REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Ex-post evaluation report for the period 2007-2013 of actions financed by the "Prevention and fight against crime" programme (ISEC) and the "Prevention, preparedness and consequence management of terrorism and other security related risks" programme (CIPS)
Date: 2018-06-12
Institutions: Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs, European Commission
Subjects: EU programme, area of freedom, security and justice, arms trade, child protection, computer crime, fight against crime, offence, organised crime, protection of freedoms, terrorism

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 12.6.2018 COM(2018) 455 final  REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Ex-post evaluation report for the period 2007-2013 of actions financed by the "Prevention and fight against crime" programme (ISEC) and the "Prevention, preparedness and consequence management of terrorism and other security related risks" programme (CIPS) {SWD(2018) 331 final} - {SWD(2018) 332 final}  
 
 
1 

INTRODUCTION 

The Framework Programme on “Security and Safeguarding Liberties”1, for the period 2007-
2013 was composed of two Specific Programmes (‘the Programmes’): “Prevention and Fight 
against  Crime”  (ISEC)  and  “Prevention,  Preparedness  and  Consequence  Management  of 
Terrorism  and  other  Security-related  Risks”  (CIPS).2  The  Decisions  establishing  ISEC3  and 
CIPS4  required  the  European  Commission  to  submit  an  ex  post  evaluation  report,  for  the 
period  2007  to  2013,  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the  European  Economic  and 
Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. 

This  report presents  the  main  elements  of  the  programmes,  the  scope  and  limitations  of  the 
evaluations,  the  key  evaluation  results,  conclusions  and  lessons  learned.  It  is  based  on  the 
findings of two ex post evaluations that assessed the Programmes, in the period 2007 to 2013, 
against the evaluation criteria defined in the better regulation guidelines: (i) effectiveness, (ii) 
efficiency, (iii) coherence, (iv) relevance, (v) EU added value. 

The  conclusions  of  these  evaluations  and  the  lessons  learned  complement  the  interim 
evaluation of the Internal Security Fund (ISF), as its Police component is the successor of the 
ISEC and CIPS programmes for the period 2014-2020. The results of this interim evaluation 
together with the results of the present  ex post evaluations contributed to the shaping of the 
future  policies  in  migration  and  security  areas,  especially  to  the  preparation  of  the  new 
funding instruments in the framework of the Multiannual Financial Framework post 2020. 

1.2  

Framework Programme “Security and Safeguarding Liberties (2007-2013) – 
ISEC and CIPS 

Policy Context  

The  European  Union  (EU)  has  identified  the  areas  of  organized  crime  and  terrorism  as  key 
threats for European internal security. Furthermore, Article 67(3) Treaty on the Functioning 
of the European Union contains a clear mandate for the Union to provide citizens with a high 
level of security by preventing and combating crime and in particular terrorism, trafficking in 
persons  and  offences  against  children,  illicit  drug  trafficking  and  illicit  arms  trafficking, 
corruption and fraud through measures for coordination and cooperation between police and 
judicial  authorities  and other  competent authorities. The EU’s role in  these policy areas  has 

1  

2   

3  

4  

Communication COM/2005/0124 final from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament 
Establishing a Framework Programme on “Security and Safeguarding Liberties” for the period 2007-2013.  
The following Member States participated in ISEC and CIPS: AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, DE, DK EE, EL, ES, 
FI, FR, HR (from 2013) HU, IE, IT, LV, LT, LU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SE SK, SL, UK. 
Council Decision 2007/125/JHA of 12 February 2007 establishing for the period 2007-2013, as part of the 
General Programme on Security and Safeguarding Liberties, the Specific Programme "Prevention of and 
Fight against Crime". 
Council Decision 2007/124/EC, Euratom of 12 February 2007 establishing for the period 2007 to 2013, as 
part  of  the  Framework  Programme  on  Security  and  Safeguarding  Liberties,  the  Specific  Programme 
'Prevention, Preparedness and Consequence Management of Terrorism and other Security-related risks'. 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
continuously  increased,  following  the  identification  of  a  strong  need  for  numerous  common 
actions in this matter. For instance, the conclusions given by the Tampere European Council 
of 1999 reaffirmed the importance of the promotion of freedom, security and justice through 
the prevention and fight against crime. At the time, the focus was on the legislative action of 
establishing the area of freedom, security and justice, while the provision of financial support 
was  rather  complementary.  With  the  Framework  Programme  “Security  and  Safeguarding 
Liberties”,  the  work  of  the  EU  in  this  area  entered  into  a  new  phase  in  which  operational 
implementation became more predominant. 

Moreover, the Hague Programme, which set the EU priorities for an area of freedom, security 
and  justice  for  the  period  2004-2009,  confirmed  the  importance  and  the  need  for  further 
reinforcement  in  the  field  of  prevention  of  and  fight  against  terrorism  and  other  forms  of 
crime  at  European  level,  highlighting  the  need  for  EU-level  cooperation  in  these  areas.  In 
addition,  the  Hague  Programme  put  increased  focus  on  strengthening  security  and  in 
particular on the EU’s fight against terrorism, recruitment, financing, the protection of critical 
infrastructures  and  the  development  of  a  consequence  management  Framework.  Although 
critical  infrastructure  falls  largely  within  the  scope  of  national  competence,  the  EU  has 
provided support to Member States in the field of critical infrastructure protection since 2004. 

The  Stockholm  Programme,  which  provided  a  framework  for  EU  action  on  the  issues  of 
citizenship,  security,  asylum,  immigration  and  visa  policy  for  the  period  2010-2014,  gave 
further importance to the development of EU policies in the areas of justice and security. The 
need to effectively implement the EU’s counter-terrorism strategy, consisting of four strands 
of work - prevent, pursue, protect and respond - was reaffirmed, and a call was made for the 
reinforcement of the prevention strand. Furthermore, this Programme called for the creation 
of an EU Anti-Trafficking Coordinator which could contribute towards the consolidation of a 
coordinated and consolidated EU policy against trafficking. 

During  the  last  years  of  implementation  of  the  Programmes,  the  EU  witnessed  a  number  of 
terrorist  attacks  and  there  was  a  significant  change  in  the  phenomenon  of  terrorism,  in 
particular with the continuation of the civil war in Syria and the rise of the Islamic State of 
Iraq and Syria (ISIS). 

Main elements  

ISEC and CIPS covered a very wide policy field, which between 1993 and 2009 largely fell 
under the so-called Police and Judicial Co-operation in Criminal Matters pillar of the EU as 
introduced by the Treaty of Maastricht. The policies under this pillar were mainly based on a 
legal framework which retained elements of intergovernmental cooperation between Member 
States. This meant that there were few EU level funding opportunities in this field before the 
Programmes. The creation of the Programmes constituted a key development in EU policy in 
these fields. 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
ISEC (2007-2013) replaced the Framework Programme on Police and Judicial Cooperation in 
Criminal matters (AGIS)5 which covered the period 2002-2006 and aimed to strengthen EU 
cross-border  cooperation  between  police,  other  law  enforcement  agencies  and  judicial 
authorities. The total allocated budget for ISEC amounted to EUR 522 million for the whole 
period.  The  general  objectives  of  ISEC  were  to  prevent  and  combat  crime,  particularly 
terrorism,  trafficking  in  persons,  offences  against  children,  drug  trafficking,  arms  trade  and 
trafficking,  cybercrime,  corruption  and  fraud,  and  to  contribute  to  the  establishment  of 
policies at EU level. The programme’s four specific objectives addressed four main themes: 

law enforcement; 

-  crime prevention and criminology; 
- 
-  protection and support for witnesses; 
-  protection of victims. 

CIPS  (2007-2013)  focused  on  critical  infrastructure  and  other  security  issues,  including 
operational issues in areas such as crisis management and preparedness in various sectors of 
critical importance. Its total allocated budget amounted to EUR 126.8 million for the whole 
period. CIPS had two general objectives, prevention as well as preparedness and consequence 
management,  which  were  further  divided  into  seven  specific  objectives6.  These  objectives 
covered the following thematic areas: 

-  crisis management; 
- 

terrorism  and  other  security-related  risks  within  the  area  of  freedom,  security  and 
justice,  including  risks  relating  to  the  environment,  the  public  health,  transports, 
research and technological development, and economic and social cohesion. 

The Programmes were implemented under direct management mode under 2007-2013 Annual 
Work Programmes.7 The financial support was implemented via projects supported by action 
grants  awarded  by the Commission,  via contracts  for services concluded following calls  for 
tenders  published  by  the  Commission  or  via  administrative  arrangements  with  the  Joint 
Research  Centre  (JRC).  Under  direct  management,  the  European  Commission  retained  full 
responsibility for implementation and carried out all programming and operational work. 

Concerning  the  type  of  stakeholders  who  could  apply  for  funding,  ISEC  included  law 
enforcement  agencies,  other  public  and/or  private  bodies,  actors  and  institutions,  including 
local,  regional  and  national  authorities,  social  partners,  universities,  statistical  offices,  Non-
Governmental  Organisations,  public-private  partnerships  and  relevant  international  bodies. 
CIPS included public bodies (national, regional and local), the private sector, universities and 
research institutes. Contrary to ISEC, profit-making entities could lead projects under CIPS. 

5  

6  

7  

Council Decision 2002/630/JHA of 22 July 2002 establishing a Framework programme on police and 
judicial cooperation in criminal matters (AGIS). 
For an extended list of the specific objectives please refer to the Staff Working Document on the Ex Post 
Evaluation  of  the      "Prevention,  Preparedness  and  Consequence  Management  of  Terrorism  and  other 
Security related risks" 2007-2013 Programme (CIPS). 
Political priorities and objectives for projects are defined in the Commission’s Annual Work Programmes 
adopted  each  year  and  calls  for  proposals  are  launched  following  the  approval  of  each  Annual  Work 
Programme. 

3 

 
 
                                                            
In  terms of  implementation, for both  Programmes,  not  all  of the  available funding from the 
various  calls  was  awarded,  mostly  due  to  project  applications  not  meeting  the  eligibility 
criteria  or  the  quality  criterion  for  EU  funding.  From  ISEC’s  allocated  budget  of  EUR  522 
million,  over  EUR  413  million  were  committed  and  EUR  304  million  spent.  Over  the 
programming  period,  ISEC  had  an  overall  absorption  rate  of  74%.8  As  regards  CIPS,  74.6 
million were committed and EUR 60.4 million were spent out of the total allocated budget of 
EUR 126.8 million. The overall absorption rate of CIPS during the programming period was 
83%.9 

2 

EX POST EVALUATION 

Methodology  

The  evaluation's  detailed  findings  and  the  methodology  employed  are  described  in  the 
Commission staff working documents accompanying this report10. The preparation of the staff 
working document was supported by a study conducted by an external contractor. 

Limitations 

The evaluations of both Programmes were significantly hindered by the lack of baseline, i.e. a 
clear description of the situation before the start  of the Programmes  which could serve as a 
basis for assessing their impacts. Furthermore, the time lag between the implementation of the 
Programmes  and  the  ex  post  evaluations  hampered  the  process  of  evaluation  given  that 
representatives  of  the  relevant  beneficiaries  and  national  and  EU  authorities  were  often  no 
longer working in the same position and were thus difficult to reach. This is reflected in the 
low  response  rate  to  the  public  consultations  and  online  surveys  carried  out  during  the 
evaluations. 

In  addition,  only  limited  evidence  on  the  results  and  impacts  of  the  programmes  was 
available.  The  results  could  not  be  measured  due  to  the  lack  of  a  baseline,  as  mentioned 
earlier, but also due to the lack of ex ante targets and of a central repository for ISEC/CIPS 
project results. Issues have been noted also with regard to the monitoring of project progress, 
which hindered the assessment of effectiveness, efficiency and EU added value. For instance, 
it  was  not  feasible  to  carry  out  a  detailed  comparison  of  costs  due  to  the  absence  of 
comparable project data, given the wide range of policy areas and types of activities covered 

8  

9  
10  

Based on data for grants and procurement. Final data on project expenditure was not available at the time 
of writing the evaluation report (by March 2017), so it has not been possible to provide an estimate of the 
final spent amount under action grants nor the JRC actions. 
Idem. 
SWD(2018) on the Ex Post Evaluation of the "Prevention, Preparedness and Consequence Management of  
Terrorism and other Security related risks" 2007-2013 Programme (CIPS) and SWD(2018) on the Ex Post 
Evaluation of the "Prevention and fight against crime" 2007-2013 Programme (ISEC). 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
by the Programmes. It was also difficult to compare project costs and to measure the extent to 
which the same objectives were met by the different types of projects. 

2.2   KEY RESULTS 

Relevance 
Taking into consideration the importance of the subsidiarity principle in the internal security 
area,  ISEC  and  CIPS  funding  was  not  designed  to  substitute  national  funding  but  rather  to 
complement  it,  providing  increased  support  to  cross-border  cooperation.  Overall,  Member 
States considered ISEC’s objectives relevant to their needs related to prevention of and fight 
against  crime.11  Similarly,  CIPS  was  considered  of  continuous  relevance  to  the  prevention, 
preparedness  and  consequence  management  of  terrorism  and  other  security-related  risks 
throughout the evaluation period. Moreover, the Programme responded well to a real need for 
transnational  cooperation  and  coordination  in  the  areas  of  prevention,  preparedness  and 
consequence  management  of  terrorism  and  other  security-related  risks.  This  is  particularly 
important given the need for EU level action in these fields and the lack of alternative national 
sources of funding due to the consequences of the 2008 financial crisis on national budgets. 

The rationale behind both Programmes was to provide funds where the demand was highest in 
accordance with the outlined priorities in the Annual Work Programmes, set-up together with 
the Member States. This set-up proved to be broadly demand-driven rather than policy-driven, 
as  it  was  based  on  open  calls  for  proposals  and  allowed  stakeholders  to  apply  for  funding 
based on a project proposal. As a consequence, the demand-driven design of the Programmes 
contributed  to  a  significant  geographical  imbalance  in  the  implementation,  especially 
regarding the location of the coordinating organisations. For this reason, the Commission took 
measures  to  boost  the  geographical  spread,  particularly  through  the  organisation  of  regional 
information  days  in  Member States. Nonetheless, the Programmes’ implementation strongly 
depended on the pro-activeness of Member State representatives and potential applicants. In 
order to allow Member States more equal access to funding and to improve their participation 
in all key security policy priorities, a shift towards shared management mode was introduced 
for the successor Fund, ISF-Police12. Unlike ISEC and CIPS, which were implemented only 
under  direct  management,  ISF-Police  is  being  implemented  on  the  basis  of  a  combination, 
with  initially  around  60%  of  the  available  funding  being  allocated  to  national  programmes 

11  

For instance, the specific objective related to “coordination, cooperation and mutual understanding among 
law  enforcement  agencies,  other  national  authorities  and  related  EU  bodies”  was  considered  highly 
relevant  to  the  needs  in  the  sector.  Different  types  of  stakeholders  saw  such  cross-border  cooperation  as 
highly  necessary,  especially  in  the  context  of  internationalisation  of  crime  and  professionalization  of 
criminal groups. Similarly, the consulted stakeholders saw the other specific objectives of ISEC as relevant 
while  the  specific  objectives  on  protection  of  crime  witness  and  support  for  witnesses  were  the  least 
popular  amongst  all.  Moreover,  the  issues  relating  to  witnesses  and  victims  would  be  mainly  covered 
under the Daphne III Programme. 

12   Regulation  (EU)  No  513/2014  of  16  April  2014  establishing,  as  part  of  the  internal  security  fund,  the 
instrument  for  financial  support  for  police  cooperation,  preventing  and  combating  crime,  and  crisis 
management. 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
under shared management and 40% allocated to Union actions under direct management. This 
change  is  expected  to  have  a  positive  impact  on  the  efficiency  and  effectiveness  of  the 
Commission’s management of the ISF Fund and on the implementation by all Member States 
of key security policies. 
A certain time lag between the formulation of priorities under Annual Work Programmes and 
their  actual  implementation  was  also  identified  due  to  the  fact  that  the  Annual  Work 
Programmes reflected the priorities set in the previous year, which meant that there was a one 
year  difference  between  the  setting  of  priorities  and  their  implementation.  At  times,  this 
hindered the Programmes’ relevance. 

Effectiveness  
Overall, the evaluation findings suggest that ISEC contributed to all of its objectives to some 
extent and the projects funded achieved the expected outputs. Therefore, it can be argued, that 
the  Programme  contributed  to  crime  prevention  and,  ultimately,  to  better  security  for  EU 
citizens,  even  if  it  is  difficult  to  establish  a  direct  causal  relationship.  The  main  results 
identified  from  ISEC  projects  were  enhanced  networking  and  enhanced  sharing  of 
information  and  best  practices,  as  well  as  increased  levels  of  knowledge  and  skills  of 
practitioners. ISEC projects were particularly effective in contributing to the development of 
transnational  cooperation between Member States  and law enforcement agencies, as well as 
better exchange of information, particularly in the field of forensics, drugs, Passenger Name 
Records, cybercrime and trafficking in human beings.  

Concerning  CIPS,  the  evaluation  demonstrated  that  the  Programme  broadly  achieved  its 
general and most of its specific objectives, contributing positively to the policy area of critical 
infrastructure protection. An important element of a number of CIPS projects was the focus 
placed  on  interdependencies  and  the  prevention  of  ‘cascading  effects’  in  case  of  disruption 
and  destruction  of  critical  infrastructures  during  a  terrorist  attack  or  other  security-related 
risks. EU-wide cooperation and cooperation of protection of critical infrastructures could be 
improved. 

The  evaluation  found  that  the  creation  of  a  central  repository  containing  detailed  data  on 
individual projects would have enabled the development of a monitoring system to collect and 
analyze  data  on  financial  progress,  outputs  and  results  of  projects.  The  provision  of  an 
appropriate technical assistance budget could enhance the technical expertise throughout the 
lifecycle of projects and the dissemination of results. 

Efficiency  
Concerning the financial resources, the evaluation results show that the EU funding provided 
was  perceived  by  the  vast  majority  of  consulted  stakeholders  as  sufficient  for  all  activities 
implemented under ISEC and CIPS. The creation of networks was viewed as having a high 
value for money. As regards the levels of EU funding, overall, the evaluation shows that EU 
funds  were  sufficient  to  implement  the  planned  activities.  Only  a  limited  number  of 
stakeholders  highlighted  the  need  for  additional  funding  and  that  certain  costs  were 
underestimated,  i.e.  staff  costs.  Concerning  the  human  resources  deployed,  the  evaluation 

6 

 
 
 
shows  that  they  were  considered  sufficient  for  a  fairly  low  number  of  projects  across  the 
whole programming period. 
The absence of a peer review on project results and the absence of a central repository were 
perceived as having decreased the overall efficiency of the Programmes. These aspects have 
not  yet  been  put  into  practice  under  ISF  but  could  be  taken  into  consideration  for  the  next 
Multiannual Financial Framework. 
Despite  the  changes  introduced  in  the  implementation  processes  by  the  Commission,  the 
administrative burden was perceived by some stakeholders as high. Stakeholders also pointed 
out the need for simplification of reporting. 

Coherence  
The  evaluation  focused  on  the  Programmes'  coherence  with  other  EU  programmes  in  the 
same  field13  and  with  national  programmes  and  initiatives  to  assess  the  extent  to  which  the 
intervention did not contradict nor created duplications with other interventions. It concluded 
that, overall, the activities implemented under the different EU instruments in their respective 
fields were coherent with the Programmes and did not detect major overlaps. 

ISEC  supported  the  implementation  of  EU  obligations  and  cross-border  cooperation  among 
Member  States  in  a  large  number  of  crime  areas.  However,  in  a  context  of  financial  crisis, 
national funding was very scarce or not available for such cooperation, preventing significant 
risk of duplication of EU funds with national funding streams. The evaluation also identified a 
substantial  scope  for  coherence  and  complementarity  between  ISEC  and  other  EU 
Programmes,  namely  JPEN,  DAPHNE  III,  FP7  and  Hercule  II.  Thanks  to  cooperation 
between  the  Commission  services,  synergies  were  achieved  between  DAPHNE  III  and  the 
two ISEC specific objectives relating to the promotion and development of best practices for 
protection and support of witnesses and crime victims, especially in the area of trafficking in 
human beings. Effective coordination at both design, implementation and delivery stage was 
crucial to maximize the potential for coherence and complementarity and to avoid the risk of 
duplication. It can be concluded, on the basis of the evidence collected, that this was achieved 
to a large extent. 

Similarly,  CIPS  actions  carried  out  under  the  2007-2013  Annual  Work  Programmes  were 
found to be coherent with activities funded under other similar EU Funds, namely FP7 and the 
Civil  Protection  Financial  instrument.  Indeed,  little  to  no  evidence  of  overlap  occurred 
between these funding instruments due to their differing features in terms of thematic focus, 
eligible actions and eligible stakeholders and target groups. 

EU added value 
The added value of the Programmes is closely linked to the 'importance' of EU funding for the 
organisations involved and to its ability to foster transnational cooperation which would often 

13    For  ISEC  -  Criminal  Justice  Support  Programme  (JPEN),  Daphne  III  (Fight  against  violence),  7th 
Framework  Programme  for  Research  and  Technological  Development  (FP7)  and  Anti-fraud  programme 
(Hercule II).For CIPS - FP7 and the Civil Protection Financial instrument. 

7 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
not  have  taken  place  if  projects  had  relied  on  national  funding  alone.  Findings  suggest  that 
organisations  did  not  often  have  access  to  national  funding  opportunities  to  implement  the 
Programmes’ activities. Hence it can be assumed that a significant part of the projects would 
not have been developed in the absence of the ISEC and CIPS funding. 

Both  Programmes  had  a  strong  transnational  dimension  by  supporting  either  transnational 
projects or national projects with potential for transferability to other Member States. Thus a 
key aspect of their EU added value lied in their ability to foster transnational cooperation. The 
important  contribution  of  ISEC  funding  to  transnational  cooperation  and  implementation  of 
EU law in the various areas covered by the prevention and fight against crime was highlighted 
during a high number of interviews with all types of stakeholders. It was concluded that ISEC 
made  a  significant  contribution  to  national  law  enforcement  agencies  cooperating  closer 
transnationally,  to  building  mutual  trust,  and  to  the  formation  of  new  relationships  between 
organisations working with counterparts in other Member States. CIPS’s EU added value was 
also positively evaluated through its contribution to the development of policies of the Union 
in the field of prevention, preparedness and consequence management of terrorism and other 
security-related risks and enhancing coordination and cooperation between relevant actors at 
EU level in protection of critical infrastructure. 

However,  the  EU  added  value  may  have  been  reduced  by  the  fact  that  projects  carried-out 
under the Programmes were mostly led by coordinating organisations from a limited number 
of  Member  States.  The  shift  towards  shared  management  has  addressed  the  geographical 
imbalance to some extent. 

3 

Conclusions  

The evaluation showed that the ISEC and CIPS objectives and results were overall  relevant 
to  the  needs  of  Member  States  in  the  areas  covered  by  the  Programmes  despite  concerns 
related  to  the  design  of  the  Programmes  which  proved  more  demand-driven  than  policy-
driven.  This  led  to  significant  geographical  imbalance  in  the  implementation.  The  shift 
towards  shared  management  for  the  subsequent  instrument  ISF-Police  was  expected  to 
address  this  and  to  increase  the  EU  funds’  effectiveness  and  efficiency.  Also,  the  time  lag 
identified  between  the  formulation  of  priorities  under  Annual  Work  Programmes  and  their 
actual  implementation  has  been  partly  addressed  in  ISF-Police  through  the  inclusion  of 
emergency assistance “to address urgent and specific needs”.14 

Concerning  effectiveness,  the  Programmes  broadly  achieved  their  objectives,  but  a  more 
detailed central repository of project results and outputs could be developed and shared via, 
for  example,  the  European  Crime  Prevention  Network,  the  Critical  Infrastructure  Warning 
Information Network (CIWIN), the website of the EU Anti-Trafficking Coordinator15 or via 
other Commission services. This could be taken into consideration for the next Multiannual 

14   Article 2.j) and Article 10, Regulation (EU) No 513/2014. 
15  

See http://ec.europa.eu/anti-trafficking/ 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Financial  Framework.  An  enhanced  monitoring  system  could  be  also  considered.  Key 
elements of this monitoring system could be, for example, monitoring visits and an IT system 
to  systematically  record  project  data.  This  has  been  addressed  to  some  extent  under  the 
successor Fund, ISF-Police, for example, through the use of monitoring missions for project 
implementation and the possibility to contribute annually to technical assistance activities16. 

Regarding  efficiency,  overall,  the  vast  majority  of  consulted  stakeholders  perceived  EU 
funding to have been sufficient and the value for money was perceived as good to very high 
across  all  activities.  However,  as  mentioned  above,  the  absence  of  a  central  repository  has 
also decreased the efficiency of the Programmes to a certain extent. Although monitoring has 
partly improved under the current Fund17, the absence of peer review and of an appropriate 
dissemination of project results still represent shortcomings that would need to be addressed 
under  the  next  generation  of  Funds.  There  is  room  for  improvement  to  tackle  the 
administrative burden and achieve simplification. 

The evaluation showed that the Programmes have been coherent and without major overlaps 
with  similar  national  and  EU-level  initiatives.  This  was  mainly  due  to  the  cooperation 
between the Commission services involved in the management of the other initiatives. 

Lastly, both Programmes were found to have had a substantial EU added value. Most of the 
activities carried out under the Programmes  would  not have been developed at all or  would 
not have achieved the same results, in particular not at a transnational level, in the absence of 
EU funds. However, the EU added value could have been higher if the transferable outcomes 
of the projects at EU level had been further promoted and disseminated. The establishment of 
a central repository at Commission level gathering all project results could have contributed to 
it. The EU added value would also have been strengthened if coordinating organisations had 
been more evenly spread across Member States. 

16   Article 9, Regulation (EU) No 513/2014. 
17  

It  has  improved  as  Member  States  have  to  submit  an  Annual  Implementation  Report  under  Shared 
Management  and  beneficiaries  of  action  grants  have  to  submit  Interim  and  Final  Reports  under  Direct 
Management. 

9