measures is the commitment of all Institutions, bodies and agencies 
to a 5% reduction of their staffing levels. As assessed by the European Court of Auditors141, 
this staff reduction was by and large implemented.  

Despite this reduction, additional tasks were carried out by the Union, notably in the context 
of the migration crisis, of repeated security threats and the launching of the new investment 
plan.  Moreover,  an  increasing  operational  budget  was  managed.  This  was  possible  through 
other measures taken, such as the increase of the weekly working hours to 40 and thanks to 
the commitment and resilience of staff.  

138  Final  Report  (July  2017)  “Coherence  Report  –  Insights  from  the  External  Evaluation  of  the  External 
Financing Instruments”, pp. 7-8.  
139  Commission  Staff  Working  Document  SWD(2017)  287  final,  “Interim  Evaluation  of  the  Union  Civil 
Protection Mechanism (2014-2016)”, p. 29. 
140 E.g. Special Reports No 4/2018, No 11/2017, No 3/2017 and No 30/2016 of the European Court of Auditors  
141  Rapid  case 
- 
implementation  of 
https://www.eca.europa.eu/en/Pages/DocItem.aspx?did=44567  

reduction  of 

staff  posts 

review  on 

the  5  % 

the 

68 

 
                                                 
 
To  contain  expenditure,  measures  were  taken  to  limit  the  access  to  end-of-career  grades,  to 
increase the retirement age and to reduce travel allowances. Remuneration and pensions were 
frozen in 2013 and 2014. In the long-term, the reduction of the pension accrual rate will allow 
for savings on pensions and ensure the sustainability of the pension scheme. 

The  withdrawal  of  the  United  Kingdom  is  not  expected  to  generate  a  reduction  in  terms  of 
workload,  which  in  some  areas  would  simply  be  reoriented  and  could  even  increase.  The 
reduction of the number of members of British nationality in the different Institutions could 
generate  some  limited  savings,  but  the  overall  scope  of  activities  of  the  Union  will  not 
decrease as a consequence of Brexit. 

While improvements in efficiencies will be continuously sought, additional cuts to staff and 
staff expenditure would risk having serious repercussions on the proper implementation of EU 
programmes  and  policies,  a  negative  impact  on  motivation  of  a  highly  competent  staff  and 
possible drawbacks on its productivity.  

An administrative budget maintained stable at its current level would still allow for a strong 
European  civil  service,  attractive  to  talented  people  from  across  the  Union,  and  capable  of 
delivering on the priorities and challenges ahead. 

69